1 Finish Profile

Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Locked

For an English Project, I have to do a survey, gathering YES / NO information from at least 100 people.

This is my question:

“Do you think that oversize cars, vans, SUVs and trucks for personal are necessary?”

Please answer only with YES or NO. Long explanations really don’t help me!

Thank you for helping me with this!

Topic

Yes – see reason please

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Most sedans and similar style cars are now designed for young trendies and are so low to the ground it is actually damaging to the back to get in and out. Only the SUVs and trucks are at the correct ergonomic height for safe entry and exit. Thus bad design of other models make them needed.

No

In reply to Yes – see reason please

No they are not, and if its just because they give you a bad back otherwise, god help us.

most cars are not ergonomically sound

In reply to No

If I can not buy a ergonomically sound sedan because the designers are making them to suit the wishes of idiotic wankers then you have to put up with people choosing to drive SUVs and light trucks instead of getting into badly designed cars. If the SUVs and light trucks were not available you would see an increase in the number of mini-buses and medium trucks as I would rather dribe them than gave to drive in an unsafe manner because the car was badly designed – which applies to the majority of sedans today.

Go Highlander

In reply to No

the Toyota Highlander SUV gets 30MPG.
And probably made in america.
they’ll overtake GM in next two years.

No. I ripped…

In reply to Yes – see reason please

…my pants getting up into one so they are not ergonomically designed for my fashion type, also, I tore my shirt once when I got out of one.

Are you a midget?

In reply to No. I ripped…

I could see that happening if you are a midget, then it wouild make sense for you to buy a normal sedan. More likely you were getting in and out of one of those units where they set the suspension at a ridiculous height and expect you to use the step (like a running board) to get in and out.

I can sympathise with your problem either way.

No, normal…

In reply to Are you a midget?

…size. I was wet after a fishing trip and my pants sagged a bit. I was also afraid of wetting the precious upholstery.
We have an advertisement on out TV here at the moment for a 4WD SUV. The “hero”, after rescuing a stranded calf from a mud/bog in torrential rain, hesitates to get back in the cab. He then proceeds to wash himself with soap in a creek before getting back in.
The advertising industry taking the piss out of their demographic I guess.

How is this thread relevant to IT

In reply to No. I ripped…

Some want to explain !!!!

You’re in the [i]Miscellaneous[/i] forum.

In reply to How is this thread relevant to IT

This forum is for anything and everything that fails to fit elsewhere.

Assuming your premise to be correct, …

In reply to Yes – see reason please

why should such be an overarching issue, of such magnitude that it supersedes all of those issues which argue against the mass use of such vehicles?

safety, health, consumer satisfaction

In reply to Assuming your premise to be correct, …

Being seated properly and comfortably means that I am more alert and in a better position to respond in an emergency than if my mind is distracted by a painful back, and my long term health etc. But more importantly the manufacturer’s should be reviewing the needs of all customers and making a range of cars to suit, not designing the majority around the needs of a small group and then forcing everyone to take that – people object to Bill Gates doing it so why should we accept it from Ford and Holden and co.

At present this is not so bad as the SUVs and light commercials offer an acceptable alternative, remove them and many people are reduced to buying bigger vehicles like vans and trucks.

Better for you; but, within the context of the question posed, …

In reply to safety, health, consumer satisfaction

i.e. for the masses, based on my daily observations on I-95, I-295, I-76, I-476, PA/NJ Turnpikes, etal., I maintain that the vast majority of those who drive SUVs neither evidence a need for nor know how to drive such.

As such, they pose a persistent clear and present danger to themselves and others with whom they, in name only, “share” the highways.

Is in context – driver is a problem

In reply to Better for you; but, within the context of the question posed, …

My first answer is within context in that it ascribed a need – further responses elaborated on that and responded to additional comments.

The way people driver education and enforcement issue, not a vehicle design or use issue.

The main point of my post is that the tendency of sedan designers to lower the ground clearance and seat heights to make their cars more like race cars etc is forcing many people away from normal sedan types and their next alternative is the SUV, if you remove those then they will only go for other vehicles that are bigger again (eg delivery vans and the like) as the low slung shit is no good for them.

Most do not buy SUVs for the reason you state.

In reply to Is in context – driver is a problem

Ergonomics is one of the least considered factors considered by the average buyer.

Furthermore, most SUVs require that one CLIMB UP to enter, and DOWN to exit. This is ergonomically desirable?

good and bad points

In reply to Most do not buy SUVs for the reason you state.

Correct not all buy due to ergonomics, but I am willing to bet the ease of entry/exit and sitting comfort (ie ergonomics) is a bigger consideration with many more than you realise.

Things may be different in the good old US of A where everything has to be bigger than the rest of the world; but downunder in Australia 95% of the SUVs available do not require you to climb up into them, and most of those that require you to climb up have specially requested boosted suspension. Most have the seats at normal adult arse level, unlike the sedans that have the seats at, or below, knee cap level and require you to drop down into them and climb up out of them..

Here in the US an SUV is mostly a status symbol.

In reply to Most do not buy SUVs for the reason you state.

It amusses me to observe, during my visits to central Pennsylvania, where I grew up, where the winters frequently make 4-wheel drive useful, a dearth of SUVs.

Some Big families can’t even fit in a Mini Van.

In reply to Yes – see reason please

Also, size of people make a difference. 6’8″ nephew can’t fit in mini anything. Neither does the 6’6″ brother or 6’7″ nephew. When we put family in vehicles they need to be large.

The exception does not disprove the generality.

In reply to Some Big families can’t even fit in a Mini Van.

…

YES – To Big Trucks and SUVs

In reply to Yes – see reason please

I own a SUV and it is the best vehicle for the snow and ice in New England that I have owned. If the big trucks were gone, most of the goods that you find in the grocery store would not be there. Imagine trying to feed the people in a big city without trucks to bring the food in.
WAKE UP

Not semi trucks

In reply to YES – To Big Trucks and SUVs

I don’t think he meant that kind of big truck.

As for the original question, SUV’s and big trucks have a place and purpose, but I don’t think everyone should be driving one around.

Well, in the northern Appachians, with just as much snow as you see, …

In reply to YES – To Big Trucks and SUVs

we did, and still do, get along just fine without SUVs.

And they call us dumb hicks?

Yes

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Many arguments both for and against, but at the end of the day I’d say yes.

Necessary for whom

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I know many tradespeople for whom a big pickup or fullsize work van is necessary. I know people who tow trailers, for whom a big truck or SUV is a reasonable choice – but towing travel trailers for most people is a choice not a necessity.

I do think there are a lot of trucks and SUVs on the highway that carry one person and perhaps a briefcase back and forth to the office. Many never tow anything, or ever get taken off road or used anywhere near their potential. For those people its a luxury, not a necessity.

I drive a large car, instead of a mini van or SUV, despite the fact I have 3 kids. Its in convenient sometimes but we get by. In my parents day, with 5 kids, they only drove full size cars.

So the answer to your question depends on who you are asking about – necessary for myself, no. Necessary for some people, yes. Necessary for all the people who drive them? No.

James

Luxury

In reply to Necessary for whom

If you can’t buy the things you want, you might as well get a $7.00 per hour job and save yourself the stress.

One persons “luxury” is another’s bane.

In reply to Luxury

Every day I observe far too many drivers of SUVs, who neither evidence any need for them nor even know how to handle them, causing risk of harm to many others on I-95.

These greatly outnumber those who know how to drive them.

Yes

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Try moving three kids into college in a Ford Escort.

No. Just as a matter of interest

In reply to Yes

How many times a year do you do that?

Reminds me of a show I saw this weekend

In reply to No. Just as a matter of interest

It was an episode of Marketplace, a Canadian consumer affairs show, and it focused on buying used cars. It had two experts, one a used car salesman, the other a automotive consumers rights advocate, work with one couple and a single person to help them learn the ins and outs.

The couple, in their late 30s or early 40s, have lived in Toronto all their lives and never owned a car. They don’t need or want to drive to work, the live and work close to good transit. They only intend to use the car on weekends.

For them, owning a car is not a necessity. For them, I would strongly suggest they do a cost comparison with renting a car. In a city like Toronto, the payments on a 10,000 used car(what they were looking for) and the insurance(Toronto is very expensive place for insurance) will easily run over 400$ Canadian. You can rent a brand new Corolla for $35 a day.

If you need a car to get groceries once a week – use cabs.

I drive 40 kms each way to work every day, and it does work out to be slightly cheaper than using transit – I live in the suburbs where housing costs are cheaper. But when I lived in Toronto I didn’t own a car until I got a job in the burbs.

James

Six

In reply to No. Just as a matter of interest

In a truck that is. I’d have to make at least 12 trips if I had a small car.

YES – because

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

1) live in Michigan and good for the economy to pay us to build them.

2) try pulling your boat or camper with your hybrid car.

3) ever try having sex in the back of a hybrid?

4) families traveling. The closer the kids are the more they pick at each other.

5) need to have room for the dog. Ever take a Black Lab in your hybrid car with your family to go camping?

YES

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

In rural areas they are, in Cities they are not.

Funny

In reply to YES

On a working farm, trucks are needed. Can’t say the same for an SUV.

I’ve spent time in rural areas in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta. I swear I see more trucks per capita in the city. And SUVs are more common in the city for sure.

Most people in the country don’t have 4 wheel drive, but they manage in the snow without a massive SUV.

James

SUV = Status

In reply to Funny

It is becoming more of a status symbol than a necessity.

If you look at the average “suv”, they aren’t. They don’t have the power or clearance to do anything but suck down more gas than the two wheel drive version.

There are places where you NEED 4 wheel drive in Michigan. Snowmobiles are NOT optional either.

I always laugh to see the Hummer2’s and Cadillac SUV’s on the highway and city. People with LOTS of disposable income.

With gas going over $2.00 a gallon and those things getting 15mpg………

In reply to SUV = Status

How long will it be before the “status” starts to lose its charm and becomes a symbol for stupidity.

Dawg

Likely a very long time!

In reply to With gas going over $2.00 a gallon and those things getting 15mpg………

Gas over here is ?0.82/litre or $5.55/Gallon (both US) and it is NEVER going to go down.

The number of people driving 4WD (SUVs) or other huge “people-carriers” is still increasing.

And that’s on UK roads!

We haven’t got many pick-up trucks on our roads yet but I’m beginning to notice a few.

Brrrrrr!

Neil

🙁

Land of the Free

In reply to With gas going over $2.00 a gallon and those things getting 15mpg………

We are free to choose whatever we like. Our choices are influenced by our preferences, if we prefer to drive around with a bus or large truck and are willing to pay the cost, so be it. But we should also keep in mind that the cost ist not only the price of the vehicle, insurance and gas.
If the gas would be at $5.- a galon, like in Europe, our preferences might be different and we might choose the little european cars.
What other reason should there be that there are only a few SUVs and Trucks in Europe and so many over here?

And home of the stupid.

In reply to Land of the Free

…

now…

In reply to With gas going over $2.00 a gallon and those things getting 15mpg………

…

“Needing” four wheel drive

In reply to SUV = Status

I used to have staff in Northern Ontario, in an area quite similar to Northern Michigan. Extended periods of time at close to 40 below, times when the plows were infrequent even on the main roads etc.

I didn’t see that many 4x4s. I did see a lot of snow tires. 4×4 aids traction – but in many cases, so does slowing down. Snow tires provide a big improvement, and so does front wheel drive, over a rear wheel drive car with all seasons. Traction control also provides some assistance, especially at stop lights.

There may be a few souls in the north who have to be somewhere regardless of the weather, and there are times when they need a 4×4. But most of the people up there manage without it.

The big joke is that when we do get a big snow storm in Toronto and area, the first vehicles that we see stuck in the ditch are SUVs. They may have more traction, but they don’t handle as well and they take longer to stop. In an emergency situation that may be the difference between being in an accident, and avoiding one.

James

Defective people no SUV’s

In reply to “Needing” four wheel drive

When you get some dumbass thinking because they have 4 wheel drive that they can drive like normal in a storm you get that. And yes, I see the same thing.

FACT, one of the HIGHEST domographs for getting into accedents these days in the middle to upper class WOMAN in her SUV. As these women have busy lives and get they easy life (sarcastic) of playing house keeper, day care provider and full time driver they tend to be in more of a rush.

Then don’t even get me started about doing your make-up on the highway!

Every day, on I-95, I see idiots in SUVs, …

In reply to Defective people no SUV’s

who are totally clueless as to how to drive them.

They frequently are the cause of many accidents and near ones.

In the winter, the medial strips and burms are literred with them.

Saw documentary

In reply to Every day, on I-95, I see idiots in SUVs, …

On SUVs and accident rates.

The one incident that happens alot and causes accidents is the over correction accident. An SUV driver will find themselves hitting the rumble strip or the soft shoulder, panic and over correct, sending them too far into the next lane. They realize they have gone too far and over correct back, onto the shoulder. In a vehicle with a high centre of gravity, if you do too much side to side rocking, you can tip, especially if two wheels slide down a soft shoulder. Cars don’t have better drivers, they are just less likely to tip in this situation.

