*Brush* *guards*. If you're not going offroad into brush, they're just bling bling, pure and simple. They're about as useful as oversized gold emblems on a Honda lowered with under-deck neon. :P
It's like chroming a Swiss Army knife - yeah, it looks cool, but the first time you *use* it, the very thing that you think looks cool is ruined - therefore you won't use it - therefore it's a useless addition that is put on just to say "Look! I *LOOK* like I could go off-road! Ain't I *COOL*!??" (The suburban equivalent of stick-on bullet holes on a low rider.)
In other words, it's right up there with the 4WD systems on 90% of SUVs that never get engaged... useless.
Pure decoration for the sake of decoration is one thing... but to pretend that it has actual utility is just sad egostroking.
And they are advertised as being for looks. Go anywhere that sells them and the main selling point is always "tough look" or "attractive." There's barely an attempt to pretend they are sold for practical reasons:
You guys that drive these things for any reason other than hauling large items on a regular basis, and esspecially those that accessorize them, might as well be driving this:
The optimal solution for removing large, slow moving, and mentally slow obstacles was discovered long ago: the cow catcher. All we need is to install cow catchers on the fronts and backs of our smaller faster cars and with the help of physics merely flip the larger, slower suvs out of the way...
Ram plates! Vulcan machine guns! Reminds me of playing Steve Jackson Car Wars? back in jr high hehe
Well, according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, "High and Mighty," the connection between the two isn't a coincidence. Unlike any other vehicle before it, the SUV is the car of choice for the nation's most self-centered people; and the bigger the SUV, the more of a jerk its driver is likely to be.
According to market research conducted by the country's leading automakers, Bradsher reports, SUV buyers tend to be "insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."
And they are advertised as being for looks. Go anywhere that sells them and the main selling point is always "tough look" or "attractive." There's barely an attempt to pretend they are sold for practical reasons:
You guys that drive these things for any reason other than hauling large items on a regular basis, and esspecially those that accessorize them, might as well be driving this:
this can't be legal. this is ridiculous, and not in a good way as Paul Sr. uses it
What about what happens when you crash head-on into another SUV? The odds of that type of collision grow with the overall growth of SUV popularity.
....
well when it is SUV v SUV, then we are back to the locker room analogy, of "MY ____ is bigger than yours""ok, so to compensate, i will trade in my suburban for that hummer with the 12 inch lift kit."
like I said in an earlyer post: the problem with SUVs is the fact that people drive them like cars, not trucks.
In their attempt to appear youthful and hip, SUV owners have filled the American highways with vehicles that exact a distinctly human cost, frequently killing innocent drivers who would have survived a collision with a lesser vehicle. Bradsher quotes auto execs who concede that the self-centered lifestyle of SUV buyers is apparent in "their willingness to endanger other motorists so as to achieve small improvements in their personal safety."
I'd like to see the statistics on which this was based to be more certain, but this makes it sound like SUVs are a terrible safety trade off -- not only making other drivers less safe so you can be more safe, but selfishly imposing a large risk on others for a small gain for yourself.
people say that SUVs are for off roading, that makes no sense as a pickup truck would be far better for the job, and as far as hauling REAL cargo, why use an suv for that when you would trash the carpet and the interior in general? the only place that suvs are needed is people in the country to get them and their familys around in safety and comfort, think of the obsticals faced in the country, like deer, If a deer is headed for me, I would rather be in an expedition than a eugo.
in the city, if you want to own one, that is your deal, none of my business but once you start driving it like a jerk on the road, well that is my business I say either drive it right or get a car/minivan
people say that SUVs are for off roading, that makes no sense as a pickup truck would be far better for the job, and as far as hauling REAL cargo, why use an suv for that when you would trash the carpet and the interior in general? the only place that suvs are needed is people in the country to get them and their familys around in safety and comfort, think of the obsticals faced in the country, like deer, If a deer is headed fro me, I would rather be in an expedition than a eugo.
would that random deer instance qualify you for having an SUV in the City or highly urban areas the majority of the time?
the only place that suvs are needed is people in the country to get them and their familys around in safety and comfort, think of the obsticals faced in the country, like deer, If a deer is headed fro me, I would rather be in an expedition than a eugo.
I'd be real interested in seeing statistics on that. With an SUV, you have a MUCH higher chance of rolling over if you swerve to miss the deer or if the deer hits you on the side.
