Advocacy & Safety - Paris might ban SUV's.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5173494/?GT1=3584

There isn't enough room in most cities as is. Last thing we need are those huge wide-ass SUV's roaming around clipping people cause the drivers underestimate their vehicle's girth.

First Paris then the world! One can only hope

Vive la Francais! Gonna crank up the Edith Piaf CD and open the shop door today!

I'm a cyclist who drives an SUV. I find your post blatantly offensive. Bad drivers come in all sizes and so do their vehicles.

I'm a cyclist who drives an SUV. I find your post blatantly offensive. Bad drivers come in all sizes and so do their vehicles.http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/7384/cry4.gif So don't read it

http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/7384/cry4.gif So don't read it

I don't remember talking to you

I don't remember talking to you
I could care less who you were talking to if you don't like what others have to say don't read it sparky. You should also know that a good percentage of the membership of this forum is anti-suv

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5173494/?GT1=3584

There isn't enough room in most cities as is. Last thing we need are those huge wide-ass SUV's roaming around clipping people cause the drivers underestimate their vehicle's girth.

i live in a comparable city as far as traffic problems goes, and i can honestly say that SUV's do reduce the quality of life for everyone other than the driver. cars in general should be next.

I live and work in the southern California suburbs, where I generally try to avoid traffic congestion by cycling, walking, riding commuter rail, or selecting my travel times for motoring.

As I spend a week working and living in downtown Boston, I see firsthand the problems of central city traffic congestion -- demand greatly exceeds supply. Banning wide vehicles can definitely provide some relief on narrow roads, but in most places the total number of cars, rather than the sizes of the individual vehicles, is the main problem. Instead of banning anything, perhaps cities should consider road access charges, ala downtown London, to relieve traffic congestion. Cars work well where densities are low, but a car is an albatross in a high-density neighborhood. Perhaps the answer is to bike or drive from home to a park-and-ride at the edge of the city core, and then to jump on public transit to get around the central city. Americans in the Boston - New York corridor have been doing this for years, and even gave our culture one of its automotive icons, the station wagon, which originally was designed as a vehicle to carry passengers and luggage to and from the local train station.

I'm a cyclist who drives an SUV. I find your post blatantly offensive. Bad drivers come in all sizes and so do their vehicles.

Stay the hell out of NYC, the streets are crowded enough as is. *END NYC ACCENT*

Cars work well where densities are low, but a car is an albatross in a high-density neighborhood. Perhaps the answer is to bike or drive from home to a park-and-ride at the edge of the city core, and then to jump on public transit to get around the central city.

I agree and have said something similar in a previous post in another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=473504&postcount=7).



Americans in the Boston - New York corridor have been doing this for years, and even gave our culture one of its automotive icons, the station wagon, which originally was designed as a vehicle to carry passengers and luggage to and from the local train station.

For the most part, the SUV is really a reborn station wagon. Unless you're rock-crawling your rig or taking it into pretty hostile terrain, there's really no difference between an SUV and a SW. As a matter of fact, my Jeep ZJ (Grand Cherokee) is registered as a wagon. I never did understand the stigma associated with station wagons but then again I'm also fond of them.

yup, try driving your station wagon on the sand like I do every weekend.

Point is, I have my reasons for driving it, I don't need to explain them to anyone here. The small-minded people here want to lump me into a category of being a menace to cycling and/or a wasteful person because of what I drive? who died and left you in charge?

I rose to the troll bait once, but I'm done with this one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5173494/?GT1=3584

There isn't enough room in most cities as is. Last thing we need are those huge wide-ass SUV's roaming around clipping people cause the drivers underestimate their vehicle's girth.

actually it's the drivers that need to be changed more than the cars.

actually it's the drivers that need to be changed more than the cars.

You hit the nail on the head!

yup, try driving your station wagon on the sand like I do every weekend.

Point is, I have my reasons for driving it, I don't need to explain them to anyone here. The small-minded people here want to lump me into a category of being a menace to cycling and/or a wasteful person because of what I drive? who died and left you in charge?

I rose to the troll bait once, but I'm done with this one.


you ARE a menice in a small congested area such as paris if you have an SUV. which is WHAT this thread is about. we're not talking about off roading in the sand or taking extended trips out in the country! the article is about preventing large SUVs in a city that is already way too congested.

