General Cycling Discussion - SUV's: Big and Bad and other common consumer misconceptions.

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

A good read inside the consumer culture of SUV's and reality.

IMO, this just proves how stupid, gullible and vain American car buyers are... :rolleyes:

IMO, this just proves how stupid, gullible and vain American car buyers are... :rolleyes:

Everybody's stupid, gullible and vain - we just have the means to be moreso here.

bkr

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

A good read inside the consumer culture of SUV's and reality.

What an excellent read. My favorite paragraph hits on a point that's dear to me - accident avoidance. Check it out:

Most of us think that S.U.V.s are much safer than sports cars. If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer. We feel that way because in the TrailBlazer our chances of surviving a collision with a hypothetical tractor-trailer in the other lane are greater than they are in the Porsche. What we forget, though, is that in the TrailBlazer you're also much more likely to hit the tractor-trailer because you can't get out of the way in time. In the parlance of the automobile world, the TrailBlazer is better at "passive safety." The Boxster is better when it comes to "active safety," which is every bit as important.

What an excellent read. My favorite paragraph hits on a point that's dear to me - accident avoidance. Check it out:

Most of us think that S.U.V.s are much safer than sports cars. If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer. We feel that way because in the TrailBlazer our chances of surviving a collision with a hypothetical tractor-trailer in the other lane are greater than they are in the Porsche. What we forget, though, is that in the TrailBlazer you're also much more likely to hit the tractor-trailer because you can't get out of the way in time. In the parlance of the automobile world, the TrailBlazer is better at "passive safety." The Boxster is better when it comes to "active safety," which is every bit as important.

How would that Boxter do in a rollover? How would it do being hit by a taller vehicle (SUV, pickup, minivan, bus, delivery truck, etc)? How does driver reaction figure into accident avoidance? Does someone slow or prone to freezing in a panic while driving a Boxster have a better chance at accident avoidance than a vigilant, fast-reacting driver in an SUV? How often do you come across avoiding a near-accident with a semi-tractor thinking you needed a sportscar? What are the most common "accident avoidance" manuvers?

How does "accident avoidance" factor into handling when the avg. SUV has the similar handling numbers as the avg. sedan?


As for the chart showing deaths: Is that deaths per 100 cars? Is it the same % of deaths/car for every car listed? Over how many years and same length of time for each car? Type of driver also has an effect on death rates, type of accident too. Is that reflected?

Every "fact" and figure in that report have been amateurly distorted and do not even come close to reflecting anything that even credible anti-SUV proponents use as statistics.

Every "fact" and figure in that report have been amateurly distorted and do not even come close to reflecting anything that even credible anti-SUV proponents use as statistics.

Shhhhhhh, you'll get the zealots all flustered.

Wow, a Boxster can out turn an SUV. Now that's news. Lets try this test: Put the Boxster at one ond of the straightaway and the SUV at the other. Take each to 40 mph. Have a head on collision. Which do you want to be in?

Or park the SUV. Run into the back with the Porsche at 40mph. Who wins?
Park the Porsche. Run into the back with the SUV at 40mph. Who wins?
Sit in the SUV. Have the Boxster hit the drivers door of the SUV at 40mph. Now sit in the Boxster. Have the SUV hit the Boxsters drivers door at 40mph.

Be careful of "science" that is out to prove a paticular point. It is bad science. I do agree with several things that the article said, others, like the test, were garbage.

How does "accident avoidance" factor into handling when the avg. SUV has the similar handling numbers as the avg. sedan?

Hey, it's not my article, but stating that SUVs handle as well as cars is just plain silly. I won't debate this fact with you, as I can see you already have your mind made up. However, my post is simply emphasizing a point that I think is very valid. That point is that, all things being equal, you can generally brake, steer around, accelerate away/around an incident (before it ever becomes an accident) better with a car than with a relatively higher, and relatively heavier SUV. Your chances of rolling an SUV are also much higher than with a car. That fact has to count towards an automobile's overall safety.

