quote:
Blindy obviously shouldn't have said:
I drive a VW Golf Mk4, it's one of the safest cars on the road today.
Any car with a unibody (99% of all cars) will stand zero chance if a larger vehicle with a steel frame decides to run into you.
Regardless of what the VW corporation wants you to believe, something that is larger and weighs more then you will still take you out. If a truck of any reasonable size slammed into you, you would not fair well.
quote:
Blindy had this to say about John Romero:
I never set out to prove that they were dangerous to anyone besides the other party involved in the accident, if they were foolish enough to be driving the most common type of car on Americas roads. If you think otherwise you should re-read what I've said. I think you're confusing me with some other posters.
Then, in order to prove your thesis, you need to demonstrate that people should intentionally choose cars that endanger their passengers rather than choosing vehicles to make themselves and their families safe.
Otherwise, you're just whining because other people have better toys than you. If you want to be safer, then buy a safer vehicle; don't try to mandate that everyone else sink to your level.
Your logic, as always, isn't.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
Shall we decide this, then, on quality of employment, income, and overall knowledge of the subject at hand?You'd lose. On all counts.
You're the one insulting people's manhood based on their fucking car
quote:
Blindy spewed forth this undeniable truth:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/08/20/cx_da_0820suv.htmlIf you had taken 20 seconds to actually research what you were talking about, you probibly wouldn't have challenged me. I could keep going if you prefer.
God you are an arrogant little dumbass aren't you?
First of all, lets take your little googled information a bit. That is at first assuming that SUVs cause more accidents making them so much more dangerous. Dangerous by design does not equate dangerous in practice. It also ignores the fact that the vehicle that is dangerous in question, which is also clearly stated by the fact one of your articles points out that the passengers are less injured in the SUV that the Car, is in fact safer for it's own occupants.
Second read all your damn articles again, notice that it lists trucks as much (And in one article more often) than SUV's. It even lists MINIVAN's! As being more dangerous than a passenger car. Note, no where in there does it specifically finger Hummers, and does in fact point out a much LARGER variety of vehicles, coicidently debunking your OWN argument and biased hatred for the Hummer.
Lastly this also totally ignores the safety of all vehicles involved depending on who is involved. An Intrepid is more dangerous to your golf cart than another golf cart is. A light truck is more dangerous to an Intrepid. A Hummer is more dangerous to a Light Truck. An RV is more dangerous to a Hummer. That makes it all relative to the situation at hand. And OUT OF all of those comparisons, the Hummer is in the minority. Some vehicles are more dangerous to others IN THIER OWN FUCKING CATEGORY...
quote:
Kegwen's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
You're the one insulting people's manhood based on their fucking car
You should read the thread before being stupid--Blindy was the one saying the only people who drive SUVs are those compensating. I simply turned his idiotic argument against him.
Would you like to go away now, or continue to provide entertainment for the crowd?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Kegwen said:
You're the one insulting people's manhood based on their fucking car
He was attacking me dumbass, and I didn't attack his manhood based on his car. He also took it far more into the realm of personal that said attack.
So, not wise to come into an argument like this, make a snide remark totally irrelevant to anything going on, just so you can fit in and feel 
quote:
I like big butts and Bloodsage can not lie:Then, in order to prove your thesis, you need to demonstrate that people should intentionally choose cars that endanger their passengers rather than choosing vehicles to make themselves and their families safe.
Otherwise, you're just whining because other people have better toys than you. If you want to be safer, then buy a safer vehicle; don't try to mandate that everyone else sink to your level.
Your logic, as always, isn't.
My thesis is simply that large suvs are dangerous to the majority of cars on the road, and that is more than enough reason for me to dislike someone who choses to drive one for an impractical reason, the same way that I have cause to dislike someone who drives drunk. Concisely, they are, without cause or provocation, putting other people's lives in danger via their choices.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Blindy booooze lime pole over bench lick:
My thesis is simply that large suvs are dangerous to the majority of cars on the road
Your thesis is incorrect. A vehicle with more mass is not inherently more dangerous than a vehicle with average mass.