The other reason is over confidence. Many people with SUVs don’t feel the need to lower their speed in bad conditions. They don’t realise that ice and snow and rain lengthen an already long stopping distance – exponentially. Four wheel drive helps you accelerate, not decellerate.

James

James

Most SUV drivers operate at one of two extremes.

In reply to Every day, on I-95, I see idiots in SUVs, …

They are either, as you noted, overly confident of both the vehicle and their driving skills, or they find themselves so intimidated by the vehicle that they become exceesively timorous, thus causing much frustration to the drivers of the surrounding vehicles.

Both cases result in an increased risk of accidents.

I agree

In reply to SUV = Status

I live in “The O.C.” and it is definately a status symbol here. Nothing but broads yacking on cellphones in their land barges cutting off everyone one and leaving paths of chaos/destruction…. nevermind the fuel consumption.

Very True

In reply to Funny

I saw more bigger SUV’s and trucks in the city that people used to drive to work everyday, and now since I moved to a smaller town, the farmers and people that lived in the country drive cars back and forth between the farm and town, and use trucks on the farm.

Yes, to fill specific purposes. No, if it’s only for personal transport.

In reply to YES

Pick-ups for work related stuff are okay. SUV’s are also good for moving people around in rough country but to use them just for hauling your butt to the office, get a motorcycle. They get through traffic faster, pollute less and are more economical, although they are a bitch to ride in winter.

Dawg

A bitch to be in an accident in too..

In reply to Yes, to fill specific purposes. No, if it’s only for personal transport.

SUV’s are safer than smaller cars, also since I live only a very short distance from the office I don’t feel too bad about driving a big car there. I’ll bike in sometimes too.

I need a big car for off work tasks like hauling displays to talks. I keep my gardening gear in it and it is a great place to relax at lunch time. No my company does not provide a lounge where you could crash out, only a lunchroom.

I don’t bitch about high gas prices, as the other people pointed out, they are 3x as hi in Europe. And will only go higher. $6/gal in US soon. It is inevitable, as 1 billion Indians and 1 billion Chinese all want to use lots of energy and cars. The Chinese are investing heavily in Canada’s tar sands. Most major oil supplier countries lie about reserves as their share to pump out of ground and sell is based on reserve sizes they declare.

I make other lifestyle choices to reduce my pollution. I agree we need to find alternate energy sources for them.

And face it, how many guys drive those big huge gas guzzling pickups because they are cool? They would feel inadequate if they showed up in a shoebox 3 cylinder fiesta or something. They are great for weekend use for hauling recreation gear.

I think those hybrid cars are neat but they cost more, and are too small for me.

I’ve now found that the Los Angeles area trains are really great. On weekends we drive to Long Beach and take the train from there all over LA to see the sights, alot cheaper, safer and less energy than driving there ourselves.

What we need to do in US is more mass transit other than buses. It is more expensive but consumers like it and use it alot more than busses.

Its a myth that SUV are safer

In reply to A bitch to be in an accident in too..

In many types of crashes SUVs do absorb impact better than small cars. Trouble is that SUVs are also much more likely to rollover.

SUVs are more likely to hurt the “other” driver – if two cars hit, its much less likely to kills someone than if a car and an SUV impact – its both the mass of the SUV and the height differential that do it. SUVs weight much more than cars, making stopping distances proportionately longer. SUVs also block the vision of other drivers.

Newer smaller cars, especially those with side curtain airbags, are safer in most crashes than older SUVs.

Dedicated eletric streetcar right of ways are 1/10 the cost of subways but faster and less polluting than buses. I used San Diego’s to go to Tijuana – very convenient.

James
James

Yes the TJ trolley is nice

In reply to Its a myth that SUV are safer

Not sure I’d call it a street car as for most of the run isn’t it off the streets? I know they intersect streets in portions on the LA Blue line.

I guess Light Rail is the proper term.

We camped out in Santee, east of SD (last stop) and took trolley into towne then to Mex border and walked across. Real glad we did despite the beggars, it was fun. All day pass for a couple bucks.

And we saw the lines for inspection of cars coming back into states and was real glad took the train. The only time we were slightly bothered was a noisey drunk on the train. And at the next stop an undercover cop whisked him off quietly.

Subway was a generic term. In portions they have to be underground, but large portions are above ground and of course that’s way cheaper.

I used to think they should buy fleets of new busses for the cost of light rail but operating costs are way lower and people use them alot more than busses as they like ’em better.

The short car thing goes both ways, small cars are harder to see so less visible.

And I think in general people take anger out on SUVs but in a generic sense of gas mileage that includes large vans, luxury cars that are also big and heavy. Large cars ARE safer according to consumer reports. Best crash car a few years ago was a Volvo and then a humongous Lincoln town car.

Semi trucks block vision too but we don’t ban them. Like big cars they serve a purpose. And luxury cars have larger heavy duty (and better disk) brakes usually so they don’t take proportionally longer to stop compared to the increase in weight.

Funny Though….

In reply to Its a myth that SUV are safer

How people say that SUV’s are safer, but their insurance is higher?? At least that’s the case around here.

probably because

In reply to Funny Though….

they are bigger with more parts and cost more to fix if they get in an accident.

or maybe people who drive them are more reckless overall 🙂

plus they’ve gotten rid of the 5mph bumpers,
and the tires on back door make any slow rear end accident VERY expensive to fix as the spare tire pushes in the back door, not the bumper.

Yes

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Considering I’m pregnant with my husband’s and my 5th child, 7 seats are very necessary.

Trucks are awfully handy when you’re moving a friend’s furniture.

SUV’s are good for pulling stuff… but too many people who don’t have anything to pull, and don’t need 4 wheel drive, have them just as a status symbol.

Alternatives

In reply to Yes

Minivans are much more fuel efficient and can handle 7 passengers.

Trucks can be rented. I see a lot of trucks running around with one passenger and no cargo. Thats a waste. When I renovated my bathroom, I rented a full size cargo van for $20 for 90 minutes. I’ve always rented for moves.

James

SUV’s are against my religion…

In reply to Alternatives

My family getting an SUV is akin to cruelty to animals as far as I’m concerned… I always feel so bad for those SUVs that are designed to handle so much MORE than hauling the kids to soccer practice… I keep thinking, “Come on, at least take it up on the sidewalk! It NEEDS to go offroad!”

It’d be a minivan for us… the status symbol of the 80’s… maybe we’re just behind the times.

What you need is

In reply to SUV’s are against my religion…

A nice station wagon. Don’t forget the wood pannels on the sides!

I like my Concorde, actually. Gives lots of foot space, a big trunk and 29 to 32 mpg depending on how hard I get up on it. Not bad for a full size car. Lots better than the 12 mpg I get with my truck.

Five kids huh? I think I would learn quickly why animals eat their young if I had that many….

But then, everyone is different. Congrats on the new one! Happy and healthy!

Or

In reply to Alternatives

A 4 x 8 trailer that I can pull with my Olds, and stores nicely behind my garage.

No

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

If your only choices are yes or no then I would say no. Many of us often drive by ourselves or with few passengers and maybe a briefcase or some grocery bags. Unless you absolutely must tow something or carry a lot of material of any sort, there is really no reason to drive big trucks or SUVs.

Yes, if NEEDED.

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I NEED a 4X4 for access to some jobsites.

And sometimes. . . .

In reply to Yes, if NEEDED.

.
…I feel that I might NEED a 2×4 for access to someone’s brain.

What are you saying?

In reply to And sometimes. . . .

:p

No

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

No, large SUV’s and trucks are not “necessary”

The choice of driving a SUV or large pickup is a personal choice. Less than 5% of the people who own these vehicles “need” them.

Even among those who have a reason for a SUV or full size pickup for towing or hauling, they make use of the heavy duty features so seldom that it would make more sense to rent a large vehicle when they need it.

Chas

Please cite your sources – and define. . .

In reply to No

.
When you said, “Less than 5% of the people who own these vehicles need them”, will you please explain either how you arrived at that specific conclusion and what particular statistics you used, or what source you used to cite it?

Moreover, will you please define “need”?

Need of Large vehicles

In reply to Please cite your sources – and define. . .

Max,

My 5% figure is derived from my observations of commuters around the area where I live and work.

Who “needs” a pickup truck:

Construction workers who need to haul tools and materials.

Farmers who needs to haul supplies and equipment.

A home-owner who is actively remodeling or building their home.

My point is that if you use a pickup to haul materials of pull a trailer less than once a month, you don’t “need” a truck.
You would be better off financially having a “reasonable” sized vehicle and renting a truck when needed.

Any SUV is even harder to “justify” an actual “need” for.
A SUV is nothing more than a mini-van on steroids.

Even for those who own a SUV so they can tow the boat on vacation, if they tow the boat less than once a month, they would be better off renting a SUV for vacations.

My point is that for the VAST majority of people who own either a pickup or SUV, the choice was based on desire not need.

The US is past due for a cultural shift where large vehicles and high powered engines are frowned upon by society rather than worshiped.

Chas

As to those who choose a SUV to haul people or computers, a mini-van can haul as many people and as much computer equipment as all but the largest SUV.

A SUV is a personal life-style choice not a needed item.

Chas

Needs and Choices

In reply to Need of Large vehicles

.
How can you possibly justify defining what another person’s needs are? Why shouldn’t they respond to you the same way you responded to me when I suggested that you don’t “need” a bicycle? Who the hell am I to suggest what you may or may not need? Conversely, who are you to suggest what another person may or may not need? Who elected you (or anyone) the referee of needs? How can anyone be so presumptuous to suggest another person doesn’t “need” something that he has? I might be able to say that I don’t “need” this widget that I just bought, but how can anyone else suggest such a thing?

As far as wanting to interfere with their “life-style choices”, what other individual “choices” do you presume to be able to make better? And how about other people making your personal choices for you?

I just can’t relate to such a thought process, especially in a context such as this.

Respectfully

In reply to Needs and Choices

Max,

Respectfully, one of us is not understanding the original question.

As I read it, the question asks are large SUVs and pickup trucks necessary for personal use.

The simple answer to that is no.

Are they desirable to some people, and should they be available to those who desire them?
To that question, the answer is yes.

The “need” for SUVs and large pickups is a fabrication of advertising and peer pressure. If people made a detailed analysis of their actual vehicle needs, the SUV and pickup market would dry up overnight.

Perhaps my opinion is tainted by being too close to the automotive industry. When I talk with people who just bought a new vehicle, especially a large one, the choice almost always was driven by emotion and desire. Little if any thought enters the process.

It is their right to buy what they want and can afford.

Do I think it is dumb to spend many thousands of dollars extra and $10 to $20 more per week in fuel just so you can avoid an occasional $10 delivery fee?
Yes I do.

Do people have the right to do stupid things with their money?
Yes again.

Yes, I believe that SUVs and large pickup trucks are not necessary for personal use.

What I would like / hope to see is people start to review and weigh their needs and desires when purchasing a vehicle.

I agree that we should not legislate or make the final choice for others.
However, if no one voices the negative aspects of SUVs, we are not apt to bring about a change to the present paradigm that drives the perceived need for them.

Chas

An answer and a tangent

In reply to Respectfully

.
I think I understood the original question perfectly. Here’s how I answered it:

——————–

It’s dangerous territory on which to tread when people presume to define what may or may not be “necessary” for someone else, especially personal property.

But keeping in the spirit of your English project, I would have to answer yes. After all, if a person didn’t consider it “necessary”, he or she wouldn’t have acquired it in the first place. And who am I to define what his or her “necessities” should be?

——————–

And then the tangents began.

I don’t believe that a simple yes or no answer is possible without considering the premise of the question — especially if you disagree with the premise. And if you answer no, your premise is built on the assumption that one person is justified in defining and determining the “needs” of another person — a premise with which I wholly disagree.

These leading questions, or ones that presuppose something, are asked all the time. In the case of politicians or political activists asking them, they are no more than traps designed to sway public opinion. In the case of many individuals asking them, they are probably not very well thought out, or they are really a predetermined conclusion in search for justification, or they lack a basis in core principles.

To illustrate my point, let me rephrase the question. How should someone answer the question, “What does Chas need”? (Chas, Maxwell, John, Mary, or anyone else.)

Well who am I do even suggest what you, or anyone else, may or may not need? Need for what? I tried to show how misguided that notion is by my satirical message on “not needing” a bicycle. Of course a person doesn’t “need” an SUV to survive; a person doesn’t “need” a bicycle to survive; and short of air, water, food, and warmth, a person doesn’t really “need” a dang thing. Everything beyond that is subjective at best. And when one person starts to presuppose that he is justified in defining someone else’s needs, like I said, we’re treading on dangerous territory. And whether it’s for the purpose of legislation or to engage in simple discussion, we should at least recognize the premise on which the question is based.

Let me ask you this. Do you think one person is justified in defining the needs of another? Based on your previous messages, I would have to guess that you’d answer yes. And if so, on what authority do you make such a presumption? And where does it stop?