If you're simply running an automobile into a wall an effort to judge its safety, you're missing the point. :D

id love to see the average driver in a mid-engined boxster braking and swerving mid-turn to perform an avoidance manuever.

hellllo physics!

Here is a major portion of the problem. The average person barely knows how to drive. They have no understanding of car control, emergency manouvers, and driving physics. Also, the average person rates themselves as an above average driver. Impossible. ( I could do a rant-o-rama on this one. I'll spare you)

SUVs are not cars. They should not be driven like cars. People just don't understand this. It is just like anti-lock brakes. The manufacturers all said you just drive the same as you do with regular brakes. Totally untrue.

Overall safety ratings would need to include ALL of the items mentioned. Including accident avoidance, front rear and side impact, rollover, and others. The different vehicles will win in some situations and lose in others.

To avoid that 18 wheeler, I'll take the Boxster. Actually getting hit by it when you can't avoid it. I'll take the Navigator. The problem is you can't choose at the moment of truth.

The average person barely knows how to drive.
Amen!!! I still can't understand why it's so damn easy to get a drivers' license in the country. No wonder all those morons in motor vehicles think that driving is a right and not a privilege. Priapic fools!!! :rolleyes:

To avoid that 18 wheeler, I'll take the Boxster. Actually getting hit by it when you can't avoid it. I'll take the Navigator. The problem is you can't choose at the moment of truth.
In this situation, I'd chose to be driving the tractor-trailer... :D

I saw an SUV attempt "collision avoidance" with an 18-wheeler once. Yep, it avoided the collision all right...and after a few somersaults it was lying tits-up in the interstate median. Never saw a car get so high in the air before or since. :D

Going 70 mph down the Sacramento River canyon on I-5, a deer jumped the center concrete divider and landed in the roadway about 30 meters ahead of me, presenting me with a real-life accident avoidance test. Fortunately, I was driving my Subaru WRX, but even then it was very, very close as the deer was moving across to the right. I turned hard to the right, and then straightened out near the right hand edge. The deer was so close that he hit my driver-side mirror, collapsing it. The impact stunned him, but I saw him getting up in my rear view mirror.

There's no way I would have been able to avoid nailing that deer if I had been driving an Excretion or an Exploder.

driving a full size SUV is one thing.. but the smaller SUVs such as the Japanese made ones are OK.

What ford should do is join rallys. It would make them design SUVs to be more manueverable..

One of the things that I picked up from that is the misconception that drivers have of what cars supposedly offer and how the companies market it.
The same would go for a porsche and an SUV. True most SUV's don't go off road, true most porsche's are never driven to their full potential, true some SUV's aren't even designed to go offroad like a H1, true most people can't drive a sports car as well as a professional would.
I guess what I got out of the article was the feeling that most (once again if you don't apply, don't get offended) people buy SUV's because they see themselves as being safer in them and therefore have less responsibility to both themselves and others as they drive. It's almost like buying extra medical coverage so you can purposely do stupid things and get hurt.
One thing I do notice too is that while I'm on my bike or in a good sports car, I can manuveur a lot better than I would if I were in a minivan, suv, or truck. I stay a lot more awake and alert whereas when I'm in a large vehicle, I feel a lot more slugglish and careless but that may just be me.
People need to be aware and responsible of their own driving. Someone on this board who lives in california mentioned that people who own very expensive exotic cars don't drive that fast because they're afraid they'll damange the car. An upside is that they won't as likely hurt anyone else either because of their careful driving. In an SUV, that same driver might not drive as carefully.
I think Ferrari has a policy that before you buy an Enzo, new or used, you have to demonstrate that you've safely owned and driven one of their F cars beforehand to ensure exclusivity and also the fact that you won't be irresponsible with it.