How big is too big? Yes there are big SUVs and there are small SUVs. There are big cars and there are small cars. The SUV classification is a marketting one. If we were to ban vehicles of a certain size from the interior of a major metropolitan area then let's do it right. Instead of banning based on a marketting classification, ban based on actual real-world dimensions. My Jeep's overall length is slightly less than that of a Nissan Sentra and its overall width is less than 4" more. I have expounded upon this in a previous post from another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=161738&postcount=155). A BMW 525 sedan actually takes up more floorspace than my Jeep Grand Cherokee. Is Paris going to ban them?

As if I needed another reason to consider moving to France.

Jeez....

I agree with one thought here...SUVs that are used off-road some of the time (NOT skit-trips...my old 81 buick regal could do snow as well as any of these luxury SUVs could...given it had a 1" lift...and was already high off the ground factory...but still it's a RWD car...now a jeep would definately put the ol buick in ti's place...but your average lux-suv...heck no.

What I really wished happened, is for SUV drivers to have to get a special license. Doesn't have to be very hard, since most folks will not do it jsut becasue a second test is "inconvenient". That would end this trend of massive, poor fuel economy, city-only land yachts...given we will go back to the lower, massive, poor fuel economy land yachts known as full size luxury sedans (93-96 impala SS comes to mind...sadly..i love how those cars look so bad :( )...but all in all at least we got part of the problem solved.

It's called a commercial driver's license.. they could add an endorsement called annoying vehicles for SUVs.


Jeez....

I agree with one thought here...SUVs that are used off-road some of the time (NOT skit-trips...my old 81 buick regal could do snow as well as any of these luxury SUVs could...given it had a 1" lift...and was already high off the ground factory...but still it's a RWD car...now a jeep would definately put the ol buick in ti's place...but your average lux-suv...heck no.

What I really wished happened, is for SUV drivers to have to get a special license. Doesn't have to be very hard, since most folks will not do it jsut becasue a second test is "inconvenient". That would end this trend of massive, poor fuel economy, city-only land yachts...given we will go back to the lower, massive, poor fuel economy land yachts known as full size luxury sedans (93-96 impala SS comes to mind...sadly..i love how those cars look so bad :( )...but all in all at least we got part of the problem solved.

I think my biggest beef is with width and the driver's height.
Most of the time, I come within either an inch or I feel the car brushing pass my elbows. THAT's how close the car comes and not only because the driver's inattentive or misjudges their car's position but also because they just plain refuse to wait behind me and their car's too wide. So even though I take the lane, they still insist on squeezing by even if it means half their fat ass is over the divider on the lane that goes in the opposite direction.
And yes, it's not only the SUV's, it's also the large sedans.


How big is too big? Yes there are big SUVs and there are small SUVs. There are big cars and there are small cars. The SUV classification is a marketting one. If we were to ban vehicles of a certain size from the interior of a major metropolitan area then let's do it right. Instead of banning based on a marketting classification, ban based on actual real-world dimensions. My Jeep's overall length is slightly less than that of a Nissan Sentra and its overall width is less than 4" more. I have expounded upon this in a previous post from another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=161738&postcount=155). A BMW 525 sedan actually takes up more floorspace than my Jeep Grand Cherokee. Is Paris going to ban them?

I think they should just keep raising gas taxes. Make people who drive pay for every bit of pollution they make, because in general, the more gas you use, the more pollution you make.

I love my SUV, and I have my mtb in the back for a little noon time ride today. The only thing that would make it better is if it had the modifications like this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5173494/?GT1=3584

There isn't enough room in most cities as is. Last thing we need are those huge wide-ass SUV's roaming around clipping people cause the drivers underestimate their vehicle's girth.

I've sent links to that article to Pataki & Bloomberg. Probably won't amount to anything but it's my good deed for the weekend. :o

This is also a good thing me thinks...

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/index.html

I think they should just keep raising gas taxes. Make people who drive pay for every bit of pollution they make, because in general, the more gas you use, the more pollution you make.

Not always true, depends on emission equipment. A 3.5hp Briggs lawnmower engine generates more pollution in one hour than a typical SUV traveling from NYC to DC. This from an article I read some years ago. Sorry that I can't post the reference.