Mass is only one of two calculations involved in determining force of impact. The other is speed.
For example; An Escalade weighs ~5800 pounds with a top speed of 150Mph.
A Ferrari, on the other hand, weighs 3262 pounds with a top speed of ~260Mph
Well, you get the idea. I'm still at work and don't have time to do the math, but the ratio of weight to speed clearly makes the Ferrari and other sports cars FAR more dangerous, particularly since sports car drivers are dramatically more prone to speeding than SUV owners, and speeding actually increases the likelihood of a crash, whereas simply being large does not. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 08-30-2004 at 05:20 PM.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy who doth quote:
Google crash compatibility to find out why that has little to do with what we're talking about.
Crash compatiblity has little to do with what you're talking about, too. You're arguing that because of simple force of impact, an SUV is inherently more dangerous.
I'm arguing that, based on simple force of impact, sports cars are much more dangerous. When you figure in likelihood to crash, mass is a nominal factor compared to speed.
quote:
Naj probably says this to all the girls:
You guys can argue about anything, it's impressive.
*flips off Naj because she creates too much pollution and takes up two parking spots*
quote:
Get the soap! Maradon! just said:
Crash compatiblity has little to do with what you're talking about, too. You're arguing that because of simple force of impact, an SUV is inherently more dangerous.I'm arguing that, based on simple force of impact, sports cars are much more dangerous. When you figure in likelihood to crash, mass is a nominal factor compared to speed.
No I'm not.
Let me quote myself.
quote:
Man, who wouldn't want to be Blindy:
2) They endanger every other car on the road because of their enormous ride height and collosal weight.
quote:
Check out the big brains on Blindy:
When you have a car that weighs 4 times as much and stands with it's bumper 24 inches higher, as to completly miss the impact zone of your car and hit the middle of the hood or the pillars, that makes it dangerous to the drivers of the majority of cars on the road.
Also see the articles I posted 4th post from the bottom on page 4 of this thread.
The weight is part of it, but the fact that the SUV's ride so much higher as to completely bypass all forms of engineered protection featured on normal cars is the kicker. Blindy fucked around with this message on 08-30-2004 at 05:53 PM.
quote:
Blindy had this to say about Duck Tales:
The weight is part of it, but the fact that the SUV's ride so much higher as to completely bypass all forms of engineered protection featured on normal cars is the kicker.
What's normal anymore? I don't know about your area, but in mine a huge portion of people drive vehicles with a significant ground clearance. SUVs and trucks are extremely common, and probably make up close to the majority of vehicles on the road.
So when does something start becomming a "normal car"? Is it considered the smallest thing on the road? Soon enough, people in those "normal cars" will be in the minority.
It's a nice car. Model 94, white, and somewhat dirty since I haven't been to a carwash in a while.
And since Blindy here is always right about this sort of thing, I must have this car to have it act as a codpiece, an extra wang, or whathave you.
Obviously, of course, this car choice could not be because it was the easiest car for my mother (Who cannot drive anymore) to get in and out of, nor was it a choice to carry the wheelchair she sits in, nor the tanks of oxygen I have to lug around as well. It's just because I felt my penis was too small, and I had to have it.
GG blindy. You lost credibility with everyone on this argument. 
This is from the Bureau of transportation statistics.
Highway, total (registered vehicles)
235,331,381
Passenger Car (This would include all compact, midsize, full size, and pretty much everything else that is 4 wheels with a trunk)
137,633,467 (58%)
Other 2-axle 4-tire vehicle (This is where ALL SUVs, Trucks, and Vans (mini and full size) would go)
84,187,636 (36%)
As for sales figures
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/tabl e_01_19.html
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/tabl e_01_20.html
(Not sure why these are on different tables)
Total Automobile sales (in thousands)
Total 17,009
Compact 3,217 (19%)
Midsize 2,918 (17%)
Large SUV 861 (5%) Blindy fucked around with this message on 08-30-2004 at 06:58 PM.
