Some argue against special ?communistic? regulations discouraging or restraining SUVs, not recognizing that currently, SUVs in fact get special treatment encouraging their use. Despite being sold and used as people movers, the auto industry has succeeded in continuing to have SUVs classified as trucks from the purpose of gas, emissions and safety standards. SUVs are a sick joke.
The get SPECIAL TREATMENT!?! How about approaching this from the standpoint that mileage and emission restrictions are socialistic and useless?
Most of the SUV controversy stems from class envy, but that kind of thing isn't frontpage news.
Most of you know that I own not one, but two SUV's (Jeep Cherokee). However they are reasonably sized and I've attempted to find other vehicles that could do the same type of work.
We also own and enjoy our Honda Accord which gets a very nice 30 mpg.
I would say that based off what I have seen, especially when it comes to large SUV's you should all leave all this penis compensation stuff out because from my view, the average large SUV owner is a 40+ year old white woman.
Where I work (elementary school) the entire parking lot is crammed full of these huge SUV's. My Cherokee looks absolutely tiny when parked next to them. (Yukons, Suburbans, Expeditions, third seat Explorers, etc.)
I'll be happy to entertain other views as to what I could own as a vehicle. My Cherokee's are both 4.0L engines that get 18 mpg (anyone who claims otherwise is a liar) The 4.0L engine gives them a towing capacity of 5,000 lbs. We own a boat that we drive to lakes, and a trailer I use for occasional hauling. (since I don't own a pickup) We do plenty of fun type home improving, and also really do go off-road. Also it weighs 3100 lbs which is the same as most 4 door sedans.
I've looked into minivans, but most of them are front wheel drive car platforms and can't do any real towing. Most are limited to 2500 lbs, and are likely more dangerous to all on the road hauling that than my Cherokees.
I have two children who must ride in car seats. I can't put them in a small pick-up. Any crew cab pick up is basically an SUV with the rear cargo area cut off and meets the same safety standards as an SUV. When I look at sedans, the towing issue comes up again.
I think some of you should make some SUV distinctions with regard to your SUV hate. Not all SUV's are built on truck platforms. Mine is a unibody design like most cars out there. Also not all SUV's are huge, weigh some ungodly amount, nor do all even have a V8 engine. Finally until someone shows me a way to haul around 4 people and honestly pull around any real weight when it comes to hauling, then I am stuck with what I currently use.
I'll be happy to entertain other views as to what I could own as a vehicle. My Cherokee's are both 4.0L engines that get 18 mpg (anyone who claims otherwise is a liar) The 4.0L engine gives them a towing capacity of 5,000 lbs. We own a boat that we drive to lakes, and a trailer I use for occasional hauling. (since I don't own a pickup) We do plenty of fun type home improving, and also really do go off-road. Also it weighs 3100 lbs which is the same as most 4 door sedans.
I would venture out & say that most SUV drivers don't fit this mold. IMO, that's primarily the point. MOST (90%+) don't use it for any purposes even remotely close to this.
They suck extra for us convertible drivers. There is no Head protection system for us AND many SUV bumpers align straight to our heads. I don't agree with banning them as I know there are good uses for them, BUT I agree that people should go through extra licensing to own one and they should be taxed to the hilt for the amount of fossil fuel they burn in relation to the average load ( 1 person) With exceptions for those hybrid vehicles coming onto the market. I also think it shows poor judgment on the Cali governor to be driving a hummer in a State with the toughest emissions standards, High smog and Ozone problems, Gas prices above 2 bucks and a declining amount of available oil (peak oil done passed folks).
I would venture out & say that most SUV drivers don't fit this mold. IMO, that's primarily the point. MOST (90%+) don't use it for any purposes even remotely close to this.
*cough* "LUXURY" SUVs? wtf?
\
Exactly. It's right up there with "Luxury wheelbarrow".
That's funny- we are doing almost the same commute, just in opposite directions.
Interesting, I would LOVE to work in downtown and walk to work. Century City (no offense) is such a pit!
*generalizing* ... everyone around here, drives some luxury branded SUV.
In the afternoon (11am-3pm) it's mostly women, in an SUV, probably on the cell phone. (and BY HERSELF)
I walk about 5-10 minutes to work, and I've seen so many inconsiderate/overly aggressive drivers around these parts.