[edited to add:]
Forget SUV's, there needs to be more 'car-free' areas.

John E:
"I see firsthand the problems of central city traffic congestion -- demand greatly exceeds supply."

This is the crux of the problem. The most likely solution is congestion pricing, with users paying for use of the roads in heavily travelled urban areas (and more at peak hours, as well). Although this would result in ridiculous amounts of whining from the car crowd, it would serve several purposes-- cleaner air, reduced public spending on roads infrastructure and increased funding for said infrastructure. A system like this is now in place in central London, and I believe Singapore as well. Paris would do well to consider it. Added charges for the size of the vehicle would be an acceptable surcharge, I believe (I hear the whine of the SUV owner now). Market-based solutions (built around supply/demand) will of course irritate those who feel driving is an entitlement and thus should be funded by government taxation. Boo-hoo.

The main problem with this system is it is basically a regressive tax, but if there are other methods of transport in place (mass transit, bikes) it is not a tax you actually have to pay... more like a lottery, where if you're dumb enough to buy a ticket, too bad.

"Cars work well where densities are low, but a car is an albatross in a high-density neighborhood."

Even in a smaller city like Richmond, this statement is true and becoming truer on a daily basis.

Telejohn:
" A 3.5hp Briggs lawnmower engine generates more pollution in one hour than a typical SUV traveling from NYC to DC. "

As I recall, the pollution produced by the two over an hour was equal. Which still doesn't speak well for lawnmowers (my lawnmower uses me as an engine; it pollutes less). Or SUVs.

As much as I don't like SUV's, Paris has the wrong way of doing it.

We need higher gas tax, and funnel the money directly into efficient GOOD public transport, and good cycling and walking routes.

America for one needs a gas tax as high as the UK's.

Then watch how little you can pick up a SUV for second hand, when you're paying $7 a gallon...

Added charges for the size of the vehicle would be an acceptable surcharge, I believe (I hear the whine of the SUV owner now). Market-based solutions (built around supply/demand) will of course irritate those who feel driving is an entitlement and thus should be funded by government taxation. Boo-hoo.

Once again, I think it's wrong to single out a vehicle just based on some marketting label. How do you distinguish between the BMW X5 which they call an SAV or the Acura MPV or the Chrysler Pacifica which is... well don't know what new marketting term they came up for that one. The best thing to do is to start taxing/restricting based on actual weight and dimensions. We do this for larger trucks now so I don't see why it's inconcievable for other vehicles. An SUV driver might gripe about it a little bit as would drivers of larger vehicles like big Cadillacs but then again we all have to make our choices and take on the ramifications. Now the question becomes, where do we draw these lines?

Dimensions? I think the footprint and turning radius should be the key factours here. Some people are annoyed by the height but then there are others out there that are annoyed by bicycles on the street and someone standing up on their pedals while cycling is almost at the same height as most SUVs so I think height is a non-issue. For footprint, maybe something like 100" overall length and 65" overall width should be the cutoff. Bear in mind that this will effect almost every vehicle except the true compacts. This will include the family sedans such as the Honda Accords. It seems to me that the maneuverability of a vehicle is a major factour also. My Jeep ZJ has a turning radius of 37.2'. A Honda Civic has a turning radius of less than half that. Perhaps something like 20' or 25' should be the cutoff.

There could be other factours added to classifying whether or not a vehicle is suitable for inner-city use or not but my point is that it's really wrong to just use some obscure label that originated out of the automobile manufacturer's marketting department to make real-world distinctions.

I could care less who you were talking to if you don't like what others have to say don't read it sparky. You should also know that a good percentage of the membership of this forum is anti-suv


Boy, aren't you arrogant. Plus you make no sense. How can you not read something before you know what it says? And how is he to know that a good percentage of the forum is anti-suv? Must be nice to to you and know all.

In your honor I'm going to go drive around for no apparent reason in my Jaguar that gets very poor gas mileage. No, maybe I'll take my SUV. I'll wave to you, but you probably won't be able to see me from way up in your ivory tower.

How about charging a fee based on X weight going Y miles, like Oregon does for commercial trucks?

that's a little complicated. also there isn't a need to target out SUVs or other large trucks based on weight because they already have horrible gas mileage. if there were higher taxes on gas everything would balance itself out.