Large Pickup 2,210 (13%)
quote:
Delphi Aegis likes to scream this out during sex:
I'd like to take this time to point out that I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee.It's a nice car. Model 94, white, and somewhat dirty since I haven't been to a carwash in a while.
And since Blindy here is always right about this sort of thing, I must have this car to have it act as a codpiece, an extra wang, or whathave you.
Obviously, of course, this car choice could not be because it was the easiest car for my mother (Who cannot drive anymore) to get in and out of, nor was it a choice to carry the wheelchair she sits in, nor the tanks of oxygen I have to lug around as well. It's just because I felt my penis was too small, and I had to have it.
GG blindy. You lost credibility with everyone on this argument.
If you had taken a moment to read what I've posted, I'm not against Cherokee's or mid to small size SUV's. I'm against huge, wasteful, there for no reason but show SUV's (and trucks to be honest).
How is that any better than the argument of, "People shouldn't get large vehicles, because they'll total my tin can"? Shouldn't collisions be avoided plain out, without the blaim and fault for them falling on a person because of their vehicle size?
The size of your ride is a matter of preference. Hell, I love driving my Metro. I love having a car that can fit in any parking spot, is the size of a large Harley, and that I can pick up and move on by my onesies. I also am in driving posession of a '75 Ford Ranchero, that several ton monster is a land yacht. I'm utterly safe in it (unless, you know, I run into a pole and the substandard seatbelts and lack of airbags get me) but I hate driving it. I know there are people that think just the opposite.
The real way to protect you and your family isn't to get an armored tank, but to be attentive and reactive enough to avoid getting in a collision. It's something I've learned by driving a Metro - a car that could be totalled by a misplaced tire - being that driving well is much better protection than a several ton monstrosity of steel. I feel safer driving my Metro by semis on the freeway than I do driving my Ranchero through town.
my apologies to Fae, I just wanted to see if mentioning someone's name in a post got any more attention than not.
22+ year old Jeep rescues Hummer H2 in parking lot.
The debate has become pretty heated. Let's try to consider all sides of the argument without getting caught up in emotions. Pathos is a powerful but overused method of argument. Rather, let's work on Ethos and Logos. The website can be a fairly good laugh if you give it a chance, validity aside.
I drive a 1990 Jeep Cherokee 4x4. There is a huge rivalry between the two car companies and I found humor in the website. I agree to a fair degree that the Cherokee is uncooperative in the handling department. I only own the car because it was already in the family and it was given to me until my insurance rates level out. To be honest, I felt that I had far more control and safety in my Miata because of its nimble nature. The only vehicles I feared were Semis and huge rolling blocks of steel. 
I can tell you countless stories of big trucks and SUVs backing into or cutting off compact cars causing accidents. Many of the cars have huge blind spots and their size can make lane shifting a bit hairy for others. It happens, it's a design problem. This doesn't mean that these cars are inherently bad, as some serve relatively important purposes.
I think both sides have valid points, but my only question is: What purpose does the Hummer serve that is not already met by a variety of different vehicle classes? If you can haul things or people in a truck or SUV, which most of us agree are safe for the occupants, why would one need a Hummer? Thus, it is my belief that the Hummer is overkill at best, but wasteful and potentially dangerous to others at worst.
Everything ever taught to you by Jim Bob of Billy Bob's Black Belt Emporium is a lie. Now, tie your obi UNDER the hakama and try again.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Naj:
Do you like pie sir?
Well, who doesn't?
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Vorbis said:
Why is it that Fae will argue that it's perfectly fine for an SUV (and other likewise large vehicles) to be huge and dangerous to smaller vehicles, because only an idiot would buy a small "speed bump"?How is that any better than the argument of, "People shouldn't get large vehicles, because they'll total my tin can"? Shouldn't collisions be avoided plain out, without the blaim and fault for them falling on a person because of their vehicle size?
The size of your ride is a matter of preference. Hell, I love driving my Metro. I love having a car that can fit in any parking spot, is the size of a large Harley, and that I can pick up and move on by my onesies. I also am in driving posession of a '75 Ford Ranchero, that several ton monster is a land yacht. I'm utterly safe in it (unless, you know, I run into a pole and the substandard seatbelts and lack of airbags get me) but I hate driving it. I know there are people that think just the opposite.