I think Ferrari has a policy that before you buy an Enzo, new or used, you have to demonstrate that you've safely owned and driven one of their F cars beforehand to ensure exclusivity and also the fact that you won't be irresponsible with it.
exclusivity is controlled by production numbers... which they do anyways
many ferrari owners are celebs who either 1. dont drive the cars that often and/or 2. arent great drivers anyways

the enzo, along with the previously-produced f40 and f50, requires past ownership of atleast 2 ferraris... its more of a seniority or preferential treatment for the incredibly high demand

exclusivity is controlled by production numbers... which they do anyways
many ferrari owners are celebs who either 1. dont drive the cars that often and/or 2. arent great drivers anyways

the enzo, along with the previously-produced f40 and f50, requires past ownership of atleast 2 ferraris... its more of a seniority or preferential treatment for the incredibly high demand

Great, there goes my chance of owning the Enzo.

I own an SUV. In fact, I've owned 5 SUVs since 1985. No one here has any idea why I own an SUV or what I use it for, yet as an SUV owner, I am villified daily on cycling, ecological, and other various 'green' sites. People generalize and accuse SUV owners for everything from oil shortages and the Iraq war to bicycle deaths and general over-consumerism.

Well, guess what. A Boxster does not fit my needs for a work vehicle. Neither does a Corolla or the Honda Accord that my wife drives daily. When the SUV I drive needs to be replaced, I may buy another one and no amount of ridiculing, sneering or whining from my fellow cyclists is going to change that. Only I determine my needs, not my neighbors, not my friends and not the opinions of people who ride bicycles.

I've averaged over 5500 miles a year on bicycles for over 20 years but I still catch flak about the vehicle I drive from self-righteous people. Pretty sad...

As bicyclists, we should all keep in mind that the problems with SUVs' accident avoidance manueverability makes us all extremely vulnerable when the *unskilled potentially distracted* SUV driver is *startled* by a bicyclist that *appeared out of nowhere*.... :mad:

"It's like you're driving down a road in suburbia," Champion said. "Suddenly, a kid on a bicycle veers out in front of you. You have to do whatever it takes to avoid the kid...."

Even without the tractor trailer coming from the other direction, this is still potentially a very dangerous scenario for the cyclist.

Maybe if you can't demonstrate a true *need* for one of these vehicles, you simply shouldn't be allowed to own one in the first place...or maybe they should be banned from our public streets for safety reasons! :)

As bicyclists, we should all keep in mind that the problems with SUVs' accident avoidance manueverability makes us all extremely vulnerable when the *unskilled potentially distracted* SUV driver is *startled* by a bicyclist that *appeared out of nowhere*.... :mad:

"It's like you're driving down a road in suburbia," Champion said. "Suddenly, a kid on a bicycle veers out in front of you. You have to do whatever it takes to avoid the kid...."

Even without the tractor trailer coming from the other direction, this is still potentially a very dangerous scenario for the cyclist.

Maybe if you can't demonstrate a true *need* for one of these vehicles, you simply shouldn't be allowed to own one in the first place...or maybe they should be banned from our public streets for safety reasons! :)

Good post.

Maybe the tax laws need to be changed so that doctors and lawyers can't deduct their Expeditions and H2's as "company vehicles", when they are really more a statement about "mine's bigger than yours", rather than a requirement for their business.

And, while we're at it, we could raise the gas tax a bit to pay for the war on terrorism and encourage wiser vehicle choices.

We're the fattest nation on earth, and we drive the fattest vehicles too, and government policy encourages it...kind of sad, eh?

I own an SUV. In fact, I've owned 5 SUVs since 1985. No one here has any idea why I own an SUV or what I use it for, yet as an SUV owner, I am villified daily on cycling, ecological, and other various 'green' sites. People generalize and accuse SUV owners for everything from oil shortages and the Iraq war to bicycle deaths and general over-consumerism.

Well, guess what. A Boxster does not fit my needs for a work vehicle. Neither does a Corolla or the Honda Accord that my wife drives daily. When the SUV I drive needs to be replaced, I may buy another one and no amount of ridiculing, sneering or whining from my fellow cyclists is going to change that. Only I determine my needs, not my neighbors, not my friends and not the opinions of people who ride bicycles.

I've averaged over 5500 miles a year on bicycles for over 20 years but I still catch flak about the vehicle I drive from self-righteous people. Pretty sad...

Poor baby.