What about what happens when you crash head-on into another SUV? The odds of that type of collision grow with the overall growth of SUV popularity.
What about other types of accidents, like roll-overs, loss of vehicle control, etc.?
As some of you know I lost my dad to a head on car crash. He was in a truck and the other driver was in a car (dodge stratus). My dad died at the scene and the young mother in the other car who was driving did not die at the scene but did pass later at hospital. The point is that my dad's truck did not absorb impact as well as her car did with crumple zones hence she did not die at the scene but fate had it that she would pass later none the less.
My point??? Is that no matter what you drive the odds of surviving a head on crash is not one that is fun to think about no matter what you happen to drive.
I admit in the aftermath of my dad's death I went out and bought a 5,000 pound gas guzzling Dodge Ram quad cab truck thinking I would be "safe" in it.
It was a good truck... I got another one in 2003. However I will say that you can die in a Dodge ram quad cab just as you can in anything.
I got sick of the horrible fuel milage which was about 14 miles per gallon.
I realized I was contributing to the smog in my area by driving a vehicle which exceeded my "needs". After reflection I decided it was a waste of resources to continue guzzling fuel for just myself.
I just in the last week or so have traded the truck in and purchased MY NEW CAR which is a LEV (Low-Emission Vehicle) and gets about 31 miles per gallon. This car suits my needs just fine. I am sure there is a percentage of the population who do need large SUV type cars to haul their large family. I am not going to tell anyone what to drive as that is pointless but I will suggest that just as myself back in the days of the Dodge ram quad cab truck many out there drive autos which exceed their true needs. It really is a waste when you think about it.
Hey, Fellowship, that looks like a nice car. Too bad I never heard of it when I bought my new car. Still, I have no regrets for my Honda Civic Hydrid. The variable speed transmission is one of the coolest things. Absolutely no shifting, not even automatic shifting! And yes that is next to my porsche, so I have a gas-guzzler (18MPG) and a super efeciant car (41MPG). I figure they kinda cancel out and make me normal. (The third blue Celica is not street legal and gets about 11MPG but then it is a race car)
Depends on what you mean by safe I guess. I had a woman in an old-old Acura Integra rear-end my Suburban at about 15 mph. Her front end was totaled. I needed a new license plate frame. She had a pretty nasty case of whiplash, IIRC. I had a broken license plate frame.
If a car rammed into the side of my Suburban, I cannot imagine I'd be in much worse shape than in my 535i. I'd love to know what the rollover potential of a Suburban is vs cars and other SUVs too.
And SUVs the size of mini-vans use car frames these days. Toyota Highlander, BMW X3, etc...
Depends on what you mean by safe I guess. I had a woman in an old-old Acura Integra rear-end my Suburban at about 15 mph. Her front end was totaled. I needed a new license plate frame. She had a pretty nasty case of whiplash, IIRC. I had a broken license plate frame.
OTOH, my wife was rear-ended in her Accord by an Expedition at a low speed.
The Expedition's license plate number was lightly imprinted into the Accord's rear bumper, no structural damage.
The Expedition's front end sustained $2800 worth of damage when the bumper attachment point snapped instead of crumpling, and the sharp metal bar punctured the radiator from beneath.
The police officer spent the entire time snickering at the Expedition driver, whose teenaged son was sitting there saying "I *told* you this thing wasn't safer than a car..."
So what, it's MY fault that i drive an SUV if i am struck and killed by a dump truck or 18-wheeler?
You can't seriously think that's a valid analogy...
What rok was saying is, if his compact gets hit by an SUV and he's killed, the "wisdom" of the free-market argument allows the SUV driver to say, "well too bad for rok, if he had an SUV instead of a compact, he'd still be alive".
By using the dump truck/SUV collision as an analogy, your argument is that the dump truck driver who hit your SUV would be saying, "well too bad for Jubelum, if he had a dump truck instead of an SUV, he'd still be alive".
Now surely you have a better argument than that...
For a family holiday we managed to comfortably fit five adults (and not small ones either) plus two weeks of luggage in a Citroen Xsara, drive 2000 miles in it, with an average fuel consumption of around 45mpg. Cars can be comfortable for afull load of tall people, efficient and carry a large amount of stuff (and our car isn't even an estate).
Quote:
In 1999, for every 100,000 registered vehicles in the US, there were 16.4 fatalities in passenger cars, and 17.8 in SUVs.