The real way to protect you and your family isn't to get an armored tank, but to be attentive and reactive enough to avoid getting in a collision. It's something I've learned by driving a Metro - a car that could be totalled by a misplaced tire - being that driving well is much better protection than a several ton monstrosity of steel. I feel safer driving my Metro by semis on the freeway than I do driving my Ranchero through town.
my apologies to Fae, I just wanted to see if mentioning someone's name in a post got any more attention than not.
At least if you are gonna name me, use the right argument. 
I argued it is pointless when pointing to any specific vehicle saying it is somehow worse than any other vehicle.
I haven't tried to argue to "Point the finger at the Compact owners!" I have argued that you can't just point the finger at Hummer owners based on Blindy's flawed logic on them being only trophy vehicles, and worthless for anything outside of that, that Jeeps were the ultimate offraoding vehicle, and other pointless stuff. In fact I didn't even BRING UP the Hummer vs Compact argument and people being stupid for driving a Compact verus a Hummer EXCEPT in direct relation to it being said if it wasn't for Hummers Car A is the safest option but the Hummer is a menace. In fact I even argued in there that just about ANY car would be a menace to a Compact car, including my Dodge Intrepid and that it was NOT something specific to SUV owners. I even pointed out more common vehicles than Hummers on the road, that can tear up a Hummer. 
In fact from waaayy back, you would see that we WERE arguing that it wasn't any specific vehicle at fault. That it wasn't the Hummer being an unltimate devil vehicle. Especially myself. As well as pointing out how ANY car can be at fault or responcible.
Before that the argument was on polutants and crap, and how the Hummer was the evil devil there too, again fingering a specific car that is far in the minority.
quote:
Ian Benjamin had this to say about Tron:
I think both sides have valid points, but my only question is: What purpose does the Hummer serve that is not already met by a variety of different vehicle classes? If you can haul things or people in a truck or SUV, which most of us agree are safe for the occupants, why would one need a Hummer? Thus, it is my belief that the Hummer is overkill at best, but wasteful and potentially dangerous to others at worst.
Except you do realize, the Hummer is actually smaller than quite a few Trucks and SUVs that are currently out there right? In length and Hieght.
The Hummers only real size, defining, trait is its wheel base which is wider. Which coincidently makes it safer than it's truck and SUV counterparts. It also has a lower center of gravity, and better handling. It also sits higher than SOME Trucks and SUVs but not all. The 3500 and 350 line, the most common hauling trucks and such, actually sit higher, and the Hummer still hauls better, climbs better, and navigates terrain better than they do. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 08-30-2004 at 09:08 PM.
quote:
When Faelynn LeAndris says stuff like this, it proves there isn't a god:
them being only trophy vehicles and worthless for anything outside of that
quote:
that Jeeps were the ultimate offraoding vehicle
quote:
In fact I even argued in there that just about ANY car would be a menace to a Compact car, including my Dodge Intrepid and that it was NOT something specific to SUV owners. I even pointed out more common vehicles than Hummers on the road, that can tear up a Hummer.
Compact cars are designed to take hits at bumper level or slightly above. Not at the B piller. Not on the hood. They are more than safe enough if you have an accient between a car and another car. It is specific to high riding large SUV's and giant trucks.
quote:
Blindy got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Fine then what would you call them.I just said they were the only "real SUV". That's far from calling them the "ultimate offraoding vehicle". I shuder to think about how a chevy trailblazer, or ford excursion, or escape, or honda element would actually do off road.
Compact cars are designed to take hits at bumper level or slightly above. Not at the B piller. Not on the hood. They are more than safe enough if you have an accient between a car and another car. It is specific to high riding large SUV's and giant trucks.