.... oh yeah, the drive from here to downtown during rush hour bites! Too bad there's no hope of the subway ever reaching here (thanks Beverly Hills! \ )
Comments
Originally posted by Chinney
Some argue against special ?communistic? regulations discouraging or restraining SUVs, not recognizing that currently, SUVs in fact get special treatment encouraging their use. Despite being sold and used as people movers, the auto industry has succeeded in continuing to have SUVs classified as trucks from the purpose of gas, emissions and safety standards. SUVs are a sick joke.
The get SPECIAL TREATMENT!?! How about approaching this from the standpoint that mileage and emission restrictions are socialistic and useless?
Most of the SUV controversy stems from class envy, but that kind of thing isn't frontpage news.
Originally posted by finagain
The get SPECIAL TREATMENT!?! How about approaching this from the standpoint that mileage and emission restrictions are socialistic and useless?
Most of the SUV controversy stems from class envy, but that kind of thing isn't frontpage news.
class envy? are you kidding?
Most of you know that I own not one, but two SUV's (Jeep Cherokee). However they are reasonably sized and I've attempted to find other vehicles that could do the same type of work.
We also own and enjoy our Honda Accord which gets a very nice 30 mpg.
I would say that based off what I have seen, especially when it comes to large SUV's you should all leave all this penis compensation stuff out because from my view, the average large SUV owner is a 40+ year old white woman.
Where I work (elementary school) the entire parking lot is crammed full of these huge SUV's. My Cherokee looks absolutely tiny when parked next to them. (Yukons, Suburbans, Expeditions, third seat Explorers, etc.)
I'll be happy to entertain other views as to what I could own as a vehicle. My Cherokee's are both 4.0L engines that get 18 mpg (anyone who claims otherwise is a liar)
I've looked into minivans, but most of them are front wheel drive car platforms and can't do any real towing. Most are limited to 2500 lbs, and are likely more dangerous to all on the road hauling that than my Cherokees.
I have two children who must ride in car seats. I can't put them in a small pick-up. Any crew cab pick up is basically an SUV with the rear cargo area cut off and meets the same safety standards as an SUV. When I look at sedans, the towing issue comes up again.
I think some of you should make some SUV distinctions with regard to your SUV hate. Not all SUV's are built on truck platforms. Mine is a unibody design like most cars out there. Also not all SUV's are huge, weigh some ungodly amount, nor do all even have a V8 engine. Finally until someone shows me a way to haul around 4 people and honestly pull around any real weight when it comes to hauling, then I am stuck with what I currently use.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll be happy to entertain other views as to what I could own as a vehicle. My Cherokee's are both 4.0L engines that get 18 mpg (anyone who claims otherwise is a liar)
I would venture out & say that most SUV drivers don't fit this mold. IMO, that's primarily the point. MOST (90%+) don't use it for any purposes even remotely close to this.
*cough* "LUXURY" SUVs? wtf?
Originally posted by badtz
I would venture out & say that most SUV drivers don't fit this mold. IMO, that's primarily the point. MOST (90%+) don't use it for any purposes even remotely close to this.
*cough* "LUXURY" SUVs? wtf?
Exactly. It's right up there with "Luxury wheelbarrow".
Originally posted by badtz
<<< --- works in Century City. Home of All the H2s
That's funny- we are doing almost the same commute, just in opposite directions.
Originally posted by tmp
That's funny- we are doing almost the same commute, just in opposite directions.
Interesting, I would LOVE to work in downtown and walk to work. Century City (no offense) is such a pit!
*generalizing* ... everyone around here, drives some luxury branded SUV.
In the afternoon (11am-3pm) it's mostly women, in an SUV, probably on the cell phone. (and BY HERSELF)
I walk about 5-10 minutes to work, and I've seen so many inconsiderate/overly aggressive drivers around these parts.
.... oh yeah, the drive from here to downtown during rush hour bites! Too bad there's no hope of the subway ever reaching here (thanks Beverly Hills!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
class envy? are you kidding?
OK, just plain envy then. It's OK to rag on SUVs because they're expensive, and clearly folks who drive them have "too much" money.
Claiming that SUVs are safer is ignorance. Claiming that endangering others in pursuit of illusory safety is justified is selfishness.
It has nothing to do with money.
Originally posted by finagain
Most of the SUV controversy stems from class envy,
Only in that class envy is probably the driving force behind their sales.
Insecurity about not looking as k3wl as the neighbors, not looking as affluent, not looking as 'big'.
Couple that with insecurity about safety and a purely psychological effect from being up high and thinking that heavier == safer, and voila.
Instant sales based on an utter lack of rational thinking.
And I own a Cherokee.