Seriously

In reply to An answer and a tangent

Max,

With all due respect, I think you are taking this specific question far too seriously.

In answer to your primary question, NO, no one can define another’s need.

However, one is free to question what another thinks they need, and why they think that they need it.

I look at the original question as part of a healthy discourse in the effort to change the paradigm that a SUV is a good choice of vehicle for everyday personal use.

I admit that I would like to see SUV production come to an end.

That does not mean that I think we should ban them.

I want people to take an objective look at their choice of vehicle. To look at just how much more they are spending for the perceived benefits of a SUV. To even consider the impact of their choice on the planet.

I would even go so far as to say that the average SUV buyer is guilty of at least 2 of the 7 “deadly sins”. Lust and Gluttony.

Lust comes in play when part of the decision is based on keeping up with the “Jones”.

Gluttony comes from the fact that a SUV (as normally used) uses a significantly larger share of the earths resources than is necessary.

Even considering that my father and father-in-law, both of whom I respect, own SUVs, I think that at least 95% of the people who own SUVs are selfish morons. At least in their choice of vehicle.

My first thought when I see someone commuting alone in a SUV, is “there goes someone with more money than brains”.

My second thought is how can I take advantage of that.

My third thought is the realization that I could not sleep at night knowing I was taking money from people who are gullible.

So, there is my rant against SUVs for this thread.

May each SUV go quietly to the crusher and become the 3 reasonable sized vehicles it was meant to be.

I did think of 1 small positive attribute of the SUV. Without the SUV, the big 3 automakers, and along with them Detroit and Michigan, would be bankrupt.

Chas

Chas – Actually, you’re not taking it seriously enough

In reply to An answer and a tangent

.
Consider this. The question was conceived by an English teacher. So it becomes clear that we have a teacher instilling such thoughts into the heads of his or her students. There’s a political agenda behind the question, it’s based on a foregone conclusion in search of support or justification, and I believe we both know it. Moreover, at the risk of being redundant, we have one citizen attempting to determine whether or not another citizen needs the property he or she has acquired. If the mere thought of such a thing doesn’t repulse you, then we are indeed operating from totally different mind-sets. I can’t even imaging such a thing.

We have one citizen trying to tell another that he doesn’t need an SUV…..theater popcorn…..fast food…..sporting event tickets…..cell phones…..the school of choice for his children…..the bigger house…..and on it goes.

As each year goes by, more and more individual liberties are trampled upon; and as each year goes by, less and less emphasis is placed on the value of protecting individual liberties.

If you’re not concerned about these things, and especially the mind-sets that advance such thoughts, you’re losing your country right out from under you and you don’t even recognize it. Of course, I believe you’ve bought into all the rhetoric that’s taking away individual liberties.

Are your opinions based on the concepts of individual liberties or the common good? Mine are all based on the former; yours, I would presume, are based on the latter. However, I believe that protecting individual liberties is what’s ultimately best for the common good. How can a collectivist-type thinker possibly say the same thing?

Question: Do you think that ____________________ (fill in the blank) for personal use are (is) necessary?

It’s the thought process behind the question that scares the heck out of me. And to think that our teachers are instilling such a though process into our students scares me even more. And it should scare you too.

My Line

In reply to An answer and a tangent

Max,

Are you afraid of discourse?

I admit, it would help us both if we knew more about the assignment.

My children had a very positive experience with the local public school system. I have so much faith and trust in the teachers my children had that I would not be concerned about any question or subject they were asked to research.

My line on personal freedom versus public good is when someone’s freedom costs me money out of my pocket and / or impacts my health and safety.

SUVs and large pickups impact all 3!

Money: It would be very difficult to find facts to support my presumptions here.
Anyhow.
At the present pump price of $2.39 per gallon, I suggest that it is reasonable to assume that 25 cents of each gallon of gas comes from the increased demand caused by over sized and over-powered vehicles.
Assume that $100 of my semi-annual car insurance is from the increased cost of repairing damage from SUV related accidents. (Michigan is a no-fault state, so we all share in increased costs from higher claims.)

Further, since 2 SUVs take up as much space on the road as 3 compact cars, add in some cost for traffic congestion and delays.

Health: Any way you look at, a larger vehicle produces more pollution. Both in production and operation. Which at a minimum impacts my length and quality of life.

Safety: Any SUV, especially when driven by someone on a cell phone, is a risk to every other person on the road or sidewalk.
Don’t neglect the “perceived” safety factor of a SUV.
Drivers who perceive their vehicle as being “safer” for them take more risks and drive more aggressively than they otherwise would.

(For proof of the above, research what happened when anti-lock brakes first became standard. Rear end collisions climbed dramatically because drivers assumed that they no longer needed a safety gap since anti-lock brakes would stop the car quicker.)

How much should we have to pay out of our pockets to support someone’s choice?

If it is acceptable to pay increased costs to support a persons choice to drive a SUV, why is it not acceptable for your tax dollars to support someone who can achieve a better quality of life on welfare than from working?

Chas

Chas – I Welcome Discourse

In reply to An answer and a tangent

.
Of course not; I’m not afraid of discourse at all. But I want honest, open and FULL discourse, something I actually believe others are afraid of.

For example (not to go off on another unrelated tangent), I believe it is extremely evasive to talk about funding ANY government transfer of wealth social programs without first setting the premise that it’s tantamount to taking the personal property of the citizen who earned it, for the sole purpose of giving it to another who did not. Let’s talk about what it is we’re really doing here before we start arguing about the particular merits of the program. (By the way, I’ve never seen anyone in these threads concede that it’s proper for a government, especially the US government, to take the personal property of the citizen who earned it, for the sole purpose of giving it to another who did not.)

And all this SUV nonsense is the same thing. Before you can suggest that a person doesn’t “need” one, or need anything else, for that matter, you have to first establish the authority to make such a determination.

As far as your whole argument on SUVs costing other people money, well, you said it yourself. You said, “It would be very difficult to find facts to support (your) presumptions.” But then you go ahead and base your entire argument on those presumptions, not facts, and they simply won’t hold up under even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Here’s a real fact for you. Compared to the rate of inflation, and to almost all other consumer goods (excluding technology-type goods), gasoline is cheaper today than it was in 1975 — at the height of the gasoline shortage. (Remember those long lines and gasoline rationing by most stations?) The increased cost of gasoline has simply not kept pace with inflation. In fact, the cost of a gallon of milk has increased more than the cost of a gallon of gasoline. (And let’s not even talk about the cost of a gallon of bottled water!) And if we could make a wager on these threads, I’d bet $1,000 that I could easily prove it.

Here’s another fact. The primary reasons for increased demand on the world-wide supply of crude oil are twofold, neither one being SUVs. One is tied to political strife around the globe, including in the Middle East, Africa and South America, and current production is being disrupted and/or future production targets are becoming threatened. And the second is China’s increased demand for crude. It’s absolutely incredible the way China has increased its demand for oil. In fact, a few short decades ago, China was not a major oil consumer at all. Now they’re number two behind the USA — and at their current rate of increased demand, they will soon be number one.

On higher insurance costs, your health comments, and congestion assertions? Well, again we are going to have to look at the premise of your arguments and make sure we discuss “only the facts”, not presumptions. For example, the premise of no-fault insurance is flawed. In fact, the whole insurance industry is flawed. But lets save those things for another day.

And on your public school comments, let’s save those, as well, for another discussion. I’m sure we could go on and on about that. Besides, most public (and private) school teachers and administrators are among, what I could easily call, the NPR crowd – a crowd you rub philosophical elbows with quite frequently. (On a side note, my son’s civics teacher, actually used the words freedom FROM religion when discussing the first amendment to the constitution. There’s simply no escaping it – the NPR crowd, I mean.)

By the way, and for the record, I am certainly on the “alternative fuel” bandwagon. But I don’t need false presumptions and scare tactics to support my position. I want to reduce the US trade deficit. I want to reduce, or eliminate, our dependence on foreign oil. I want to become an energy independent nation. And I simply want to tell the middle east thugs to take their oil and shove it up their tail-pipe. But I don’t need to demonize SUV owners to do it.

Chas, by the way – What would be more effective?

In reply to An answer and a tangent

.
Chas, my guess is that we really want the same thing, but we only have a different way of looking at it and/or different methods of hoping to achieve it.

If the goal were to reduce both automobile emissions and our dependence on foreign oil, what would be a more effective way of achieving that?

1. Demonize SUV users as oil-hogging polluters, and try to implement even more controls and regulation on the auto industry and/or on personal use.

OR

2. Issue a bold national challenge, with a deadline — not unlike President Kennedy’s challenge to send a man to the moon — and complete with tax incentives, to transform our automobile industry into one that can economically and effectively create and produce alternative fuel source automobiles for personal use — including trucks and SUVs if there’s a market for them. This would be an absolute HUGE boost to the economy, as investment dollars would literally pour into the efforts like an Oklahoma oil gusher, and jobs would be available for anybody who wanted one. And to become less dependent on foreign oil would not only reduce, if not eliminate, our current trade deficit, but would also be extremely helpful to ensure national security, as oil wouldn’t be as big a factor as it is now. Not to mention the national pride that could also be a driving force, it would be easy to get people to buy-into the idea. (And don’t retort with the “Bush is an oil-man” nonsense. President Clinton didn’t do it either.) If a serious and capable presidential candidate were to do this, regardless of the party, and could come across as sincere and resolute, he or she, in my opinion, would win in a landslide.

So there’s two possible band-wagons, number one or number two. Why not abandon the first and hop on-board the second? The first one has taken us nowhere for years, nor will it get us to where we want to go.

Great things are not achieved by implementing even tighter controls and regulations, and/or increasing taxation on something. To the contrary, those things stifle creativity and are a barrier to success. Great things will be achieved when all barriers to succeed are removed and incentives to do so are made available. With reason, and with purpose, and with rewards, absolutely anything is possible – anything.

Lets fund your incentive program

In reply to An answer and a tangent

Since this is the good old USA, let’s fund your tax incentives for alternate energy sources with a significant surtax on inefficient vehicles used for “personal use”.

Start at say $5,000 at the purchase of a vehicle that gets less than 15 MPG. Rising to $15,000 on those that get less than 5 MPG. Tack on a transfer fee of 1/5th of the surtax when a title is transfered.

I agree that we do need alternative energy sources. Preferably renewable sources like bio-mass.

I just do not buy into the panacea of the hydrogen fuel cell.

I agree that we can solve the safety and storage issues for hydrogen. We can even get to the point where the fuel cell has enough power and efficiency to be practical.

I just cannot conceive of being able to produce hydrogen economically at the volumes required.

It is a basic chemistry and physics issue. Hydrogen is just so darn reactive that it takes a lot of energy to separate hydrogen from any other element or molecule that it has attached itself to.

The “hydrogen economy” has as much chance of happening as “cold fusion”. In fact, some form of fusion energy would be needed to produce enough electricity to crack hydrogen.

I know that we cannot conserve or drill ourselves out of the current energy crisis.

However, the US in particular needs to change it’s energy wasting habits.

Chas

Let’s not “fund” it

In reply to An answer and a tangent

.
Geesh, why is it that government has to “fund” everything? For crying out loud, this is not supposed to be a nation where government controls business and people, but rather the other way around.

When there’s a need, and when there’s a market, American business ingenuity will provide the solution – WITHOUT GOVERNMENT. And you wonder why people see you as a socialist and/or communist.

And quit trying to FORCE YOUR WILL ON OTHERS. Just because you don’t like SUVs on the road doesn’t mean they don’t have to be on the road. If you don’t like it, well that’s just too friggin’ bad. I don’t like bicycles on the road, either. But you guys are a PITA I have to live with, so move over and share the road with an SUV. And for the record, I don’t own an SUV. So your motives are selfish, while mine are based on principle.

“A SUV is a personal life-style choice not a needed item”

In reply to Need of Large vehicles

True. Do you have an objection to other people’s rights to make our own personal life-style choices?

No one “needs” a bicycle

In reply to No

.
Almost 1,000 people are killed annually while riding a bicycle. And how many children are left without a parent because one of them was killed while riding a bicycle? That child will obviously become a burden to society simply because his parent wanted to go joy-riding. And more than a half a million people are treated in hospital emergency rooms every year because of bicycle related accidents. How many real diseases and illnesses go untreated because of this unnecessary strain put on our health care system? How many people DIE every year because of the strain those greedy bicyclists put on our health care system? It’s an absolute travesty, if you ask me.

Moreover, the bicycle deaths cited don’t include the bicycle caused deaths. How many people die, for example, in head-on automobile collisions caused because a motorist had to swerve to avoid hitting a road-hog bicyclist? It’s hard to know for sure because the perpetrator of the crime can easily 10-speed away while others lay in the road bleeding and perhaps even near death.

And hey, those bicycles don’t pay license registration fees or consume fuel from which road taxes are generated, so they don’t pay for the very roads they hog, the very roads on which they cause thousands of deaths each and every year.