How about charging a fee based on X weight going Y miles, like Oregon does for commercial trucks?

Well, THIS poster is definitely anti-SUV although until a week ago I had a full-size Chevy van with a 6.2 litre diesel engine, so I couldn't complain about SUVs too much. I think it was twice as large inside as a Surburban and I could even see over the roof of a Ford Excursion (or is that "Excretion"?) :) Since it was a clunker I only used it for hauling , bad-weather driving, etc. but with these over $2 gal. fuel prices I finally had to get rid of it. Our only vehicle is a Toyota Corrola.

Boy, aren't you arrogant. Plus you make no sense. How can you not read something before you know what it says? And how is he to know that a good percentage of the forum is anti-suv? Must be nice to to you and know all.

In your honor I'm going to go drive around for no apparent reason in my Jaguar that gets very poor gas mileage. No, maybe I'll take my SUV. I'll wave to you, but you probably won't be able to see me from way up in your ivory tower.I'll wave to you from my Ivory Tower once you get off your high horse. As for your comments: he got all offended by:
There isn't enough room in most cities as is. Last thing we need are those huge wide-ass SUV's roaming around clipping people cause the drivers underestimate their vehicle's girth.
Did he have to read the linked article? No he could have guessed the tone of the article from the initial posts.

Did he need to respond to the post? No
He apparently got all pissy because someone thought that Paris banning SUV's was a good thing. Hardly a reason to complain in my book.

How do I know that a good percentage of the forum is anti-SUV?
I've spent time here, gotten into many SUV related discussions and gotten to know most of the players on both sides of the issue. My being here for nearly 2 years and having over 2300 posts means that I should have one heck of a lot more knowledge of the member base than you presently have or may ever have.

How was he supposed to know?
What does it matter? You don't go around claiming to be offended by a post with an anti-SUV message simply because you own an SUV it doesn't work that way.
If you don't like the message great! Disagree! Debate the issue! Do NOT however, get offended because someone has a different viewpoint than you, it's baseless and stupid, and will evoke the exact response that I gave if not from me from any number of others.

In my time here I have gotten into many heated debates on the issue and I have NEVER had someone respond with such a childish comment to the effect of "I'm gonna go drive my SUV all I wanna and you can't stop me" such as your carefully crafted response. The debates were, though heated, respectful and handled in a civilized manner.

In my opinion (note opinion) if the attitude you wish to present is the one that you so eloquently phrased in your last post you can go play with one of your mobile phalluses if that makes you feel better, but don't bother to respond unless you can bring a valid point to the table. By the way, don't attempt to lecture me about being arrogant, you haven't a leg to stand on.


On a friendlier note:



Well, THIS poster is definitely anti-SUV although until a week ago I had a full-size Chevy van with a 6.2 liter diesel engine, so I couldn't complain about SUV's too much. I think it was twice as large inside as a Suburban and I could even see over the roof of a Ford Excursion (or is that "Excretion"?) :) Since it was a clunker I only used it for hauling , bad-weather driving, etc. but with these over $2 gal. fuel prices I finally had to get rid of it. Our only vehicle is a Toyota Corrola.
There was always the Veggie Van conversion (http://www.veggievan.org/index.php) Top it off at the local greasy spoon and spew French fried goodness from the tailpipe. :D

On a friendlier note:

There was always the Veggie Van conversion (http://www.veggievan.org/index.php) Top it off at the local greasy spoon and spew French fried goodness from the tailpipe. :D

Ya know, I've looked into the bio-diesel/veggie van/other fuels, and I love the idea. Most places which fry up food need to pay for the disposal of the grease. If you are able to provide a free way for them to dispose of the grease, then they are happy. You're providing them with a service for less than the competition (Free), and they are providing you with something you want (veggie oil).

I've been curious about doing such things, and yet, I'm still afraid of someone making a law against SUV's, even though my diesel vehicle would be running on a renewable fuel which is recycled from its primary use. Some might say, "Don't use an SUV. Get a Diesel VW or something." My in-laws live above the snow-line. I need high-clearance 4WD for those trips, and it doesn't make sense to have my other vehicle unable to make such trips. Now, if Subaru put out a diesel Outback, I could go for that...