If you've spent anytime in flood areas, wash out areas, mired areas, or rough road areas, such as myself a many many many others. You could see it's benefits. It can haul as well as a Truck, carry as many as an SUV and has countless other uses that are completely and totally ignored. Some can be covered by other vehicles such as trucks and other SUVs, but then they are suffer from the same complications and problems to varying degress and in some cases worse, than the Hummer does. So that excludes them from acceptable vehicles for you as well. On top of that the Hummer does have features that those vehicles CAN'T handle. For one, and a good example to help out around here. I live in flood country, the roads wash out constantly, and they trap anything and everything under the size of a mid-size truck stranding hundreds of people for long durations of time, and trapping others in there homes unable to get to work and elsewhere. Where as with the Hummer, it has power to spare when it comes to treading high waters without slowdown. Due to its exhaust placement and engine design, it can tread water in excess of 5' and not stall. Something no other consumer vehicle can do. And this is a regular way of life out here. Just because you dont see, or wont accept the benefits it offers does not mean they aren't there. It just points out you don't know a whole lot about Hummers and just 'hate' them.
Jeeps are BARELY a real SUV, and the Cherokee sure as hell isn't. It's posh by comparison to real SUVs. A Jeep cannot handle a whole hell of a lot without being heavily modifed, and it is also a notorious death trap even OUTSIDE of Off-Road conditions, let alone ON Off-Road conditions. For one, a Trailblazer (And the Original Blazer) COULD outperform a stock Jeep, and had better control and were safer. The excursion has too low of a clearance to do much of anything, and is for all intents and purposes a land yacht. The 4x4 Durango is better than a Jeep, the Land Rover line SMEARS a Jeep. The Jeep is a popstar in appeal, but lacks any real depth. The Jeep, again, is BARELY an off-roader.Which again points out that you don't understand the argument you are making.
And trucks and SUVs are safe for thier purposes, and thier design, whats your point? So what you are saying is that nobody should drive a truck or SUV for ANY reason because they are dangerous to smaller cars. This doesn't even APPLY to Hummers or most SUVs as shown by your OWN POSTED SALES numbers that they are 3% of the Vehicles on the road. They are barely on the map! Yeah, I still say it's envy. In fact it reminds me of class envy arguments in EQ, CoH, or just about any game where there are inevitably some whiners who want thier Class (Car) to be able to do what another class is doing as well as they are, but doesn't want thier class to change. OMFORFOFLOL Hummers are Overpowered! Nerf Nerf!
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris's momma would never want to hear them say:
-Bunch of stuff about Jeeps and other SUV's-
Sorry, but this is all the exact opposite of what I have heard and seen first hand.
quote:
And trucks and SUVs are safe for thier purposes, and thier design, whats your point? So what you are saying is that nobody should drive a truck or SUV for ANY reason because they are dangerous to smaller cars. This doesn't even APPLY to Hummers or most SUVs as shown by your OWN POSTED SALES numbers that they are 3% of the Vehicles on the road. They are barely on the map!
How many times have I outright said it, and you still don't seem to comprehend. I'm done repeating myself. You can quote this.
quote:
My thesis is simply that large suvs are dangerous to the majority of cars on the road, and that is more than enough reason for me to dislike someone who choses to drive one for an impractical reason, the same way that I have cause to dislike someone who drives drunk. Concisely, they are, without cause or provocation, putting other people's lives in danger via their choices.
If you have a practical reason to own an SUV, then by all means, buy one. I can accept that some people need large vehicles for their line of work or for recreation and those vehicles represent a standard risk normal drivers run while driving on public roads. But If you are buying a large SUV or huge truck for show, to display your wealth, and have no pratical reason for owning it- well you're just needlessly endangering people.
And In my opinion, the Hummer is a rediculously huge, over priced, over marketed, under performing, and the poster child for everything that is wrong with people buying huge cars just for the hell of it.
And my posted sales figures show that 5% of sales in 2002 were large SUV's, that doesn't mean that 3% of the cars on the road are Large SUV's...
quote:
Yeah, I still say it's envy. In fact it reminds me of class envy arguments in EQ, CoH, or just about any game where there are inevitably some whiners who want thier Class (Car) to be able to do what another class is doing as well as they are, but doesn't want thier class to change. OMFORFOFLOL Hummers are Overpowered! Nerf Nerf!