I own an SUV. In fact, I've owned 5 SUVs since 1985. No one here has any idea why I own an SUV or what I use it for, yet as an SUV owner, I am villified daily on cycling, ecological, and other various 'green' sites. People generalize and accuse SUV owners for everything from oil shortages and the Iraq war to bicycle deaths and general over-consumerism.

Well, guess what. A Boxster does not fit my needs for a work vehicle. Neither does a Corolla or the Honda Accord that my wife drives daily. When the SUV I drive needs to be replaced, I may buy another one and no amount of ridiculing, sneering or whining from my fellow cyclists is going to change that. Only I determine my needs, not my neighbors, not my friends and not the opinions of people who ride bicycles.

I've averaged over 5500 miles a year on bicycles for over 20 years but I still catch flak about the vehicle I drive from self-righteous people. Pretty sad...

Which part of "if you don't apply, don't get offended" don't you understand. If you catch flak, you know what, it's for work or whatever and you NEED one, you're well within reason to use one. No one should blame you.
I hate see that we're all so PC that way. Unless you feel guilty, you don't have to defend your position.

I say it once again.

$5/litre fuel now!

A season's worth of autocrossing should be mandatory for all new drivers.

I have a 300 horsepower RX-7 Turbo II, and I've driven that thing in torrential downpours, snow and ice. Not once was I not in control, but then again, I tend to pay attention to the road, rather than a cell-phone or CD player.

Reminds me of the time the Nissan Pathfinder flipped in front of my house while the driver pretended it was a car...

Actually, that French anthropologist should weigh in on the hatred for SUV's. If you want an example of the "reptillian" brain at work, there it is. All right, maybe mammals are a better comparison. Liberals and SUVS are like bulls and the color red. To try and talk them out of their rage is to miss the point.

The facts: yes, SUV's shouldn't be driven like sedans. They're taller, and more top heavy. The same is true of pickup trucks, moving vans, and motor homes. While we're on the subject, cars with trailers don't handle like cars without them, and motorcycles can't be operated like cars. Now that's a revelation, isn't it?: not all vehicles handle alike.

It's funny, too, when angry greens pretend they're concerned about "car safety". This is the same crowd who would put us on electric golf carts on the interstate-- and if there were more deaths from collisions in light, plastic cars, well, we have to think of Mother Earth, after all. Let someone buy an SUV, though, and suddenly it's a crime against humanity that a person buys a car less safe than the ideal.

Even this article concedes that SUV's are safer in some respects, though. But SUV's are only better at "passive safety". Of course, "passive safety" is all well and good when the government is forcing you to have an airbag in your car, but obviously anyone who takes the lesson further and puts himself in a heavier metal chassis is irrational, insecure, and has a small weiner.

The fact is that SUV's are popular because they replace the large station wagon, a vehicle much better suited to the needs of families. But then large station wagons were legislated out of existence by gasoline guilt tripping. Minivans are another replacement, but some people prefer the additional power of SUV's, the height in traffic, or 4wd for the snow. Yes, there is the style factor, and it's also true that many people pay a huge premium to think of themselves as on safari while they sit in traffic. That kind of irrationality is not unique to SUV's, though. Many cars are marketed on the basis of characteristics that have little to do with actual driving. They're "fun", or fast, or a pleasure to drive, or whatever. All features aimed at helping consumers to forget that driving is largely a boring and frustrating exercise. And these are all features that sell cars. This is news? And what does all of this have to do with SUV's, in particular?

I just don't understand why this one particular class of light trucks inspires nothing but hatred in a certain crowd.

I just don't understand why this one particular class of light trucks inspires nothing but hatred in a certain crowd.

I've never been able to figure that one out either. How about some fuel for the fire. :)

I couldn't drive anything other than my Isuzu Trooper (4th). My wife is enjoying her 2nd Expedition and my son loves his Explorer.
Boy, SUV's are great.

I just don't understand why this one particular class of light trucks inspires nothing but hatred in a certain crowd.

One of the issues you didn't address is the fact that SUV's, like most Americans, are fat and consume far more of the earth's resources than other vehicles. They are also a danger to people who drive normal-sized cars (it's almost like an arm's race..."my Explorer no longer feels safe because, so I'd better get the Navigator").