And then consider this. How many natural resources are wasted because of the manufacture of bicycles? If it’s any at all, it’s too many. After all, this is the fragile Earth we’re talking about here. We can’t be too careful. And the pollution – and the contribution to GLOBAL WARMING – that it causes. The plastics and burning and all that yucky stuff polluting the air and water in the manufacturing process while making those millions and millions of unnecessary bicycles. And then they buy new ones, often times throwing the old ones in the trash, only to go into a landfill. We’re running out of landfill space, for crying out loud! And those old bicycles are only making it worse.

Besides, nobody “NEEDS” a bicycle — not even 5 percent of those who have them really “NEED” them. You have your own two feet you can use to get around. And if you like the feel of the wind blowing in your face, get a fan.

Therefore, since they are not a real necessity, and since banning them would obviously save lives and save the Earth, and since it would also save health care money that is needed to treat others with REAL needs, and since it would be good for the environment, they should be banned – BANNED, I say.

And even if it would save only ONE LIFE, it’s well worth it.

Every able bodied person needs a bike

In reply to No one “needs” a bicycle

Every able bodied person “needs” a bicycle.

No one truly “needs” a car, truck or SUV.

People feel the need for a car because US society is designed around motor vehicles.

Even in the frozen hinterlands of Michigan it is possible to get everywhere one needs to on a bicycle year round.

You can’t get everywhere you need by just walking or public transportation.

As to your example, I am one of those “road hogging bicyclists”.

It is NOT the cyclists fault that the motorist is unwilling to slow down and wait until it is safe to pass.

In fact, it is the cyclists duty to move toward the center of the lane if there is not a safe margin for a motorist to pass.

I don’t remember the authors name, but the book Effective Cycling explains why “taking the lane” and other tactics are safer than staying at the edge of a narrow road.

Interestingly, it is my experience that the drivers of small cars are more accommodating to cyclists than the drivers of full size vans, SUVs, and pickups.

Chas

Need versus Desire

In reply to No one “needs” a bicycle

Max,

Thinking about this further, the issue is more of need versus desire.

For “personal use” hardly anyone “needs” a large vehicle. Many people desire a large vehicle to show off just how far in dept they are willing to go to satisfy their ego.

Americans for years have been confusing need and desire. Just as Madison Avenue wants them to.

If you make actual use of the capabilities of a large vehicle at least once a month, then you likely have a need for one. However, if you seldom make use of the vehicles capabilities, your choice to own the vehicle switches from need to desire.

I myself DESIRE to drive an econobox. I end up in a mid-size sedan because the econoboxes I have looked at do not accommodate my height.

Perhaps the right answer is for people to own multiple vehicles. With the ever rising TCO for large vehicles, it makes sense to park the SUV or truck in the garage except for when you need it, and have a small car for daily use.

Think of how much switching the paradigm from having 1 vehicle to 2 or 3 “specialized” vehicles would boost the US economy.

Chas

Get your point

In reply to No one “needs” a bicycle

Max, I do get your point about making choices for others. I did not call for a ban on SUVs or a needs test before allowing people to buy them. I just stated what I believe to be true that they are NOT necessary.

I do think that your example is less than I would normally expect from you.

Look at the need versus desire issue this way;

I desire a $2000 titanium or carbon fiber road bike. I don’t need it, and doubt I will ever buy one.

The used bikes I do own fulfill my needs.

Very few people have a “need” for their large SUV and pickups. They have given in to the desire to fit in with a social group or “macho” image. Their “need” was created by the automotive and advertising industries.

Even back to my first car, while my friends where tuning their cars for performance, I was tuning mine for maximum gas mileage.

When I chose a vehicle, fuel economy is much more important than style or brand.

Chas

Chas – Read my message again. . . . .

In reply to Get your point

.
…….but this time, read it knowing that it was an exercise in extreme satire. (An unsuccessful attempt, apparently.) But I think you may see it in a different light.

But in short, when any one person starts dictating, or even suggesting, what another person “needs”, too many lines have been crossed, and too many presumptions have been made.

The REAL need

In reply to Get your point

I disagree.

Take this example:

Joe Worker (an average guy, average looks, etc) works in an average place.

He trades decides NOT to buy a sleek powerful gas guzzling humongo pickup. He gets a wimpy little car.

Instead of getting ‘looks’ from the gals, they just ignore him. He goes somewhere and meets a nice gal but she thinks he’s bland and unexciting and doesn’t go out with him again.

Joe Worker never gets .., never gets married or has a family and kids.

My point is that having status symbol cars IS important to some people and even if we don’t think that way, who are we to judge. Ok, so that guy who teased the nerds in high school about short trousers is himself ‘expecting a flood’ in his raised 4wd.

And there are alot of pickups that are smaller and equivalent in mileage to regular cars. Americans like the versatility of being able to haul stuff.

Any feature that might be considered bad such as rollovers has compensating reason in eyes of buyer. The economy will sort it out, when gas prices rise they’ll get smaller cars.

Tell me…

In reply to The REAL need

Tell me Dr Dij, is the size of your car all you can offer to a prospective mate?

You missed the mark

In reply to Tell me…

If you would have read my post fully you’d realize I was saying I don’t agree that people should get large cars just for that kind of reason, to be cool.

However that is what society promulgates on us. That is what Joe Average believes. He picks up an issue of Road&Track or 4WD or Pop. Mechanics and wants.

And while it is none of your business what I have to offer my prospective mate and bizarre of you to ask, my prospective mate happens to think people with large SUVs are ‘compensating’.

Frankly it is not my biz to judge them, and anyone who does not ‘consume’ an SUV may well make up the same energy use in form of airplane use, domestic use heating the home or electricity, etc.

I happen to have a large vehicle (not an SUV) because it is comfortable, handy to carry everything I need to carry around and several other reasons, none related to ‘how it looks’ to others. If I got into situation where I commuted long way I’d probably get something smaller.

(no problem, Liam, I guess if you were being facetious I’m not p**d)

I hear…

In reply to You missed the mark

I hear they are giving away a free sense of humour with a gallon of fuel these days……

The Really REAL Need

In reply to The REAL need

I need an aspirin…

Can I define what a “necessity” is for any human? probably so…

Are *any* motor vehicles *necessary* for *anyone*. No.

We have 2 legs, and for the infirmed we have other means of transportation. It is that we desire to be somewhere faster or with less exertion, but it is *not* a necessity.

Food, water and shelter from the elements. That’s all we *really* need.

Now, where’s my club? I need to go find me a wife. 😀

Necessity.

In reply to No

Thank God I am not a communist, where all I could have was what somebody else thought was necessary.

Did you read my comments

In reply to Necessity.

Did you read all of my comments in the sub-thread?

While I personally think the SUV is the latest scourge on mankind, nowhere in the thread do I call for a ban or for preventing those who want them from owning them.

Do I want people to change their vehicle buying habits? Yes indeed.

I want the person who just thinks they need / want a SUV to take a moment and think about ALL of the impact that their decision has on both their life and the lives of those around them.

I believe this is such a hot button issue because the majority of SUV owners do respect the environment and have a guilty conscience because of the negative impact their choice has on the environment.

Does anyone who wants a SUV have the right to buy one? Sure.

Do I have the right to question that persons judgment? Sure again.

Do I have the right to stop anyone from buying a SUV? NO!

Do I have the right to work toward a change in the social conscience so that people stop thinking a SUV is a good transportation alternative?
Yes!

In response to the simple question are SUVs and large pickup trucks necessary for personal use?
My OPINION is still NO!

Should we ban the SUV or limit sales to only those who have a proven need?
NO!

Finally, I am not a communist.

At the moment, I consider myself to be a recovering Republican.

Chas

Yes, but…

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Yes they are necessary but a more telling question would be something along the lines of “Is the use of environmentally devastating fashion accessories acceptable in the modern world?”

Many people need SUV’s, vans, pickups etc because of the job they do, where they live or their lifestyle etc.

Some people just think its cool to drive something big.

And the rest are just too fat to get in anything smaller I guess.

A response from another survey on your survey

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I believe it was a survive in Motor Trend Magazine about a year ago, that revealed that of all the SUVs bought in the USA less than 8% of them ever leave paved roadways.

Yet we see all these huge 4×4’s selling like “hot cakes” (though that in itself is another discussion — do hot cakes really sell that well?).

I think if you have a huge family or you need to tow or truly go off-road frequently, then you have a legitimate need (that would be a “YES”).

Anything other than those reasons its just ego and status symbolitis that folks buy them (that would be a “NO”).

PS. How can you possibly think you won’t get any commentary on a DISCUSSION forum? LOL

So they’d switch to large luxury cars

In reply to A response from another survey on your survey

I think there’s no alternative to letting people vote with their wallet. Large cars are safer, roomier, more comfortable. If we banned large SUVs they’d switch to large cars of other kinds.

Let supply and demand dictate their choices. In a few years gas will be sky high and many will get smaller cars. smaller cars are already cheaper and cost less to run. so many people drive them.

Selling Hot Cakes – and SUVs

In reply to A response from another survey on your survey

First of all the phrase selling like hot cakes is very old and comes from the situation of food vendors in old time market places – the hot cakes refered to were thick pancake type foods (like what the USA people call hot cakes but thicker)and we sold VERY hot, straight from the cooking surface. Just scooped up and handed over. As they were so hot the vendors would take your money, scoop up a hot cake, flip it into their other hand and hand it to you so fast it seems like teleportation – the hand off was extremely fast (remember no paper plates etc in those days, hand food was carried in the hand. Because of the speed anything sold with a fast hand over was – selling like hot cakes.

OK – generally I agree with your comments re SUVs, I absolutely hat 4WDs – even when going off road (a high clearance 2WD can do most offroad if well driven). However, when buying my latest car I ended up having to buy a 4WD SUV as it was the cheapest thing that I could buy in which I could sit and drive in a proper position and enter and exist without problems, or a crane. Please see other post for full details.

Whilst the car makers design sedans that are not ergonomicaly safe people will buy the other styles that are. Just compare a modern sedan with one from 35 years ago, look at the differences in ground clearance and internal headroom when sitting upright.

It’s dangerous territory. . . .

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

.
….on which to tread when people presume to define what may or may not be “necessary” for someone else, especially personal property.

But keeping in the spirit of your English project, I would have to answer yes. After all, if a person didn’t consider it “necessary”, he or she wouldn’t have acquired it in the first place. And who am I do define what his or her “necessities” should be?

P.S. I answered this question before looking at any of the other answers. I shudder at the thought that some people may have presumed to define what may or may not be “necessary” for someone else. To that person, I would ask, why stop at SUVs? Why not also be presumptuous enough to define someone else’s “necessary” housing, or diet, or leisure habits, or perhaps even how much money is “necessary” for someone else. (Man, you people scare me. Because you’re the epitome of what it means to trample upon other people’s individual rights — and you have absolutely no justification except your elitist attitude that presumes to know what’s best for others.)

Well Maxwell….

In reply to It’s dangerous territory. . . .

I agree with your answer but have to disagree with your reasoning there Maxwell. Shall we examine where this ‘elitist attitude’ comes from that presumes to know the best for others.

Take housing for example, no one tells you what house to live in or where but ALL houses have to be built to certain standards which include efficiency of insulation in every developed nation in the world.

Take leisure activities, no one tells you how to enjoy yourself but if you choose to shoot children for fun the law will come down on you pretty hard.

How about your diet? Well you can eat what you like, but if you choose to eat endangered animals you can expect a visit from the boys in blue.

The same is true for just about everything in society – reasonable limits are imposed for the benefit of society as a whole.

Some limits have to be put on the consumption and activities of the individual to protect the rights of the population as a whole. These arent an individuals rights being trampled, this is everyone’s rights being protected. The rights of the population of the world or a country take precedence of the rights of an individual and so they should.

The problem seems to stem from the people (largely in the USA but increasingly elsewhere) that seem to still have their heads in the sand with regards to the environment and truly believe that their right to drive a big car supercedes everyone elses right to live in a world free from the dangers of rampant global warming and respiratory illness due to emissions.

People driving big cars simply dont acknowlege the damage they are doing to the world, its time they wake up to it and start to do something about it. Its not such an easy area to legislate for as, say, shooting children or building regs for new homes as some people genuinly need big vehicles so just tax the snot out of em. That will sort out the ‘needs’ from the ‘wants’ soon enough.

Big cars are a habit for most, not a necessity. Habits can be broken and this one needs to be for the good of mankind. How many of those 400 cubic inches do you really need to get the groceries home? To me its a question of the right tool for the job.

Frankly, if an SUV is the answer, you were asking some pretty silly questions.

Max, serious question.

In reply to It’s dangerous territory. . . .

I’m not trying to kick of an argument. These are my views from a UK perspective. We have gas at $5.55/gallon, narrower roads, many more autos/mile of road, no snow (mostly) and very little potential off-road driving. Yet we still have SUVs and the number is growing. We have no anti-SUV legislation or taxes (other than gas) but there are the first signs that these might come in and I don’t think they would be unpopular. They would fine with me when I’m trying to drive around a Range Rover stopped at the school gates while mother unloads little Tamsin!