Like Khuon, I don't think that classifying a vehicle as "bad" shows much thinking beyond Stage One. I haven't come up with a good alternative, though.

Khuon suggests that taxing vehicles based on size is a good idea. I find fault with that because delivery vehicles are necessarily large, and require access downtown, perhaps even more than passenger vehicles. Bike delivery is fine for take-out and small items, but it's unlikely to be acceptable in the case of an air conditioner, cabinet-size server, and man other heavy items delivered to corporate offices on a regular basis.

I like London's idea of charging a toll on downtown streets, although I've done exactly zero research into how they do it. I'd want to provide an exemption for lorries/commercial-vehicles. The problem there is that the government has classified my pickup truck as a commercial vehicle, so everyone would start using those, and they're not exactly the most-efficient means of transportation. Of course, I disagree with that classification, because I don't engage in commercial activities using my truck as transport any more than I did with my Saturn.

It is even harder to determine the best course of action in places where the urban sprawl has led to traffic everywhere, not just downtown. Banning any one kind of vehicle would be especially short-sighted. Some people actually use the capabilities of their SUV's, and aren't just taking the kids to school which could be done with a two-seater using an electric motor.

Forgive the rambling nature of my post. I'm sure there are others out there who are better-educated in trafic analysis and design, who have made well-reasoned and cogent arguments for many different solutions, but I can't resist throwing in my buck-fifty.

<snip> My in-laws live above the snow-line. I need high-clearance 4WD for those trips, and it doesn't make sense to have my other vehicle unable to make such trips. Now, if Subaru put out a diesel Outback, I could go for that...

.
How often do you take trips up there during the winter?

If you want to tax SUVs and gass guzzlers, make a tax based in engine size, and of the engine is supercharged, tack on 1.5L per bar of pressure. That should be reasonable enough...and at teh elast will make most of the crap-SUVs only huge heaving masses that can't move worth squat due to having 1.6L 4-bangers.

I've read these posts, and nobody really put forth the real reasons that bicyclists should not enjoy riding with SUVs. If your really want an education about this, read High and Mighty, SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way by Keith Bradsher (Public Affairs, New York, 2002). I'm just finishing the book, and began reading it because I needed the perspective--my wife wants an SUV after we had some difficulty last winter during an ice storm. Here's the points Mr. Bradsher makes on SUVs:

--They don't stop quickly in an emergency. Their stopping distance is significantly longer than standard cars.
--They are not as manouverable in traffic, and are harder to see around too. A following car cannot see the highway ahead of the SUV in front of it.
--Their front bumper is significantly higher, as is its hood. The hoods are not made to crumple or deform, as passenger cars do, when impacted. If a cyclist, for instance, hits the hood, the cyclist will have significantly greater injuries because of the hood's design. The cyclist also will have greater difficulty going over the hood of an SUV than a car. For instance, my son recently had his first run-in with a vehicle, when it pulled out unexpectedly in front of him. He hit the side of the car's front end, and went over the hood. If it had been an SUV, he may not have cleared the hood, with the potential for greater injuries than he received in the actual accident (scraps).
--There is not good rear visibility with an SUV compared to a car. Backing out SUVs hit kids on bicycles, tricycles, and just standing there because they cannot be seen as easily as in a car, but are treated by the driver as if it were a car. (Vans, for instance, have the same problem, but drivers usually check more closely because they know of this limitation in a van.)
--Crash compatibility between a car and a SUV is a continuing, serious problem. The bumpers are higher, and so they go over a car's bumper in a crash. At least some newer models now have cross bar under the hood which is lower, and designed to hook into the frame of a car in a side-impact, and the bumper in a front impact, accident. But some of these are still too high to really make a difference.

There are also safety problems for the drivers of SUVs:
--Because of their design, many SUVs transfer more of the shock of a collision to the occupants; there are no "crumple zones" built into the front ends of many SUVs. This is because of their "bolt-on" design, and the fact that their frames are made for pickup trucks (not station wagons, like is mentioned above, except in limited models).
--They will roll over easier than cars. This is due to their higher center of gravity (CG), their larger wheels, and the fact that the occupants are above the CG too. Drivers need to re-learn their driving skills to drive an SUV safely.