People don't die because someone has a better class.
And by the way, I want a small, fun to drive, fast but pratical car, which is exactly what I bought. I in no way am desirous for a monsterous over priced land hog. Blindy fucked around with this message on 08-30-2004 at 09:53 PM.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about (_|_):
Except you do realize, the Hummer is actually smaller than quite a few Trucks and SUVs that are currently out there right? In length and Hieght.The Hummers only real size, defining, trait is its wheel base which is wider. Which coincidently makes it safer than it's truck and SUV counterparts. It also has a lower center of gravity, and better handling. It also sits higher than SOME Trucks and SUVs but not all. The 3500 and 350 line, the most common hauling trucks and such, actually sit higher, and the Hummer still hauls better, climbs better, and navigates terrain better than they do.
Right, I actually have seen several Hummers up close. Shared the road with one today as a matter of fact. But the problem, as I see it, is that few if any civilians ever use their Hummers to tow anything. If they bought a hummer because it tows better than ALL trucks (I'm sure we can make a list of trucks that haul better than the Hummer), then I would see that as a viable reason. But it would seem that the overwhelming majority of Hummer owners buy them because they can and it's different, not for utility purposes. It's not wrong to want uniqueness in a car, but I think in this case, it comes at a poor trade-off. Owning any "excessively" large vehicle without good reason, whether it be truck, SUV, or Hummer, seems like excess and inconsideration to me. Being very wide in body can cause problems as easily as in length, I would imagine.
I believe that the some SUVs are appropriate in length, while others less so. It's understandably hard to hit that sweet spot between big and too big sometimes. Likewise I think lifted trucks that never see dirt roads are rather pointless and prove to complicate city driving. For me, it comes down to function. Although the Hummer may handle better or arguably have better luck off-roading, I feel these are not the greatest factors in the prevention of most accidents. How many of us have started changing lanes on the highway only to find that another car was in our blind spot the whole time? Never happened in my miata, a few times in my Jeep, but I would need to sit in a Hummer to see how well the design avoids blinds in order to argue for or against its wide body design. I would wager the design yields a fair number of large blind spots, but that's to be determined.
Bottom line: I feel the non-work Hummer creates more potential problems, being a large vehicle like a truck or SUV, without providing the needed utility above and beyond said SUVs of trucks which have proven their worthwhile. Most trucks haul rather well as it is, and Hummers aren't replacing them at any great speed.
Everything ever taught to you by Jim Bob of Billy Bob's Black Belt Emporium is a lie. Now, tie your obi UNDER the hakama and try again.
quote:
How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
Actually, people have been saying that since at least the mid-'70s.Your argument also confuses supply with production, which is another thing altogether.
They have, yes. Though, some more liberal estimates put it about 2050. It's nothing apocalyptic, as some people would have you believe; just means we have to shift the weight off oil a bit, to get it to last. Taking the difference between supply and production into account; it would be production decreasing, demand increasing, and supply meeting demand until stockpiles aren't so large, then decreasing; which is why we could have hit it already and it won't have made any price differences. It depends on how much oil is economically viable to drill for, which depends not only upon the amount of oil, but the technology to get at it...the difference between 'resources' and 'reserves,' etc etc.
quote:
Blah blah blah Taylen blah blah blah...
Wait does that mean my '86 cavalier is dangerous because it isn't big?
No, it's dangerous because a paladin is named after it!
And they are ugly.
But.... whatever. I'll make my personal choice by getting a hybrid car if I can, but it's everyone individual choice.
quote:
We were all impressed when Blindy wrote:
My thesis is simply that large suvs are dangerous to the majority of cars on the road, and that is more than enough reason for me to dislike someone who choses to drive one for an impractical reason, the same way that I have cause to dislike someone who drives drunk. Concisely, they are, without cause or provocation, putting other people's lives in danger via their choices.