The ratio of regular cars to SUV (to other categories) would be useful, but this looks bad for SUVs unless the car:SUV ratio is 1:1 or lower. Does anyone know ?
yes suvs do roll easier, but so do busses and yet we let millions of school kids on them each day without a second thought, and why you ask, because the drivers know how to drive the things, they know and exercise common sense procautions for lager vehicle operation, something most suv drivers don?t do, because they ASSume that it will be just like the old family sedan.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
*Brush* *guards*. If you're not going offroad into brush, they're just bling bling, pure and simple. They're about as useful as oversized gold emblems on a Honda lowered with under-deck neon. :P
It's like chroming a Swiss Army knife - yeah, it looks cool, but the first time you *use* it, the very thing that you think looks cool is ruined - therefore you won't use it - therefore it's a useless addition that is put on just to say "Look! I *LOOK* like I could go off-road! Ain't I *COOL*!??" (The suburban equivalent of stick-on bullet holes on a low rider.)
In other words, it's right up there with the 4WD systems on 90% of SUVs that never get engaged... useless.
Pure decoration for the sake of decoration is one thing... but to pretend that it has actual utility is just sad egostroking.
And they are advertised as being for looks. Go anywhere that sells them and the main selling point is always "tough look" or "attractive." There's barely an attempt to pretend they are sold for practical reasons:
http://www.aztrucks.com/categories/grilleguards.html
You guys that drive these things for any reason other than hauling large items on a regular basis, and esspecially those that accessorize them, might as well be driving this:
Originally posted by billybobsky
The optimal solution for removing large, slow moving, and mentally slow obstacles was discovered long ago: the cow catcher. All we need is to install cow catchers on the fronts and backs of our smaller faster cars and with the help of physics merely flip the larger, slower suvs out of the way...
Ram plates! Vulcan machine guns! Reminds me of playing Steve Jackson Car Wars? back in jr high hehe
this is interesting
Well, according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, "High and Mighty," the connection between the two isn't a coincidence. Unlike any other vehicle before it, the SUV is the car of choice for the nation's most self-centered people; and the bigger the SUV, the more of a jerk its driver is likely to be.
According to market research conducted by the country's leading automakers, Bradsher reports, SUV buyers tend to be "insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."
full article
Originally posted by giant
And they are advertised as being for looks. Go anywhere that sells them and the main selling point is always "tough look" or "attractive." There's barely an attempt to pretend they are sold for practical reasons:
http://www.aztrucks.com/categories/grilleguards.html
You guys that drive these things for any reason other than hauling large items on a regular basis, and esspecially those that accessorize them, might as well be driving this:
this can't be legal. this is ridiculous, and not in a good way as Paul Sr. uses it
Originally posted by shetline
What about what happens when you crash head-on into another SUV? The odds of that type of collision grow with the overall growth of SUV popularity.
....
well when it is SUV v SUV, then we are back to the locker room analogy, of "MY ____ is bigger than yours""ok, so to compensate, i will trade in my suburban for that hummer with the 12 inch lift kit."
like I said in an earlyer post: the problem with SUVs is the fact that people drive them like cars, not trucks.
In their attempt to appear youthful and hip, SUV owners have filled the American highways with vehicles that exact a distinctly human cost, frequently killing innocent drivers who would have survived a collision with a lesser vehicle. Bradsher quotes auto execs who concede that the self-centered lifestyle of SUV buyers is apparent in "their willingness to endanger other motorists so as to achieve small improvements in their personal safety."
I'd like to see the statistics on which this was based to be more certain, but this makes it sound like SUVs are a terrible safety trade off -- not only making other drivers less safe so you can be more safe, but selfishly imposing a large risk on others for a small gain for yourself.
in the city, if you want to own one, that is your deal, none of my business but once you start driving it like a jerk on the road, well that is my business I say either drive it right or get a car/minivan
Originally posted by a_greer
people say that SUVs are for off roading, that makes no sense as a pickup truck would be far better for the job, and as far as hauling REAL cargo, why use an suv for that when you would trash the carpet and the interior in general? the only place that suvs are needed is people in the country to get them and their familys around in safety and comfort, think of the obsticals faced in the country, like deer, If a deer is headed fro me, I would rather be in an expedition than a eugo.
would that random deer instance qualify you for having an SUV in the City or highly urban areas the majority of the time?
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
would that random deer instance qualify you for having an SUV in the City or highly urban areas the majority of the time?