Having said all this, I am loosing the battle with my wife, and we will probably get an SUV sometime within the next year. If we do buy one, it will be used primarily for our vacations, where we plan to use some of the SUV capabilities to go places cars cannot go.

By the way, with the importance that SUVs are to the economy in the United States, there is no way they will be banned here, and probably not in any USA city either. That would be political suicide for the politician who proposed it.

John

I've read these posts, and nobody really put forth the real reasons that bicyclists should not enjoy riding with SUVs. No we're too busy debating why someone would get offended by someone's opinion to have conversation with any worthwhile merits. C'est la vie


FWIW I agree completely John

Taxing based on weight makes sense. Not from polution point of view, but a heavier vehicule is harder on the road. Airplane landing fees are based on weight, why not cars?

And what is this snowline? Millions of people enjoy months of winter and most drive sedans, compacts and sub-compacts without any problems. And I would think not being able to drive in the snow would be a good excuse not to visit the in-laws. :D

Here in Oregon, it is not the weight of the cars/SUVs that is the main problem, but the use of studded tires that is tearing up the roads. Heavy vehicles (trucks) are tearing up our bridges, as they were not designed for the weight they now must sustain. A tax on trucks is in effect here, I believe, and the State of Oregon is looking at increasing it to pay for bridges. But the roads are being literally torn up by steel-studded tires.

Cars usually handle snow fairly well; however, I got a lesson this winter when I "tested" the traction of our Honda Accord, and got it into a pretty hairy skid. I have done this many times before, without difficulty even with my 1995 Honda Accord. But there is a bit of a difference in the 1999 Accord, and it did not do too well. We ended up breaking a tail light housing on the center divide as at the end of the skid. This also is one reason the wife is looking hard at an SUV.

It is said that SUVs are only necessary for snow that is five or more inches deep. But, last winter, our chained-up Honda Accord just barely coped with snow with a one-inch covering of ice that was this depth.

This part of my post has nothing to do with bicycling, as just about everyone put their bikes away during the ice storm last winter. I did use cross-country skis one day, though.

John

try to convince your wife to buy a suzuki outback. It's more wagon than SUV, but I know folks who use those to go on ski trips all teh time and find it more than adequate.

Cars usually handle snow fairly well; however, I got a lesson this winter when I "tested" the traction of our Honda Accord, and got it into a pretty hairy skid. I have done this many times before, without difficulty even with my 1995 Honda Accord. But there is a bit of a difference in the 1999 Accord, and it did not do too well. We ended up breaking a tail light housing on the center divide as at the end of the skid. This also is one reason the wife is looking hard at an SUV.
John
Well, you can tell her that is a very good reason NOT to get the SUV. If you were in a long hairy skid you were probably on ice, not snow, and an SUV actually handles much worse on ice than do most sedans. SUVs have a much higher ratio of weight to contact area, even with their oversize tires.

One of the things that makes SUVs so dangerous is drivers expect them to stick to the road when in reality the only time an SUV gets better traction than a sedan is in fairly deep, loose material such as snow (not ice or snow over ice), sand, and mud.

If your wife wants the SUV because she thinks she'll be safer if an accident happens, she's wrong on that account, too. Recent studies have proven that, while large SUVs are far more likely to cause injuries in the occupants of another vehicle during an accident, they don't really do much to protect their own occupants. In fact, in contact with another vehicle of similar size or with an "immovable object" (such as your guardrail) SUVs do a very poor job of protecting their occupants - even poorer than small sedans! Statistically, the vehicle least likely to be involved in an accident and the vehicle that does the best job of protecting its occupant is (drumroll please) the full size sedan.

Why pick on just SUV's, as some posters have noticed? What about the mega quad cab pickups and weird "luxury wagons" that seem suspiciously SUV-like? Personally, I own a Chevy Blazer, 2 wheel drive, and I originally bought it for the high ceiling, covered and secure cargo space, in a package that had a smaller overall footprint than and the same or better mpg than most minivans of the same year. Now I own it because it's paid for. Chevy gets emails every 6 months or so from me, volunteering my truck as a hybrid conversion guinea pig. I take public transportation when I can, and probably use less gasoline than many other people with more fuel efficient cars. Should I add to the landfill problem by chucking my SUV when it's perfectly road worthy and polluting less because I drive less? Bad drivers, bad environmentalists, and bad people are found behind the wheel of just about every vehicle made. There are good drivers, good environmentalists, and good people who drive SUVs just as there are those who drive other things. Sure, I'd rather drive a hybrid. Unless the people who want to ban my truck pay for me to replace it, however, my SUV stays on the road for the limited amount I drive it.