Sorry about this but it’s Friday and I’m bored.

I’d be interested in the answers from the perspectives of a US citizen and a libertarian and if you see any conflict.

Is there any point at which you believe that the state should interfere? And to what level?

For instance, it’s obviously beneficial for the US’s trade deficit (I won’t mention the environment for fear of being bitten) if you import and use less oil. If you can do so without decreasing the miles driven by your citizens and – in most cases – without restricting them in any tangible way other than denting their fragile egos, should you? Should your government campaign for smaller-engined cars? Legislate in favour of smaller cars? Sh:t. Get outta your face?

The wearing of seat belts is compulsory both front and back seat over here. It demonstrably saves lives and reduces injuries. Should it be compulsory?

Drink driving?

I can work out where I, personally, draw the line on the nanny state. Can you see ANY place for it?

Neil

Neil – My Answers (Generally Speaking)

In reply to Max, serious question.

.
You asked, “Is there any point at which you believe that the state should interfere? And to what level? ”

Yes, there is indeed a point at which the state should interfere (in one’s life), and I can break it down into three basic reasons:

1. When the freedoms enjoyed by one person actually infringes on the rights of another, it’s up to the state to protect the rights of that other.

2. For the purpose of national security.

3. For the “common good”.

Disclaimer: I absolutely hate it when people can rely ONLY on “for the common good”, or “for the good of mankind” argument as sole support for a particular position. It’s very subjective, at best; and almost by default and definition, it will ultimately lead to irreconcilable differences. Moreover, this could really be a catch-all for just about anything. Therefore, I approach this with extreme caution. When the “common good” violates the freedoms and liberties of the individual, especially large numbers of individuals, red flags should start popping up all over the place. In such cases, generally speaking, I would favor erring on the side of the individual, while other, more collectivist-type thinkers, would err on the side of the common good.

If you can understand how I approach those three “reasons” for government intervention in individual lives, you could probably predict my position, quite accurately, on just about any issue. I’ve continually challenged people to state some similar core beliefs as support for their positions, but very few even attempt it. My hot-button issues would be when someone espouses a law, a program, or whatever, that actually takes away an individual’s liberty. For example, I think it’s absolutely abhorrent for a government to take the personal property away from one citizen (personal property equals money), the citizen who owns it and/or has earned it, for the sole purpose of giving that property to another citizen who did not earn it. After all, money is no more than the means with which to value goods and services, and by taking a person’s money, the government is actually taking goods and services from that person — and today, it’s almost to a point that it might even resemble indentured servitude. It doesn’t matter how noble the intention; it’s just not right as far as I’m concerned. Our very own Social Security program is a perfect example of how a government supports a program in the name of a “common good”, but then must infringe on the rights of the individual in order to advance it.

Your specific examples:

Drinking and driving is an example when a person might take his rights too far (his right to drink) by infringing on the freedoms and rights of others — perhaps even killing others. And where a person drinking and driving might result in the death of another, I can’t think of one single way that forcing a person to wear a seat belt could save the life of another person. Drinking and driving can kill other people; not wearing a seat belt can only kill yourself. Having laws to prevent the former is acceptable; having laws to enforce the latter is not.

On the nanny state question – never. A “nanny” takes care of those who can’t take care of themselves — i.e. children. There is no place in government for “nannyism”, at least no place in the U.S. government. And consider this. Whereas other nations’ governments were actually created to care for and ensure their “common good”, the U.S. government was actually created to guarantee and protect individual liberty. The whole premise of our government is different than most, and unfortunately, all too many people are unwilling or unable to see it or accept it — even too many Americans don’t understand it.

(I’ll get to your trade deficit/SUV points when time allows.)

Thanks – I find your persective interesting

In reply to Neil – My Answers (Generally Speaking)

if a bit alien. No insult intended!

“Nanny-state” over here just marks the boundary whereby sensible state intervention goes to far. It has a different meaning for nearly everyone as you would expect. I’ve getting a fairly good idea, now, where you draw the line.

As for seat-belts, there are significant numbers of front-seat driver/passengers killed by unbelted back seat passengers nutting them in the back of the head. Even a child at 50mph is quite a dangerous missile – and not only to itself! That’s why the law was not unreasonably extended to back seats over here.

Theoretically, then, you would be less against rear seat belt legislation than that for the front seats.

Hmmmm. 🙂

The answer is no…here’s why

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

asdfoui (i think) said “for personal” reasons.

If it harms your back, sue the car company. Products which can be proven to cause bodily harm to consumers are usually recalled for modification or replacement.

If you’re American, take a look at somewhere like Ireland. I was there for 10 days last year. No one drives a personal car that’s large that I saw…in Tipperary…or Dublin. The only large vehicles I saw are transportation or commercial. I’m sure there are exceptions, but it is FAR less common than in the USA.

I’m 6’6, 325 and drive a Kia. Size won’t be an excuse either kids, unless it’s a case of *extreme* size. They make cars for big people too.

Stop being indulgent, sell that tank you drive, and get a smaller more economical car…then, buy more beer and computer stuff with the money you save on gas 🙂

trying sitting in them properly

In reply to The answer is no…here’s why

When I bought my current car (abt 18 mths back) I went for a test drive in several vehicles. I found that most sedans were such that when getting out my knees were higher than my arse, this is ergonomicly unsound. Also at the Holden dealership the salesperson drove the sedan around, all 6′ 2″ (188 cm)of him in an almost recumbant position. When I sat in the driver’s seat and put the back upright, I had to slide it all the way back, put the whell at its highest setting and was only just able to get in the safe driver recommended position of upright, elbows and knees at right angles – mind you my head was rubbing against the roof of the car and I am only 5′ 9″ (175 cm. When I pointed this out to the salesman he explained that since most people today drive almost laying on their back that the designers build them that way.

Real safe to drive – on your back, neck bent forward at an odd angle and arms at almost fullstretch. No wonder the local police have switched to mostly dualcab ute and light commercial designs with hotted up engines. Easier and safer to sit in.

SUVs and light commercials are a cheaper and better option than delivery vans and the like.

Fighter jet seating

In reply to trying sitting in them properly

Sounds like the designers think the drivers are going to pull some G’s.

ergonomics vs size

In reply to trying sitting in them properly

Well as I said before, I’m about 6’6. I drive a 2000 Kia Sportage 4-door mini SUV. It gets about 21-24 mpg depending on what way the wind is coming from, and I have no problems getting into it and I sit in the position you’ve explained as being what I should be. My head is near the roof of the cab and the seat is all the way back, but I have plenty of room in that position.

I think the key words in the original post involved “oversize” and “personal use”. I would think this would apply to vehicles such as Hummer, Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigator, Chevy Suburbans, etc. None of them are *necessary* for personal use. You can get vehicles in any modernized country on the planet which is elevated enough for you to enter and exit comfortably, have sufficient leg room, and allows for proper posture. It might not be what you want to see in your driveway, but they can be purchased. My Kia is proof. I wanted a different vehicle, but this one was more economically feasible and met my *needs*. I would have much preferred the BMW or Mitsubishi I looked at.

But, back to the original thread topic: Oversized vehicles are not necessary for personal use. Vehicles of smaller proportion are manufactured that meet 99.9% of the dimensional and ergonomic needs of people (sans people like Shaq and pro wrestlers). The oversize vehicles are simply a creature comfort, much as luxury vehicles are. The function of a vehicle is to safely transport passengers from an origin to a destination. Anything above that is not necessity…it’s indulgence.

As for what police drive…that can be indulgence as well. Most of them have Crown Victorias or Caprices…but, a sheriff’s department near to where I live (a different county) has a couple of custom police-equipped Hummers. Why police needed an unarmoured Hummer, I’ll never know. They already had an armoured personnel carrier and 4-wheel vehicles for use on the beaches. Tax dollars hard at work, I guess.

Oh well…two more cents added

KIA SUV ??

In reply to ergonomics vs size

SOrry wjen you said Kia I was thinking of the ones I have seen around here, kind of like a modernised Morris Mini-Minor that comes up to my belt.

I hate 4WDs asa general rule but ended up buying a Nissan X-trail as the cheapest comfortable car to enter, exit and drive out of the modern cars; next style would have had to be a mini bus like the Toyota Tarago.

I agree some are too large and have never understood why they are made that way when I see them in the movies etc. Yhey seem to be very restricted to the USA/Canada as we don’t see many of those like you mentioned here in Australia.

As for your local police vehicles, I wonder if the downtown night shift over there is a bit more dangerous than here and they need the armour. Our police cars have improved performance motros and handling but start life as standard dual cab utes with a cage on the back or as standard sedans.

local cops

In reply to KIA SUV ??

Nah…it’s Florida…they wanna be fancy down there…I could see the need for armoured vehicles for S.W.A.T. usage, but a *non-armoured* Humvee is about as practical as them buying a wingless plane for a highway patrol cruiser.

Humvee will help in FL when..

In reply to local cops

Florida is flooded by sea water due to global warming caused by the humvee the same person is driving.

And the coke dealer need something to spend their money on.

Q: Why is the average driver in Miami looking distracted?
A: His pit bull has just spilled his cocaine onto his submachine gun.

They need the extra safety

In reply to local cops

for when the hurricanes and tornadoes go through each month, Hummies allow them to reach the residents despite the weather – at least that is the assumption.

Nice try

In reply to They need the extra safety

The only problem with that is that in a real hurricane or tornado, there is a big danger of roll over. And which vehicles are most likely to roll over? The ones with the most ground clearance. They actually do tests for these things – I see the Chrysler Pacifica bragging it has the lowest rollover rate of all SUVs.

I once had a ski partner who owned the original Toyota minivan – before the Previa – in the 80s. It had very high flat sides, and it was quite dangerous in a snowstorm with high winds. When the winds picked up it was difficult to keep the van in the lane. Most SUVs have an even higher centre of gravity.

James

A Hummer is NOT a HUMVEE

In reply to They need the extra safety

The HUMVEE has a MUCH lower center of gravity than do either the Hummer 1 or 2.

The Hummer 2 in fact is VERY easy to roll over.

Relevant Data

In reply to They need the extra safety

Both the Humvee and the Hummer H1 have 16 inch ground clearance and are 86.5 inches wide and 185 long. Originally they used the same engine and drive train, but for 2006 the H1 has a different engine.

The H2 is a different beast altogether – it looks like a Hummer, and is built by the same AM General Factory, but raids the GM Truck parts bin rather than the Hummer one. It is as high, but narrower, making it more tippy.

James

Humvee compared to Hummer H1.

In reply to They need the extra safety

You mention the same horizontal dimensions and the drive train.

What about the vertical dimension, their wheel bases, masses, & centers of gravity?

Humvee versus Hummer H1

In reply to They need the extra safety

The original Hummer H1 is the Humvee. The first models used the same drivetrain, and upgraded the interior. Newer models replace the original deisel with a gas engine. Mind you now there are many variants of the Humvee now.

From the Hummer site http://www.hummer.com.lb/h1specifications.html
Curb Weight 6.814 lb. 7.154 lb.
Payload 3.486 lb. 3.146.
Maximum Towed Load 7.986 lb. 7.646 lb.
Gross Axle Weight Rating
Front: 10.300lb GVWR
Rear: 10.300lb GVWR
4.100 lb.
6.800 lb.
Length 184.5 in.
Maximum Height 77 in. 75 in.
Width (without mirror) 86.5 in.
Wheelbase 130 in.
Ground Clearance 16 in.
Track Width 71.6 in.
Grade Capacity 60%
Side-Slope Capability 40%
Brake-Over Angle 35o
Approach Angle (Without Winch) 72o
Approach Angle (With Winch) 47o
Departure Angle 37.5o
Runflat Capability at 30 MPH 20 mi.
Turning Radius 26.5 ft.

From military vhicle website
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.htm

Manufacturer: AM General

Dimensions:

Length:
M966 / M998 / M1025 / M1035 / M1043 / M1045 / M1097 – 180″
M1026 / M1036 / M1038 / M1042 / M1044 / M1046 – 185″
M996 / M997 – 202″
Height:
M998 / M1035 / M1037 / M1038 / M1042 – 69″
M966 / M1025 / M1026 / M1036 / M1043 / M1044 / M1045 / M1046 – 73″
M996 – 86″
M997 – 102″
Width: 85″
Vehicle Curb Weight:
M998 / M1035 / M1038 – 7,700 lbs.
M966 / M1025 / M1026 / M1036 – 8,200 lbs.
M1043 / M1044 / M1045 / M1046 – 8,400 lbs.
M966 / M1037 / M1042 – 8,660 lbs.
M997 – 9,100 lbs.
M1097 / M1097A1 – 10,000 lbs.
M998A1 / M1035A1 / M1038A1 – 7,880 lbs.
M966A1 / M1025A1 / M1026A1 – 8,380 lbs.
M1043A1 / M1044A1 / M1045A1 / M1046A1 – 8,580 lbs.
M996A1 – 8,580 lbs.
M997A1 – 9,280 lbs.
Ground Clearance: 16″ Loaded

Performance:

Maximum Speed: 55 mph Governed @ Gross Weight
Range: 275 – 337 mi.
Maximum Grade: 60%
Side Slope: 40 deg.
Fording: Without Kit: 30″, With Kit: 60″

Equipment Specifications:

Cab: Crew Seating: 2-4 Man
Seat Design: Fore/Aft Adjustable
Steering Type: Power Assist

Engine: Manufacturer: General Motors, Diesel, 8-cyl, 6.5 L, Naturally Aspirated
Rating: 150 hp @ 3600 rpm, EPA-Certified
Fuel: Diesel, DF-2, JP-4, JP-8, VV-F-800
Cooling: Water, Radiator
Fan: Engine-Driven, Clutch Type

Transmission: Manufacturer: Allison, Fully Automatic
Speeds: 3 Speeds Forward/ 1 Reverse

The H2, as I mention in the other post, is a look alike with GM pickup truck parts. The H3, is even less like the HUMVEE.