When the rest of the world sees America, they see a nation of fatties who drive fat cars that get terrible gas mileage, and only care about consuming more and more.

You know, some of the reasons I hate SUV's... I bike and I drive a small Saturn sedan (SL2)... number one: damn SUV's and their superbright uber high headlights always shining in my damn eyes. (even big rigs' lights are lower and not as penetrating) number two: I can't see around your big ugly arses. number three: neener neener neeeeener, I get up to 40mpg+. number four: if i get hit by one of these dang SUV's- I stand much less chance of surviving - and this is a terrible cycle, people go out and buy these monstrosities so they don't get hurt, but if most people just drove cars - it wouldn't be as much of a frickin'issue! number five: the number of people who use these beheamoths to cart around small children and not large items, who use these things to drive around a city or suburbia.

Let me ask, why *couldn't* you drive anything but a Trooper? And to the person who uses an SUV for work... what do you do for work and do you have commercial plates?

Hey, it's not my article, but stating that SUVs handle as well as cars is just plain silly. I won't debate this fact with you, as I can see you already have your mind made up. However, my post is simply emphasizing a point that I think is very valid. That point is that, all things being equal, you can generally brake, steer around, accelerate away/around an incident (before it ever becomes an accident) better with a car than with a relatively higher, and relatively heavier SUV. Your chances of rolling an SUV are also much higher than with a car. That fact has to count towards an automobile's overall safety.

If you're simply running an automobile into a wall an effort to judge its safety, you're missing the point. :D

C'mon, now. True accident avoidance doesn't usually involve hard braking or swerving. It has more to do with judging the situation and then acting maturely. Like driving a little slower on the freeway so your not in a "pack" of vehicles all moving at speed close to one another. That SUV up front with the insulated driver could still involve that aware Boxter driver in a mishap. The safest driver is the one in the Delta 88 who eased off the gas pedal a while back so as not to be in the pack, saw all the dust, debris, and swerving, and safely slowed his car down so as not to have to execute a high speed manuever in the first place. I contend that true driving safety has nothing to do with the vehicle but everything to do with the driver. I drive a Tahoe, and I drive it a lot differently than I drive my Camaro. I also try to not be where an accident may occur, even if it means I need to slow down and let other people by... I don't trust anybody on the road to do the right thing.

Hmmmmm....While the green crowd has complained that SUV's
polute and endanger the planet they fail to mention that
SUV's last longer and thus use LESS of the planets resources.

My Chevy SUV is now 10 years old and still every bit a good
as any newer vehicle. My Chevy Pickup is now 7 years old
and it's still every bit as good as a newer truck. THAT is
why I bought them in the first place.......they are trucks!!!
Trucks last longer than cars.....period. Do I use more gas?
No, because I plan my trips. Do I worry about saftey? Yes,
I do and I'll take a Chevy Suburban over a car any day, thank
you. (I once had the misfortune to hit a horse and I walked
away and they fixed my Chevy. I drove it 5 more years. Take
that car owners!!)

One point that all here should be keenly aware of......
Size matters a lot on the road. Bicycles are at the bottom
of the food chain with semi's at the top. The closer you
can be to the top the better off you are. SIZE MATTERS.

Today's example (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9255467p-10180628c.html) of the Chevy Tahoe's accident-avoidance capabilities. Discuss.

Hmmmmm....While the green crowd has complained that SUV's
polute and endanger the planet they fail to mention that
SUV's last longer and thus use LESS of the planets resources.

My Chevy SUV is now 10 years old and still every bit a good
as any newer vehicle. My Chevy Pickup is now 7 years old
and it's still every bit as good as a newer truck. THAT is
why I bought them in the first place.......they are trucks!!!
Trucks last longer than cars.....period. Do I use more gas?
No, because I plan my trips. Do I worry about saftey? Yes,
I do and I'll take a Chevy Suburban over a car any day, thank
you. (I once had the misfortune to hit a horse and I walked
away and they fixed my Chevy. I drove it 5 more years. Take
that car owners!!)