John, see if you can get your wife down to look at smaller all wheel drive wagons. I think they have the same standards as cars, as far as construction goes. Is that the Subaru line? The Outback?
People don't buy large vehicles worrying about what happens if a cyclist hits the front end from the side. If that person that pulled out in front of your son did some jail time, then people might actually start paying attention to their driving.
I would disagree with your statement that people in vans realize the visibility limitations when backing up, but maybe the van drivers in your area are better than here. Last year at my son's graduation a woman in a Dodge mini-van almost crushed a guy into a fence, all while people were beating on the back of the van for her to stop.
I don't think the vehicle size is what cyclists are in most danger from, but the idiots driving the vehicles. The same goofballs in a smaller car will still cause us just as much damage.



I've read these posts, and nobody really put forth the real reasons that bicyclists should not enjoy riding with SUVs. If your really want an education about this, read High and Mighty, SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way by Keith Bradsher (Public Affairs, New York, 2002). I'm just finishing the book, and began reading it because I needed the perspective--my wife wants an SUV after we had some difficulty last winter during an ice storm. Here's the points Mr. Bradsher makes on SUVs:

--They don't stop quickly in an emergency. Their stopping distance is significantly longer than standard cars.
--They are not as manouverable in traffic, and are harder to see around too. A following car cannot see the highway ahead of the SUV in front of it.
--Their front bumper is significantly higher, as is its hood. The hoods are not made to crumple or deform, as passenger cars do, when impacted. If a cyclist, for instance, hits the hood, the cyclist will have significantly greater injuries because of the hood's design. The cyclist also will have greater difficulty going over the hood of an SUV than a car. For instance, my son recently had his first run-in with a vehicle, when it pulled out unexpectedly in front of him. He hit the side of the car's front end, and went over the hood. If it had been an SUV, he may not have cleared the hood, with the potential for greater injuries than he received in the actual accident (scraps).
--There is not good rear visibility with an SUV compared to a car. Backing out SUVs hit kids on bicycles, tricycles, and just standing there because they cannot be seen as easily as in a car, but are treated by the driver as if it were a car. (Vans, for instance, have the same problem, but drivers usually check more closely because they know of this limitation in a van.)
--Crash compatibility between a car and a SUV is a continuing, serious problem. The bumpers are higher, and so they go over a car's bumper in a crash. At least some newer models now have cross bar under the hood which is lower, and designed to hook into the frame of a car in a side-impact, and the bumper in a front impact, accident. But some of these are still too high to really make a difference.

There are also safety problems for the drivers of SUVs:
--Because of their design, many SUVs transfer more of the shock of a collision to the occupants; there are no "crumple zones" built into the front ends of many SUVs. This is because of their "bolt-on" design, and the fact that their frames are made for pickup trucks (not station wagons, like is mentioned above, except in limited models).
--They will roll over easier than cars. This is due to their higher center of gravity (CG), their larger wheels, and the fact that the occupants are above the CG too. Drivers need to re-learn their driving skills to drive an SUV safely.

Having said all this, I am loosing the battle with my wife, and we will probably get an SUV sometime within the next year. If we do buy one, it will be used primarily for our vacations, where we plan to use some of the SUV capabilities to go places cars cannot go.

By the way, with the importance that SUVs are to the economy in the United States, there is no way they will be banned here, and probably not in any USA city either. That would be political suicide for the politician who proposed it.

John

How often do you take trips up there during the winter?

Just about every weekend we can, which works out to about 75% of them. Why?

For the most part, the SUV is really a reborn station wagon.

Who said the station wagon died? There are plenty of companies that sell station wagons of all shapes and sizes. If you really need more room, buy a minivan. The SUV is more about vanity than a reborn wagon.