/\\ sorry, ammended that post and answered your question while you typed it
Originally posted by a_greer
the only place that suvs are needed is people in the country to get them and their familys around in safety and comfort, think of the obsticals faced in the country, like deer, If a deer is headed fro me, I would rather be in an expedition than a eugo.
I'd be real interested in seeing statistics on that. With an SUV, you have a MUCH higher chance of rolling over if you swerve to miss the deer or if the deer hits you on the side.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...afe/theme.html
Originally posted by Jubelum
I need a lift kit.
That reminds me-- please keep buying SUVs.
As I've mentioned in a previous thread, I would like to keep my job as a rollover algorithm engineer.
Also, please try to avoid moose and deer and bunny rabbits on the road by swerving quickly. Thank you for your support.
Originally posted by shetline
What about what happens when you crash head-on into another SUV? The odds of that type of collision grow with the overall growth of SUV popularity.
What about other types of accidents, like roll-overs, loss of vehicle control, etc.?
As some of you know I lost my dad to a head on car crash. He was in a truck and the other driver was in a car (dodge stratus). My dad died at the scene and the young mother in the other car who was driving did not die at the scene but did pass later at hospital. The point is that my dad's truck did not absorb impact as well as her car did with crumple zones hence she did not die at the scene but fate had it that she would pass later none the less.
My point??? Is that no matter what you drive the odds of surviving a head on crash is not one that is fun to think about no matter what you happen to drive.
I admit in the aftermath of my dad's death I went out and bought a 5,000 pound gas guzzling Dodge Ram quad cab truck thinking I would be "safe" in it.
It was a good truck... I got another one in 2003. However I will say that you can die in a Dodge ram quad cab just as you can in anything.
I got sick of the horrible fuel milage which was about 14 miles per gallon.
I realized I was contributing to the smog in my area by driving a vehicle which exceeded my "needs". After reflection I decided it was a waste of resources to continue guzzling fuel for just myself.
I just in the last week or so have traded the truck in and purchased MY NEW CAR which is a LEV (Low-Emission Vehicle) and gets about 31 miles per gallon. This car suits my needs just fine. I am sure there is a percentage of the population who do need large SUV type cars to haul their large family. I am not going to tell anyone what to drive as that is pointless but I will suggest that just as myself back in the days of the Dodge ram quad cab truck many out there drive autos which exceed their true needs. It really is a waste when you think about it.
Fellowship
If a car rammed into the side of my Suburban, I cannot imagine I'd be in much worse shape than in my 535i. I'd love to know what the rollover potential of a Suburban is vs cars and other SUVs too.
And SUVs the size of mini-vans use car frames these days. Toyota Highlander, BMW X3, etc...
Originally posted by Eugene
Depends on what you mean by safe I guess. I had a woman in an old-old Acura Integra rear-end my Suburban at about 15 mph. Her front end was totaled. I needed a new license plate frame. She had a pretty nasty case of whiplash, IIRC. I had a broken license plate frame.
OTOH, my wife was rear-ended in her Accord by an Expedition at a low speed.
The Expedition's license plate number was lightly imprinted into the Accord's rear bumper, no structural damage.
The Expedition's front end sustained $2800 worth of damage when the bumper attachment point snapped instead of crumpling, and the sharp metal bar punctured the radiator from beneath.
The police officer spent the entire time snickering at the Expedition driver, whose teenaged son was sitting there saying "I *told* you this thing wasn't safer than a car..."
Originally posted by Jubelum
So what, it's MY fault that i drive an SUV if i am struck and killed by a dump truck or 18-wheeler?
You can't seriously think that's a valid analogy...
What rok was saying is, if his compact gets hit by an SUV and he's killed, the "wisdom" of the free-market argument allows the SUV driver to say, "well too bad for rok, if he had an SUV instead of a compact, he'd still be alive".
By using the dump truck/SUV collision as an analogy, your argument is that the dump truck driver who hit your SUV would be saying, "well too bad for Jubelum, if he had a dump truck instead of an SUV, he'd still be alive".
Now surely you have a better argument than that...
In 1999, for every 100,000 registered vehicles in the US, there were 16.4 fatalities in passenger cars, and 17.8 in SUVs.
The ratio of regular cars to SUV (to other categories) would be useful, but this looks bad for SUVs unless the car:SUV ratio is 1:1 or lower. Does anyone know ?