One point that all here should be keenly aware of......
Size matters a lot on the road. Bicycles are at the bottom
of the food chain with semi's at the top. The closer you
can be to the top the better off you are. SIZE MATTERS.

I hardly think your experience with one or two chevy's denotes the statement that trucks last longer than cars. I'd like to see how many Honda Civics are on the road today compared to Chevy Blazers or a mileage comparison.

Well... I don't swerve. I would rather hit the beamer with my Tahoe than swerve. I don't swerve for deer either, and have hit several with one truck or another over the years, no roll overs, no other vehicles involved, and no injuries because I was trying not to hit Bambi so hard that I ended up hurting a person instead. Brake hard in the truck, sure, but don't swerve. Who knows what was going on in that situation? Sounds like there may have been a little road rage going on between the beamer and the minivan. Maybe a more experienced driver would have slowed down to be out of their sphere of influence. Thats what I do when I see two drivers dueling it out on the road.

I hardly think your experience with one or two chevy's denotes the statement that trucks last longer than cars. I'd like to see how many Honda Civics are on the road today compared to Chevy Blazers or a mileage comparison.

My '97 Tahoe has 130,000 miles on it right now, and I plan on driving it till it has 200,000 + on it. There isn't a Civic that exists that could get my drift boat in and out of the places I take it with my truck. Steelhead, Trout and Salmon don't usually live in places it's real easy to get to...

One point that all here should be keenly aware of......
Size matters a lot on the road. Bicycles are at the bottom
of the food chain with semi's at the top. The closer you
can be to the top the better off you are. SIZE MATTERS.

So, it's an arms race, and we should all be driving semi's, or M1 Abrams tanks, eh? Here's hoping gas goes to $5/gallon.

How long has it been since you've driven a real car, especially a sports car? I'm of the opinion that long-time truck and SUV drivers have forgotten what it's like to drive a car that handles like a car, and not a bloated whale on Qualudes.

Today's example (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9255467p-10180628c.html) of the Chevy Tahoe's accident-avoidance capabilities. Discuss.

Yes, by all means......distort the fact's that SUV's are
unsafe .......when the passengers are ......not wearing
their seatbelts and get thrown out. (Sigh!)

Like I said.......SIZE MATTERS.

C'mon, now. True accident avoidance doesn't usually involve hard braking or swerving. It has more to do with judging the situation and then acting maturely. Like driving a little slower on the freeway so your not in a "pack" of vehicles all moving at speed close to one another.

Those are very good driving tips...useful for any sized vehicle. But, unfortunately, sometimes sh*t happens and an emergency manuever is called for. That fact, and the laws of physics, are why so many SUV's roll over in those situations.

You apparently are choosing to center-punch the deer, Beemer, or kid-on-a-bike because you understand that your SUV is incapable of safely handling an emergency manuever. Here's hoping you never have to live with the consequences of that choice.

Hey, it's not my article, but stating that SUVs handle as well as cars is just plain silly. I won't debate this fact with you, as I can see you already have your mind made up. However, my post is simply emphasizing a point that I think is very valid.

Don't misquote me. I said the avg. suv handles as well as the avg. sedan. Take a midsize sedan (like a Camry) and a avg. suv (like a Highlander) and compare the road test numbers. Take another suv (like a Murano) and another sedan (like the Malibu) and compare the handling numbers. Very close in all respects despite the fact it isn't a fair comparison being that the suv is heavier and taller yet comparable numbers.


That point is that, all things being equal, you can generally brake, steer around, accelerate away/around an incident (before it ever becomes an accident) better with a car than with a relatively higher, and relatively heavier SUV. Your chances of rolling an SUV are also much higher than with a car. That fact has to count towards an automobile's overall safety.

The point being all things equal? Well nothing is equal in a comparison between a sedan and suv so it's a flawed argument. Does a higher center of gravity translate into a dangerous vehicle? If it does than you are in a world of trouble because the trend of taller sedans has been going strong for several years now. Every sedan has a higher COG and is heavier than it's predecessors. Does that make them unsafe? No because it that one fact doesn't tell the whole story; just like the ridiculous anti-suv "statistics" spewed forth.