Well, you can tell her that is a very good reason NOT to get the SUV. If you were in a long hairy skid you were probably on ice, not snow, and an SUV actually handles much worse on ice than do most sedans. SUVs have a much higher ratio of weight to contact area, even with their oversize tires.

One of the things that makes SUVs so dangerous is drivers expect them to stick to the road when in reality the only time an SUV gets better traction than a sedan is in fairly deep, loose material such as snow (not ice or snow over ice), sand, and mud.

This depends on the tyres you're running. Serious SUV drivers will pick the correct tyre for their intended use. I for instance intend to drive in all weather conditions with a lean towards more loose rock offroading so my tyres are fairly wide but not overly wide. Others will pick a thinner "pizza-cutter" for conditions like snow. Some will pick really knobby mud-tyres if they're doing a lot of mudding but these actually tend to suck in just the wet hard pavement. It is however true that on ice, all bets are off. It is doubly true that when most people who are running generally crappy stock tyres without any real clue as how to operate such a vehicle encounter such a situation, there is a higher danger of them overdriving the vehicle. SUVs can generally get moving better in situations that will stop a regular sedan but that doesn't necessarily mean they are any more controllable or stoppable in the same situation. It's all about momentum management.



If your wife wants the SUV because she thinks she'll be safer if an accident happens, she's wrong on that account, too. Recent studies have proven that, while large SUVs are far more likely to cause injuries in the occupants of another vehicle during an accident, they don't really do much to protect their own occupants. In fact, in contact with another vehicle of similar size or with an "immovable object" (such as your guardrail) SUVs do a very poor job of protecting their occupants - even poorer than small sedans!

I really hate the attitude that has developed whereby people determine safety based on the vehicle. Safety starts with the driver. Even the safest vehicle in the world can be made dangerous once an unskilled driver gets behind the wheel and actually starts it moving. If you want to determine the relative safety of any vehicle, first start by taking a look in the mirror. Also assess your skill level. Do you have the skills to operate and handle such a vehicle? If not, will you be willing to learn or maybe consider something else? So you say that it is an investment to educate yourself? Well then you need to start weighing the reasons why you would want an SUV. Do the due-dilligence.

My wife will not drive my Jeep although she has before on long road trips where we had to switch off drivers but in general she won't touch it nowadays. She does not feel confident in handling it in all situations and since she doesn't want to take the time to enroll in an offroad driving course, she would rather not drive it then be a danger behind the wheel due to unfamiliar and untrained operations.



Statistically, the vehicle least likely to be involved in an accident and the vehicle that does the best job of protecting its occupant is (drumroll please) the full size sedan.

Actually, statistically speaking, the vehicle with the least amount of accident fatalities in the last ten years are the bigger minivans. The ones with the highest (at least three times that over my Jeep which itself is half that of the average) are the rear wheel drive sportscars such as the Chevy Camaro.

Just about every weekend we can, which works out to about 75% of them. Why?
Just trying to get some usage facts before I stuck my two cents in and made any suggestions. Do often use the 4WD feature while on these trips? Do you carry a lot of cargo or have a large family? Have you checked out an AWD car like a Subaru? or an Audi?

Just trying to get some usage facts before I stuck my two cents in and made any suggestions. Do often use the 4WD feature while on these trips? Do you carry a lot of cargo or have a large family? Have you checked out an AWD car like a Subaru? or an Audi?

Oh, I forgot to state what we drive. It's actually a Toyota Tacoma 4WD, so it's not a guzzler, and there's enough space for us, our dogs, and our "stuff". We frequently use the 4WD feature on the trips up there for the snow.

Honestly, for the trips up there, I would eventually like to have an AWD vehicle as you suggest, and reserve the pickup for actual off-roading. It would be more efficient, and have more space for the additional kids we'll have. My wife keeps saying, "If Mini made an AWD model, we'd be on that car lot in a hurry."

Honestly, for the trips up there, I would eventually like to have an AWD vehicle as you suggest, and reserve the pickup for actual off-roading. It would be more efficient, and have more space for the additional kids we'll have. My wife keeps saying, "If Mini made an AWD model, we'd be on that car lot in a hurry."

While not a Mini, if you're looking for a smaller AWD car then there are a few to be had. Have you considered one of the Subarus? Or an Audi w/Quattro? Or a VW w/4-Motion?