Your thesis is flawed. Cars don't drive themselves and put other people's lives in danger. People driving irresponsibly put other people's lives in danger. And your argument is faulty: comparing an SUV to a drunk driver is like comparing a box knife to a terrorist. The a drunk driver or a terrorist may use the tool to commit dangerous acts, but the tool is not a danger on it's own without a person using said tool in an irresponsible or dangerous manner.
The solution is ensuring we have responsible drivers on the road, not regulating what people drive. Vernaltemptress fucked around with this message on 08-31-2004 at 01:51 AM.
quote:
1) They get 15 MPG.
My box truck gets 5 MPG. Maybe 6 downhill with a tailwind.
quote:
2) They endanger every other car on the road because of their enormous ride height and collosal weight.
Fully loaded my box truck weighs 28,000 pounds. I can punt Hummers as easily as they punt the tin can econoboxes.
quote:
3) They aren't really that good at off roading. A 23,000 jeep cheroke (Jeeps being the only real SUV) would out mud it any day.
My box truck has more ground clearance than a H1 Hummer. It has 42" tires and dual rear wheels. With the weight it has no problem biting through to find traction. Wheelbase and departure angles can be a problem depnding on the terrain.
quote:
4) they cost 50,000 bucks, and are designed to be luxurious inside- too much money to be a working man's car or to buy for off roading, and too nice inside to be seriously used for the purpose it sacrifices so much efficency for.I don't hate hummers because they are wastes of resources, I hate them because they represent everything I hate about SUV's, but magnified and multiplied 10 fold into something so incredibly outragous it demands to be hated.[/QB]
Actually the majority are bought as company vehicles, simply because due to their weight they qualify for a tax credit ment for trucks like my box truck. You can claim a huge deduction off of the company's taxes by buying a Hummer instead of a smaller SUV for a company vehicle. The end result is that Hummer actually costs the business less than a $25,000 car would, so Doctors, Lawyers, and other highly paid professionals have started driving the ugly things. I don't hate them, and I don't hate GM for filling a niche when the auto industry in general is suffering.
I still flip them off though. 
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper had this to say about Pirotess:
How the hell do you afford 5 MPG?
Have a real Job that pays you better than ten fity an hour 
See My old man has one of those, that's why he can afford to have a big ass truck and a 29' foot boat that gets about 10 gpm, No I didn't screw up the rate just now.
My parents make 120k or so a year and still look for cars that get 25-40 MPG.
quote:
Vernaltemptress's opinion of themself must be pretty good:
Your thesis is flawed. Cars don't drive themselves and put other people's lives in danger. People driving irresponsibly put other people's lives in danger. And your argument is faulty: comparing an SUV to a drunk driver is like comparing a box knife to a terrorist. The a drunk driver or a terrorist may use the tool to commit dangerous acts, but the tool is not a danger on it's own without a person using said tool in an irresponsible or dangerous manner.The solution is ensuring we have responsible drivers on the road, not regulating what people drive.
I don't think anyone is calling for regulation here. And the very act of the large vehicle being driven makes the roads more dangerous- you don't have to have driven irresponsibly to be in an accident. If you're driving it with cause, so be it. If you're just showing off, then you're an asshole. that's my opinion, and regarduless of what any one says, it's not going to change.
quote:
Fizodeth wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
I refuse to exert the force necessary to raise my finger unless they are doing something stupid on the road.
Driving a Hummer is doing something stupid on the road.
lolololololololololololololol
quote:
This one time, at Blindy camp:
I don't think anyone is calling for regulation here. And the very act of the large vehicle being driven makes the roads more dangerous- you don't have to have driven irresponsibly to be in an accident. If you're driving it with cause, so be it. If you're just showing off, then you're an asshole. that's my opinion, and regarduless of what any one says, it's not going to change.
Then it's not an opinion, it's an irrational belief. Opinions change when data change.
Your argument is still illogical. SUVs endanger no one by their mere presence. They do protect their occupants. Unless you can demonstrate that the SUV drivers are the ones actually causing this death and mayhem you fear, you're whining about the wrong crowd. If some idiot in a matchbox car wants to cause an accident and die underneath my 20" tires, it's frankly not my problem.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