If you're simply running an automobile into a wall an effort to judge its safety, you're missing the point. :D

Well you better tell the nhsta and the iihsa they are missing the point because that is all they use to judge crash worthyness.

Gas mileage: Why does this keep coming up when the gas mileage of large sedans, sportscars and pickup trucks is on par with suvs?

Longevity: It is a well known statistic (that you can look up in JD Powers, Edmunds, Robb, etc) that on avg. the pickup truck/suv is kept longer than a car. The avg. turnaround on a sedan is 3 years in the US. The avg. turnaround on a light duty truck is 5-7 years.

Safety: I agree that people are idiots and should not drive suvs like cars. However, this is a country where we still enjoy the freedom to choose what we buy. Wake up for a second and look at the majority of suv sales and the trend of suv design. They are turning into tall wagons. This is bad for actual suv use but good for all the things anti-suv people whine about.

Where do any of you get off criticising something as innane as vehicle purchase? Look in your own backyard and unless you live like a monk, there is plenty else wrong with this society than complaining about what people drive.

I don't see anything wrong with suv's except for the fact they are not being used as designed for the majority of owners. The car companies have reacted to the market and introduced the majority of suv's with car-like designs so there are very few actual SUV's today.

If using something as not originally intended is any argument than you better cut up your credit cards because that is one evil that has grown from one intended use into "free money" that it is now being abused as today.
You better turn off the internet because it was never designed for what it is being used for today.
The SUV is being used for purposes it was not designed for either, yet they all evolved to meet the market demand.
Wow. Now get over your high and mighty judgemental bandwagon and use your own brain to decipher all the b.s. so you can make a real decision on what to make a stand on.

So, it's an arms race, and we should all be driving semi's, or M1 Abrams tanks, eh? Here's hoping gas goes to $5/gallon.

How long has it been since you've driven a real car, especially a sports car? I'm of the opinion that long-time truck and SUV drivers have forgotten what it's like to drive a car that handles like a car, and not a bloated whale on Qualudes.

Hmmmm.....the generational gap is alive and well, eh, mate?

I've driven some of the real classic sports cars over the
years and can tell you that my old bones to take kindly
to the ass beaten they give anymore. I now like room
and a soft cushy ride.

You pay's your money and pick's your ride. I'll do like wise.

Those are very good driving tips...useful for any sized vehicle. But, unfortunately, sometimes sh*t happens and an emergency manuever is called for. That fact, and the laws of physics, are why so many SUV's roll over in those situations.

You apparently are choosing to center-punch the deer, Beemer, or kid-on-a-bike because you understand that your SUV can only be "piloted", not "handled". Here's hoping you never have to live with the consequences of that choice.

Where the heck do you get off saying I choose to centerpunch a kid on a bike, you judgemental #$%^?! Your logic is somewhat lacking, but I guess that happens when you are so emotionally tied to a subject. When driving my truck, I'm aware of the handling and braking characteristics, and adjust my speed accordingly. If I'm in a neighborhood and my vision is obstructed you can bet I'll be going slow enough to stop if something comes out from behind whatever it is I can't see around. Don't come driving through my neighborhood in your civic going 35mph cause you can stop it in time, I'll be the one throwing rocks at you and yelling "SLOW DOWN, FOOL!"

Yes, by all means......distort the fact's that SUV's are
unsafe .......when the passengers are ......not wearing
their seatbelts and get thrown out. (Sigh!)

Like I said.......SIZE MATTERS.

I haven't distorted anything; merely posted a timely story describing a traffic incident just like the ones that have been discussed in this thread. Yes, the Tahoe's passengers apparently were not wearing seatbelts. However, that only became a safety issue at the instant the vehicle flipped and rolled over and over.

I think a better tagline would be AGILITY AND DRIVER SKILL MATTERS.