James

Should have been clearer

In reply to They need the extra safety

I meant that the vehicles should be safer to use after the event whilst water and crap was still on the roads. The higher clearance would enable them to go places where other vehicles would get drowned etc.

Only a fool would go out during a hurricane or tornado. And I take my hat off to those brave emergency services fools who do that to save lives.

Yes because…

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

…they piss off the envioronmental whackos and other socialist and class-envy nutters who want the government to regulate everything to the extreme. I do not own one, I drive a 4-cylinder Saturn SL2, but I have no problem with other people driving large SUVs and trucks (even when they piss me off because I can’t see around them in traffic, but that is not a good enough reason to infringe on the rights of others to own the behemoths.)

Only if you’re an American

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

By “big” I assume that you are talking relative size as there are small trucks and large trucks.

I was in the U.S. last year. I visited 6 states and Canada and the thing that stood out was the size of the personal vehicles used. There didn’t seem to be a need for all that space as most of them seemed to be polished to a mirror finish and not used commercially. Some of these trucks looked like they should belong on open-cut mining sites. As soon as I crossed the boarder into Canada the trucks shrank back to useful proportions (including the cars) and the pace slowed down a bit.
I also think that it’s an inate genetic thing left over from the cave-man days, some people just feel that they need to impress others with the size of their clubs (trucks).

NO doubt

In reply to Only if you’re an American

“some people just feel that they need to impress others with the size of their clubs (trucks).”

I couldn’t begin to count the number of SUV’s I’ve pulled out of ditches and spinouts that were brand new, or STILL looked brand new, and had never been offroad. The one that kills me is people who buy a 4X4 that is lowered….uhhhhhh, yeah.
Or the new SUV’s that will simply snap in half and little pieces of fibreglass get shattered when they go over s speed bump.

Where I live you need a pretty tough truck, and a 6-pack of primer to fix any dings while waiting for the ferry. The clear coating and ground effects they put on thse “SUV’s” these days are laughable. Even the new Hummers are just show cars compared to their original counterparts.

You cant ‘pretend’ to be rugged when you have a fibreglass running board on a 4X4, no matter how big your er…..truck is!

Fake mud…

In reply to NO doubt

…was supplied by one auto manufacturer about 10 years ago. It was especially formulated to not scratch the finish.

Sounds about right

In reply to Fake mud…

slap some fake mud on your fake hummer
and you never need to go near a dirt road

SUV TLA

In reply to NO doubt

Here’s an opportunity to “create” an appropriate TLA for SUV.

agreed

In reply to NO doubt

I’m an American, but I realize most people get the huge “tanks” like Hummers and Navigators as status symbols or a flashy “ride”. The practicality of them is non-existent in most cases, as I see most of them only occupied by men obviously on their way home from an office, or by a couple of young people who obviously have no family to transport and their parents bought them a birthday present.

Personally, I don’t see a need for them. If you’re taking a vacation, they make these really big things called buses and airplanes that get you where you need to go. It was really refreshing in Ireland to get off the plane in Dublin, take a bus to Heuston station, catch the rail to County Tipperary, then bus to my friend’s radio station. And…I did that all in less than 6 hours…off the plane at 9am…in County Tipp before 3pm…and for less than US$90.

Honestly…Americans are generally too into themselves nowadays, and almost have to be considering how the economy and job market is. But because of how the economy has forced society to become here, it’s generally not about doing what’s right for the common good anymore…but what’s good for yourself. And, that’s a sad statement.

As for me…I’ll never own one of those huge, overpriced vehicles. $40-70k for a car is just ridiculous. Once I get married and have a family…mini-van, here I come!

Two more cents thrown in…I’m running out of change.

No

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Unless you want to support Saudi Arabia forever.

Are stupid posts really necessary?

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

What business is it of someone else’s what somebody wants to drive? If that person is willing to pay for the car, the insurance, the maintenence, and the gas, so what?

Because

In reply to Are stupid posts really necessary?

….larger vehicles burn more gas, which causes more pollution, and we all share the air.

Because

….there is not an infinite amount of oil and squandering it reduces the amount the next generation can use.

Because
… huge SUVs are a traffic hazard for those of us in cars, blocking our view of the road.

Because

…..if one of those huge behemouths T bones my car, I am more likely to die.

And thats just off the top of my head.

James

Smaller Vehicles

In reply to Because

…are more dangerous to their occupants in case of a crash.

…there are alternative energy methods in their embryonic stages of development (albiet slowlly).

…are harder to see, easier to hide out in a blind spot.

And what about tractor trailers. Everyone who bashes big trucks never says anything about tractor trailers clogging up the highway and burning fuel. Do we really need all those cheap plastic Wal Mart things?

Probably because we need them

In reply to Smaller Vehicles

I agree tractor trailers are huge polluters as well. But you see, the vast majority of all goods moved within the US is still from truck fleets over any other kind of transport — including aircraft.

This is especially true within cities and the counties immediately surrounding big cities – they largely don’t use planes to deliver goods 60-100 miles away. It would not be cost efficient. Particularly when with a truck the driver can deliver one trailer or load at one location and pick up another trailer or load on the way to yet another location.

A lot of our goods would be in short supply if you magically made all tractor trailers disappear.

In other words, they serve a purpose to society as folks don’t just buy $80,000-$300,000 tractor trailers for joy riding..they serve a business function.

Many folks who buy SUVs just buy them because they want to. Which largely is fine by me, the problem is I have to drive next to a lot of these folks on the highway who think they can drive a huge suv like a sports car.

Sorry I have this thing about death…its just not me. 😉

We need to be more responsible

In reply to Are stupid posts really necessary?

Looking around on the highway everyday, I see lots of people that can apparently afford them. The problem is SUV’s are gas hogs.

Manufacturers need to make a more energy efficient SUV. Many of them are just used as todays station wagon anyway. I have a car and its one of the only cars in the parking lot at my food market whenever I go.

For those people that like to camp or need to tow something, SUVs are perfect. For everyone else, buy a car. Most of them use less gas.

So what? When gas is $3.00 a gallon, will you pay more to support your SUV? Heres another side to it thats not about the money.

In the early 70’s there was a gas shortage and people had to sit in long lines for gas. Gas stations would run out of gas so not everyone got gas even after sitting for hours. I owned a gas-guzzling car that got 8 MPGs. Thats all they sold back then. I found gas, but the gas station was rationing and only pumping so many gallons per car. I was only able to get a small amount of gas that night, so I had to just go home and try again the next day.

Now certainly, I would hope that this scenario would never happen again, but it could. If it does, I’ll be praying for a Yugo.

I have an idea

In reply to We need to be more responsible

Instead of hurling our vitriolic hatred towards the gas-guzzling mini boats on the highway, why can’t we do something about the big bad bass cars. Is anyone else sick of hearing someone’s earth shattering bass from 17 blocks away, all day every day. I mean, I know these kids are really super cool, but why must they remind us every waking hour of every day how unbelievably cool they are?
You guys from Canada and the UK: do you have a problem with the boom-boom-I’m-compensating-for-other-shortcomings kids and their loud cars?

We get them over here.

In reply to I have an idea

Cars fitted with twin 15 inch bass speakers! The cars that have these are usually “hot hatchbacks” – very small cars with 2litre injection engines, blacked out windows and, I assume, drivers with very small dicks and brains!

We still get SUVs on our tiny roads as well, though. Gas is $5.60/Gall!

Burn ’em all!

Bass Bumpers

In reply to We get them over here.

Every time I hear one of these arrogant pissants I want to ram a pair of scissors into his tires and his speakers and his jugular and then piss on him

I don’t have a problem with that

In reply to Bass Bumpers

Too quick, though!

😀

I’m working on a cure

In reply to Bass Bumpers

Having dabbled in electronics, I’m workin on a way to squelch their sound systems. heheheh…just gotta make sure it doesn’t deafen them 🙂

Or better yet

In reply to I’m working on a cure

Make it so that it NEVER turns off, and on top of that, rig it so that it never comes down from its peak volume. Let them go EVERYWHERE blasting that crap. Shouldn’t take long for that fad to go away.

Anti-sound

In reply to I’m working on a cure

you could do what the noise cancelling headphones do: they have a mic that picks up ambient sound, then to the headphones they play that same sound 180o out of phase, which cancels most of the sound.

Instead have a shotgun mic, to point at other car, and speaker that blare anti-sound. Would be interesting to see what the people in the car making all the noise would hear (or not hear).

Those big stereo’s save money on music tho. They just have one song, I call it the ‘Boom-Boom’ song since that is all I can hear.

Fitting song title..

In reply to I’m working on a cure

Because I call them Boom Boom Bastards.

Because…

In reply to Are stupid posts really necessary?

Beacause they are screwing the environment bigtime for everyone.

Only if that person …

In reply to Are stupid posts really necessary?

both knows how to drive that SUV and follows the rules of the road, etal..

On I-95, in the Philly area, that’s not case!

Yes.

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

How’s that for brevity?

N

In reply to Yes.

OK?

Y

In reply to N

.

n

In reply to Y

?

Very good

In reply to n

.
I don’t think anyone can beat that one.

(But the answer is still Yes.)

M + 1

In reply to Very good

or o – 1

ok…

In reply to M + 1

that lost me…I’m not sure if that’s statistical mathematics, secret code, visual basic in need of an implicit type conversion of char to int…hehehe

encryption? rot 1?

j/k…gotcha 🙂

Based on the number of characters displayed

In reply to M + 1

jck simply can’t be beat.

actually

In reply to M + 1

I displayed a character…it’s just not “viewable”.

God bless the Alt key

However if there’s any prize for what I did, I’ll gladly give it to CuteElf. I like cerebrally creative people…the algorithmic stuff was a neat twist 🙂

ok…back to ADO.NET!

two more cents just tossed in…

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

In reply to Yes.

No, No, No, a thousand times NO!
SUV’s and other large vehicles are NOT necessary for personal use.

As Christians, are we not called to be “good stewards” of Gods gifts to us?

On ANY level, can you show that these large vehicles and their housing companion the “McMansion” make prudent use of the Earth’s resources?

For many people, the purchase of a SUV or McMansion constitutes of at least 1 of the seven deadly sins.
For some people, a single SUV purchase would violate 4 deadly sins, Pride, Lust, Greed and Gluttony.

Sorry, as a Christian, I cannot reconcile a SUV as a valid let alone a necessary transportation choice.

Chas

The don’t buy one

In reply to NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

…

If you’re going to make pithy “title only” posts

In reply to The don’t buy one

At least check that they make sense

…

I thought it made perfect sense

In reply to If you’re going to make pithy “title only” posts

…

Yes, ti id

In reply to I thought it made perfect sense

.

Your intolerance is obvious

In reply to NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

.
There may be a part of you that actually believes SUVs are “bad for the environment”, or “bad for whatever”, but it’s become quite obvious that a bigger part of you — a much bigger part of you — just doesn’t like the damn things on the road. And you’re intolerance towards the rights of others is quite troubling.

You may not like SUVs on the road.

You may not like bicycles on the road.

You may not like the sound of your neighbors lawn mower.

You may not like kids skate boarding on the sidewalk.

You may not like a lot of things.

But just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean you have to try to force your will — your intolerance — on others.

Just live and let live. And if your elitist attitude doesn’t like the way other people choose to live, it’s you that has the problem, not them.

Yea, yea, I know. You’re going to now say that you’re not trying to tell other people how to make personal choices. Well I say horse-hockey. That’s exactly what you’re doing.

And now you use religion as support

In reply to NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

.
You cite Christian beliefs as support for your argument?

I seem to remember another discussion when you advocated preventing Boy Scouts from using public property because of their acknowledgement of God.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Those bigotted Boy Scouts

In reply to And now you use religion as support

Bunch of flag wavin’ hate mongers.

Scouts

In reply to And now you use religion as support

Max,

I was a Cub Scout once upon a time.

My son was a Cub Scout until he attempted to justify not doing his schoolwork because his Scouting work (which he was not doing either) took up too much of his time.

I think the Scouts are a great organization. Every young man should be encouraged to give Scouting a try.

I don’t give to The United Way for a variety of reasons including the fact that they have stopped supporting Scouting.

As I recall the older thread, all I did was show my understanding of how the series of events that lead up to the Scout Troop being banned from using a public owned building could be justifiable.

A Scout Troop that some friends of mine are heavily involved with was booted out of a church in part because the church was being pressured to allow other groups to use the facility.

Chas

That wasn’t my point

In reply to Scouts

.

Thank you Max

In reply to That wasn’t my point

First, a preface:

I expect a lot of flack from what I am about to post.

I also expect that my post will astonish some of you.

Max, I have stated before that many of your comments sound like school assignments and leave me feeling like I have a test coming. I know that you want me to re-evaluate my opinion and position on some topics. I suspect that you are not prepared for the result your comments in this thread have had on me.

Thank you for ripping away the last pieces of the conservative Republican veneer that had built up over my inner Liberal in the 1980’s.

To wit, here are some key beliefs and positions I hold dear:

Protecting the environment takes precedence over profits, convenience and personal desire.

Unless you can prove that industrial activity has either no impact or the least possible impact on the environment, it should be stopped until a new method can be implemented.

Unless you can prove that global warming is not happening, you MUST proceed as if it is a looming threat.

Urban sprawl must be stopped and farm land must be preserved.

Al Gore has it wrong. The internal combustion engine is NOT the threat to the global environment, the personal motor vehicle IS!!!

While I still don’t accept the concept of the ends justifying the means, I do sympathize with ECO-Terrorists.
While I may disprove of their methods, be it tree-sitting, or destroying a SUV dealership or new subdivision, ECO-Terrorists should at least be lauded for following their convictions.

I still refuse to accept that George W. Bush is the legitimate President of the USA.

Further still, GWB should be tried by the World Court for his crimes against humanity and the global environment.

With the high cost of living we have in the US, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Welfare NEED to be fully funded until such time as we are willing to tackle the core problems and eliminate poverty.

It is not only proper, it is our Christian duty to tax income and redistribute it to our brothers and sisters in need.

A graduated income tax is by far the fairest means of taxation.

The Bush tax cuts not only failed to revive the US economy, they triggered the growth of China’s economy, leading to the current high energy costs.

$10 per hour is likely still too low for a minimum wage.

In most instances, I trust the government much more than I trust corporations or the average American consumer.

Strict gun control is LONG overdue in the US.

Universal health care MUST be implemented in the US.
While it may cost a little bit more, a government run program will be more fair and effective than a private run program.

No person or corporation should be profiting off of the suffering of others.

The US government works best when no single party controls all 3 elected bodies.

Well, theres a start on elaborating my continuing process of recovering from being a Republican.
I think I will stay registered as a Republican for a while. That way both the NRC and the NRCC will continue to waste money on me.
Also, I can vote in primary elections as a spoiler.

Besides, I’m not really a Democrat either.

The party that comes closest to matching my positions is the Green Party.

Thanks again for liberating me from the cold hard shell of conservatism.

Chas

Wow – What a Rant

In reply to Thank you Max

.
You want to stop all industrial activity. That’s interesting. I wonder what the full impact of that would really be?

And you want proof that global warming is not happening. (Something about proving a negative comes to mind.) Okay, unless you can prove that society is not being infiltrated by invaders from outer-space, you MUST proceed as if it is a looming threat. Your comment makes about as much sense as mine.

You said, “Urban sprawl must be stopped and farm land must be preserved.” Okay, do you have some extra rooms in your house for the growth in the population, or should we just start killing people? Let’s see. Congested cities are bad; growth away from cities into urban “sprawl” areas is bad; yep, we gotta’ start killing people since we have nowhere to put them.

You said, “Al Gore has it wrong. The internal combustion engine is NOT the threat to the global environment, the personal motor vehicle IS!”. Okay, let’s mandate that everyone either walk or ride bicycles. But wait, since we already stopped all industrial activity because they couldn’t prove a negative, there will be no bicycle industry to make bicycles. And even if there were a huge surplus available, all those industrial workers who lost their jobs because all industrial activity was stopped, including the automobile industry, couldn’t afford to buy the bicycle if they wanted to. I guess we can then “fund” a massive bicycle give-away program, and the government mandates that everyone use one.

And you want to admire and commend terrorists? Really? Well, whatever. Don’t let that get out, though. That’s probably an extremely unpopular view.

If George W. Bush is not the legitimate president of the USA, who is?

And you think that, “GWB should be tried by the World Court for his crimes against humanity and the global environment”? Interesting. Perhaps Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden should be on the jury.

You said, “Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Welfare NEED to be fully funded.” Well heck, let’s just throw everybody’s earnings (except all those industrial workers who don’t have any) into a big pot, and we can all share and share alike. Yea, that’s the ticket. Let’s all suffer, I mean be happy together.

You said, “It is not only proper, it is our Christian duty to tax income and redistribute it to our brothers and sisters in need.” Okay, let’s repeal the First Amendment, do away with that silly religious clause in the Constitution, issue a mandate that we now live in a “Christian” nation, and (being redundant, here) let’s just throw everybody’s earnings (except all those industrial workers who don’t have any) into a big pot, and we can all share and share alike, and all be good (suffering) Christians together; and we can even worship at the alter of environmentalism. (Maybe we can even canonize those ECO-Terrorists you admire.)

You like the graduated income tax? Well heck, let’s just graduate it all the way to 100 percent and take ALL of what those greedy rich people earn.

You said, “The Bush tax cuts not only failed to revive the US economy, they triggered the growth of China’s economy, leading to the current high energy costs.” And how’s that?

You said, “$10 per hour is likely still too low for a minimum wage.” Yea, let’s make it $20 per hour. No, $30 per hour. Heck, let’s just make it $50 per hour. By the way, are we going to be paying those jobless industrial workers a higher minimum wage for not working?

You said that you, “trust the government much more than you trust corporations or the average American consumer.” But what if an American consumer or a corporate-type person decided to go into government? You wouldn’t trust that person as just the average every-day citizen, but when that person suddenly gets into government he suddenly becomes trustworthy? Is it something in the government water, or what? And I guess this doesn’t apply to any government person with (R) before his/her name; and I guess it especially doesn’t apply to President Bush. Or is it “government” you trust, but just not the people running it? Or some of the people running it? Or……this is all kinda’ confusing. Could you elaborate?

You said, “Strict gun control is LONG overdue in the US.” Sure, we don’t want a population that could protect themselves from an overly-oppressive (but trustworthy) government who will come to seize all your personal property and force you to ride bicycles. And while we’re tampering with the first amendment to make our society a mandated Environmentalist-Christian nation, we can just do away with that nagging second amendment as well. And how about that silly fourth amendment? You know, the one about people being secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seizures? If we’re seizing all the property (income) from people, we can’t have a fourth amendment to get in the way. Hell, let’s just do away with all of them; let’s just abolish the whole Bill of Rights. That’ll make things much easier.

You said, “Universal health care MUST be implemented in the US.” Sure, and let’s just replace that freedom of religion clause with a free health care clause.

You said, “No person or corporation should be profiting off of the suffering of others.” Okay, but should the government profit off of the suffering of people who are really no more than indentured servants working to pay taxes to pay for all these give-away programs you espouse? But wait, we don’t have to suffer by working. The (trustworthy) government will provide for us all. We can just all quit our jobs, except those industrial workers, of course, who already lost theirs (they have no job to quit from), and the government will provide.

You said, “The US government works best when no single party controls all 3 elected bodies.” Okay, so let’s just do away with free and open elections so we can make sure that never happens. We can just appoint people. By the way, who does the appointing? And what if someone disagrees with the appointment?

You said that you, “can vote in primary elections as a spoiler.” Not if they start appointing, you can’t.

You said that you’re not really a Democrat either. Oh heck, I knew that. The Democrats are way too conservative for your views. You’re way left of the Democrats, just as your Green Party sentiments indicate.

A couple of words come to mind, however, upon reading your rant: deep end.

Edison/Computer Dude 2008

In reply to Thank you Max

What a lethal blow.

I thought just about everyone here had lost their mind. What a pleasant surprise…

Not meant as a Rant

In reply to Thank you Max

Max,

My post was not meant as a rant.

It is the result of soul searching from the questions you posted to my other posts in this thread.

I thank you again for helping to free the liberal spirit that had become suppressed and hidden inside me.

What I would really like to see is for the entire United States to become a 1960’s style commune.
Hippies and all!

Free love should reign supreme!

Chas

A pox on both their houses.

In reply to Thank you Max

I trust neither the government nor big business to hold the best interests of mankind in high regard.

I’m seriously considering returning to the Appalachians of central PA, to live in a cabin in the mountains near an stream with excellent fishing & a flow sufficient for generating a useful amount of power, and with an abundance of game about.

It may not help mankind, but it will distance me from its problems.

The Liberal Spirit

In reply to Thank you Max

.
What you described in your “rant” (or whatever it was) was neither “free-spirit” nor “hippie-spirit” sentiment. It was tantamount to espousing forced socialism. About the only thing you left out was the make-up of the firing squad that dealt with people who did not comply.

Hey Chas, whatever you want for yourself is all fine and dandy. If that’s what you want, go for it. But if that’s not what someone else wants, don’t try to force them to go for it as well.

The difference between your world and mine is that I can live in mine just fine without infringing on your rights or the rights of another. But in yours, you must infringe on the rights of others in order to achieve your desired outcome.

The “true spirit” of the 1960s hippies wanted neither interference from nor influence on government, at least as it pertained to their own lives. The only “influence” they wanted, per se, was the influence to make the government leave them alone. Sure, the Vietnam war protest was a popular hippie cause, but only because they didn’t want to be drafted to fight it.

All I really want is to be the manager of my own outcome, in its entirety, and in absolutely every sense of the word. If I want to be a charitable Christian, I want to make that choice for myself, not to have someone else make it for me. But don’t try to force your desired outcome on others. That’s not keeping with the hippie spirit.

You can have all the peace and love you want. Just go smoke a bowl and have an orgy — and rest assured, I won’t do a thing to try to stop you. (Heck, I’ll even vote to make smoking weed legal so the government leaves you alone.)

My Socialistic Ideas

In reply to Thank you Max

Yes Max, I suppose that my concept of utopia does border on socialism.

Even in my youth, I wanted a society free of money, where everyone would be able to get what they needed as they needed it.

I do think it is a very good concept that everyone should give to society all that they are able, and get from society at least all that they need.

The only reason that capitalism fits better with us humans is that we all have some level of greed.

We all want more than our fair share of the Earths resources.
And, with the exception of a few great people, we all are not willing to share all of our talents freely with others.

I admit to being just as greedy as the next man.

I don’t want the changes to society that I desire to come by force. I hope that our society will evolve away from the greed that prevents us from achieving all that we are capable of.

Perhaps my 60’s commune concept of utopia is incorrect. A better concept would be more in line with that attributed to “The Federation of Planets” in “Star Trek”.

For the record, the only mind altering substance I have ever partaken of is chocolate.
I get high enough on life to not need anything more potent.

Chas

To Max & Chas – A voice from the trenches of the 60’s.

In reply to Thank you Max

Firstly, Maxwell is correct in that what we wanted was nothing more than to live free of interference from others. In that we were not only idealistic, but quite unrealistic as well. We had not yet accumulated sufficient worldly experiences so as to be able to realize that mankind had not yet advanced to the point where our utopian visions could for long survive, even given a minimally sized commune, with any reasonable degree of certainty.

Nonetheless, ideals are important; they provide goals sufficiently worthy of achievment such that we are induced to reach for them. And, although we are perforce doomed to fail, in having made the effort we have improved the general lot of all.

The dichotomy of ideals vs reality is not unlike that of emotions vs logic. The former is the wind that fills our sails; the latter, the hand upon the tiller of our ship.

So, in this sense, Chas is also right, in that he envisions a future in which mankind, freed of the need to devote his daily energies to providing for his sustanance, will, not unlike the future portrayed in Star Trek:NG, instead be able to turn his attentions to those activities, such as the advancement of knowledge through research and exploration, the arts, etc. – i.e. avocations rather than vocations – which enrich the spirit rather than the body.

Oh, that I should live to see such a time.

May the future be kind.

deepsand – my reply

In reply to Thank you Max

.
Just so you know, Chas and I are of similar age, both having experienced the 60s first hand as well, and as “very aware” adolescents. (I was in high school in the late 60s.)

And You’re right, ideals are important. In fact, in my opinion, a life without ideals is simply a life just drifting about like dead leaves in the wind. And if a person wants to convince others to live by and adopt his or her ideals, that’s fine as well. But the line is crossed when one person tries to force them on others, especially if the ideals conflict with those of the person on whom they are forced. Freedom of choice means much more to me than just about anything, and I don’t want the choices of others forced on me.

And the Star Trek analogy is interesting; but the opinion of this Star Trek enthusiast is that it’s similar to seeing the whole world through a key hole. Sure, the societal structure of a crew on a deep space star ship is one thing, but how did a society of billions of people back on 2500 Earth interact?