I haven't distorted anything; merely posted a timely story describing a traffic incident just like the ones that have been discussed in this thread. Yes, the Tahoe's passengers apparently were not wearing seatbelts. However, that only became a safety issue at the instant the vehicle flipped and rolled over and over.

I think a better tagline would be AGILITY AND DRIVER SKILL MATTERS.

There wasn't enough information to make any conclusions about this incident. If you choose to use this incident to pin your argument on... yawn.

Where the heck do you get off saying I choose to centerpunch a kid on a bike, you judgemental #$%^?! Your logic is somewhat lacking, but I guess that happens when you are so emotionally tied to a subject. When driving my truck, I'm aware of the handling and braking characteristics, and adjust my speed accordingly. If I'm in a neighborhood and my vision is obstructed you can bet I'll be going slow enough to stop if something comes out from behind whatever it is I can't see around. Don't come driving through my neighborhood in your civic going 35mph cause you can stop it in time, I'll be the one throwing rocks at you and yelling "SLOW DOWN, FOOL!"

I drew that conclusion from your previous post, in which you said, "Well... I don't swerve. I would rather hit the beamer with my Tahoe than swerve. I don't swerve for deer either, and have hit several with one truck or another over the years...". Do I actually believe that you would not attempt to swerve to avoid a kid on a bike? No...it was hyperbole for effect, a fairly common literary technique (like saying you'd rather hit a beamer than swerve to avoid it).

As for speed, I always go 25 mph or less when driving through my (or any other) neighborhood, and get irritated at the kids in their civics (and, SUV's) who drive too fast.

Hmmmm.....the generational gap is alive and well, eh, mate?

I've driven some of the real classic sports cars over the
years and can tell you that my old bones to take kindly
to the ass beaten they give anymore. I now like room
and a soft cushy ride.

LOL - I'm 51 years old, but I try not to act like it. :D

I drew that conclusion from your previous post, in which you said, "Well... I don't swerve. I would rather hit the beamer with my Tahoe than swerve. I don't swerve for deer either, and have hit several with one truck or another over the years...". Do I actually believe that you would not attempt to swerve to avoid a kid on a bike? No...it was hyperbole for effect, a fairly common literary technique (like saying you'd rather hit a beamer than swerve to avoid it).

As for speed, I always go 25 mph or less when driving through my (or any other) neighborhood, and get irritated at the kids in their civics (and, SUV's) who drive too fast.

I made the assumption that the Tahoe and Beamer were travelling at similar speeds. I used no hyperbole when saying that IN THAT CASE, I'd rather hit the Beamer than swerve. I save hyperbole for creative writing. Peace.

No, you're right, Buzzbomb. I'd never base an entire argument on a single incident. And, by the way, it's not my argument but that of the article's author.

Rather, we'll just put it in the column titled "Anectdotal Evidence Supporting The Argument That SUVs Are Less Safe Than Consumers Believe Because Their Poor Handling Hinders Their Abilty To Avoid Collisions." Which, coincidentally, is the article's thesis.

No, you're right, Buzzbomb. I'd never base an entire argument on a single incident. And, by the way, it's not my argument but that of the article's author.

Rather, we'll just put it in the column titled "Anectdotal Evidence Supporting The Argument That SUVs Are Less Safe Than Consumers Believe Because Their Poor Handling Hinders Their Abilty To Avoid Collisions." Which, coincidentally, is the article's thesis.

That article leaves a lot to be desired if one is to even include that incident as evidence of "Anectdotal Evidence Supporting The Argument That SUVs Are Less Safe Than Consumers Believe Because Their Poor Handling Hinders Their Abilty To Avoid Collisions." Possibly the incident in question would more properly be located in the column titled "Anecdotal Evidence Supporting The Argument That Teenage Drivers Don't Have Enough Experience Behind The Wheel To Recognize Hazardous Situations And React Properly To Them." Or maybe the one titled "Anecdotal Evidence Supporting The Argument That Speed Kills." Or maybe the one...etc.,etc.,etc. Not enough detail there to draw any conclusions, not even enough to conclude under which column this incident belongs.

Thanks for the Logic lesson, Buzzbomb. You finished making up Strawmen yet?