Quite frankly, I believe that any “ideal” of living as one big happy family, from all according to his ability, to all according to his needs, is not now, nor will it ever be achievable. And to even try is to put yourself on the road to failure. And my ideals will not allow others to make that doomed choice for me.

It was individualism and individual liberty that transformed the United States into a great nation. And it’s the collectivism mentality that will destroy it.

Best quote yet fromTR

In reply to Thank you Max

“It was individualism and individual liberty that transformed the United States into a great nation. And it’s the collectivism mentality that will destroy it.”

Dead on.

Chas, first of all, congratulations on freeing the inner liberal. It takes a strong man (wait, that’s a contradiction of terms). Who’s up for a group hug?

What you describe, however, is communism. Sounds good on paper, no doubt, but look what it did to the USSR. And red China, do we even need to go there?

“Greed” is what has led men to create some of the world’s greatest inventions, greatest empires, and greatest civilizations. What has “free love” ever created (other than VD)?

Incidentally, how do you propose that we enfore ‘strict gun control’?

And BTW, never, never, never suffer from enforced guilt.

Question for Chas

In reply to Thank you Max

Chas, in your utopian society of free drugs and free love, would rape still be rape? I mean, it’s all free, after all.

Utopia

In reply to Thank you Max

It has been stated that the difference between rape and rapture is salesmanship.

Still, rape is not possible in utopia. To force one’s self upon another would violate the spiritual aura of both.

As to another comment, many people confuse socialism with communism.
Communism is a perversion of socialism with fascism mixed in.

If you read what I posted closely, I did modify the standard socialism credo.

I look at the social democracies of northern Europe as better examples of what society could be than the USSR or China.

The problem with communist style socialism is that it suppressed the individual.

What transpired in Russia after the breakup of the USSR is an excellent example of free enterprise run amok.

As to gun control:

Eliminate all “assault style” weapons. Not by appearance which the flawed expired legislation did, but by capabilities.

Require all purchasers to take and pass both a gun safety and shooting skills course.

Have a reasonable waiting period with a thorough back ground check.
Perhaps, the longer of 10 days, or when the back ground check is complete.

Go back to requiring a demonstrated need for a concealed weapon carry permit.

Build locking mechanisms into guns. Preferably biometric style.

Chas

USSR & PRC were NEVER communist.

In reply to Thank you Max

They were Socialistic. There is a very important difference between the two.

Socialism is controlled by a centralized command structure; communism, a democratic one.

It is important to understand that those we now call the Bolsheviks (the majority) were actually a minority who seized control of the Social Democratic party thru parlimentary trickery, declaring themselves to then be the majority, & stole the revolution by force. The result was the civil war between the Reds & the Whites (after the color of their respective flags), as portrayed in “Doctor Zhivago.”

Unfortunately, the Reds won.
==================================================

Main Entry: Bol?she?vik
Pronunciation: ‘bOl-sh&-“vik, ‘bol-, ‘b?l-, -“vEk
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural Bolsheviks also Bol?she?vi?ki /”bOl-sh&-‘vi-kE, “bol-, “b?l-, -‘vE-kE/
Etymology: Russian bol’shevik, from bol’shii greater
1 : a member of the extremist wing of the Russian Social Democratic party that seized power in Russia by the Revolution of November 1917
==================================================

Main Entry: Men?she?vik
Pronunciation: ‘men(t)-sh&-“vik, -“vEk
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural Mensheviks or Men?she?vi?ki /”men(t)-sh&-‘vi-kE, -‘vE-kE/
Etymology: Russian men’shevik, from men’she less; from their forming the minority group of the party
: a member of a wing of the Russian Social Democratic party before and during the Russian Revolution believing in the gradual achievement of socialism by parliamentary methods in opposition to the Bolsheviks

If your Utopia would include real reform…

In reply to Thank you Max

And that there were no weapons in the governmental hands, I’d be happier.

The 2nd amendment was intended to be the reset button on the constitution. The problem is that we aren’t doing what we should be doing by the constitution itself. We are doing far,far more. I see no reason that taxation without representation like we currently have is just as intolerable as the time of the framers of our constitution. We also are much closer to a police state than was ever anticipated by the writers of the Federalist papers.

Re. Star Trek:NG

In reply to That wasn’t my point

The absence of more detailed information re. the infrastructure on Earth which affords people, both on and off planet, the portrayed freedom from burdens of necessity has always disappointed me.

Given replicators and unlimited power

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

what else do you need for – at least – the material things?

Neil

One more requirement.

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

Raw materials.

deepsand – Status Symbol?

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

.
It is not. That’s a silly “assumption”.

See:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=170980&messageID=1752552

Relevance to ST:NG?

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

…

Relevance?

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

.
Okay, so shoot me. I posted it in the wrong place. But either place was the end of the thread, so I started a new one.

It was intended to answer this:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=170980&messageID=1752525

Or Perhaps Better Relevance?

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

.
Star Trek is science fiction to the extreme. So is a lot of the stuff spewed from the mouths (or fingers) of the anti-SUV zealots.

Raw materials

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

are there for the taking the moment we get PROPERLY into space rather than the blind alley we wandered down because of the politically inspired race to the Moon – serious rant on US Moon programme on request. There are unlimited resources on the asteroids and Saturns rings and comets for metals, carbon compounds and water.

Food is only Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen with a few trace minerals thrown in for good measure. We can make steaks out of comets with the right molecular synthesisers.

All those stupid sci-fi films with aliens taking over the Earth for raw materials? Bollocks! If they can get into space then they don’t need our pitiful little planet or anything at the bottom of its gravity well.

Neil

(Sorry, MAJOR hard sci-fi buff who wants to see some of it come true and thought it had started when the US made it to the Moon. 30 years on and we haven’t been back.)

I’m with you on that.

In reply to Re. Star Trek:NG

As you may recall from other discussions, I attended the USNA; it was not my first choice.

I had been accepted to MIT, but applied much to late to get any of the meager finacial assistance then available to those who were not residents of Massachusetts. I alos had a full scholarship to Penn State, and a competitive congressional appointment to the Naval Academy.

Lacking the funds required for MIT, I opted for USNA, with the intention of opting for Naval Aviation, with the hopes of becoming a test pilot, thereby gaining access to what was then the only entry point into the corp of astronauts. I was ever so disappointed when, owing to the vision in my right eye being but 20-25, I was disqualified from flying jets; multi-props only for me.

Like you, I had expected that by now man would have colonized the Moon. So, for some time I continued to hold onto my dream of someday venturing into space.

I’ve since consigned that dream to the dustbin of enrealistic expectations.

Still, one can hope.

Stewardship

In reply to NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

I agree with the idea of stewardship. I do think we need to do more than just let the market take care of it. I look at how the market dealt with fishing stocks – there are no more cod off of the east coast of North America because we let the market or individuals decide the process.

I agree with gas guzzler taxes. Vehicles that use more gas pollute more, and I agree that there should be some additional compensation, hopefully the tax finds its way to measures that improve the environement(but the cynical side of me says, I doubt it).

But guess what -not all SUVs fit into that category. Small SUVs like the RAV 4 or CRV have 4 cylinder engines and get better mileage than some minivans. And while you are picking on vehicles, why not mention sports cars?

I beleive there is a role for the government, but I don’t believe that the goverment should direct, but instead influence. If vehicles pollute more, tax them more, if vehicles cause more wear on the road, then tax them more. Use financial incentives and disincentives, not restrictions.

We can’t dictate government policy in a modern democracy based on religious principles.

You do have the right to try and use non-governmental means to get this message across, and I would support you in that.

James

YES

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

They subsidize the rest of us by paying more fuel taxes. If every vehicle got 30 mpg, the government would have to triple the fuel tax to keep the same money coming in.

No

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

They are not necessary, but offer optional needs to large families or people that need to tow things. I cant comment either way whether or not they are truly hazzardous to the environment because there is so much disinformation to support agendas. These are merely status symbol vehicles that think because they got one somehow they are above others, that it makes them smarter, sexier, or more macho. It’s called selling the dream and they bought into it, its their right as much as their stupidity. My only problem with them is insisting to get into the fast lane going slow as if that lane is for the elite and not for flowing traffic, and not able to drive them properly, and their headlight height at the worst level that blinds me at a stop light. Waste gas all you want it doesnt bother me.

Ask these people

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1306935

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=27dd4a35-0abe-421a-01c9-ab2abd100e90&TEMPLATEID=5991da4c-ac1f-02d8-0055-99a54930515e

http://www.trowbridge.org/gallery/blizzard_of_2005

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/17/mass_snow.htm

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/?page=stories/blizzard1978

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mkx/climate/big.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-03-19-rockies-blizzard_x.htm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050411/D89D7NLG0.html

Common sense

In reply to Ask these people

Four wheel drive is not a replacement for common sense. As I have stated many times, without exageration, the first vehicles you see in the ditch are usually the 4x4s.

Why? Because similarly to the studies regarding ABS and other new technologies, some drivers(not all) seem to feel empowered to go faster than common sense would allow because they feel that the technology will save them.

I lived in the country growing up and there were very few 4x4s. People put on snow tires and/or drove slower.

I’ve never owned a 4×4 and I have driven in Northern Ontario, at times 50 miles from the closest village. Good tires and common sense got me safely to my destination, despite being caught in a storm.

James

Not even in Michigan

In reply to Ask these people

When I used to travel the freeway back and forth to work, I saw many more SUVs and pickup trucks stuck and stranded in the ditch and median than I did cars.

In the 30 plus years that I have been working, only once did I stay home from work because of snow. Even then, it was not because I could not get through with my car, it was because the company closed for the day.

I would go so far as to state that the irresponsible SUV drivers make the roads unsafe for everyone when it snows.
(Not all SUV drivers, just the vast number of bad drivers.)
They somehow think that their SUV is not encumbered by the laws of physics, and they can continue to drive 10 over and wait until the last possible second to hit the brakes.

It makes little sense to choose a costly vehicle based on one or 2 days a year when a prudent person would stay home.

Chas

Why don’t you

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

people who are opposed to large vehicles because of fuel consumption do the logical thing and lobby for alternative energy sources? My guess is that whatever the next big fuel source is will be the next big boon to the world economy. A hydrogen economy could concievably ignite the world’s economy like information technology did at the end of the 20th century.

actually

In reply to Why don’t you

I have done things to cut back on fuel usage, including buying a more fuel efficient vehicle.

I also have spoken to my elected representatives in the past about exploring other energy sources. Most of them give you the “Well, we’re looking into that..” or “Well, I’m all for that..” line.

Truth is political campaigns are run on money from big contributors, i.e.- corporations, SIGs, etc. If BP, Exxon and Mobil saw that a candidate was going to move in Congress to fund alternative energy research that would possibly ruin their industry, do you think they’d give the guy a penny 2 years later for re-election?

I’ve lobbied. It really does no good. It will take market demand to make the supply change. Oil/fuel use in this country is like the drug use problem. Until we cut the demand, the supply will keep coming. It has to be unprofitable for the supplier before they quit shipping it.

That’s true

In reply to actually

But there are a very select few hydrogen refueling stations in this country now. It’s all more or less experimental, not to mention highly expensive.

But it’s a start. Shell and BP and Exxon and others are eventually going to have to dive into the alt. fuels market. It’s only a matter of time.

Baby steps.

I would always be suspicious of their motives

In reply to That’s true

As long as there is oil to burn, they will keep on selling it so we can burn it.

What Hydrogen represents for the forseeable future is an expensive niche fuel, high-priced and profitable for the oil companies. There will always be enough for the richer ecologically-minded mugs to pay top dollar but there won’t be enough to drop the price so as to make me or you switch for a very long time.

We have a fuel-cell bus trial in London at the moment. Our Mayor is a bit of an ecology nut so I expect more, quickly, if the trial is a success but I’m not holding my breath for a fuel-cell car, though.

Neil

Also true

In reply to I would always be suspicious of their motives

There are motives behind any kind of new enterprise. But people were skeptical before fossil fuels became cost effective. I rememember reading a quote by some Congressman, his name is unimportant, as saying sometime during the 1800’s something to the effect that people were never really going to dig for oil out of the ground. What a difference a century makes.

I’m sorry, I’m only supposed to be answering yes or no…

In reply to I would always be suspicious of their motives

…

Won’t keep coming for long

In reply to actually

fairly quickly, prices are going to double.
Why: one billion chinese are quickly industrializing, building roads like no tomorrow, and buying cars.

Don’t forget the Indians. Another billion of them and they all also want to drive cars. Problem is not only do they want to drive cars, there are very lax pollution laws in these countries so one car is equivalent to 10+ here.

They allow cars without pollution controls, they probably have very little in way of smog testing, and they allow 2 cycle engines for vehicles still in many developing countries. (Anyone know if this has changed?)

At $60/barrel, the canadian tar sands are just barely becoming profitable to extract. While a huge amount of oil will come from there, it will be sold to the Chinese, as on March 15 or around that time they signed deal to invest 49% of the fields or something like that.

EVERY OPEC producing country lies about available deposits as their export quota is based on declared reserves. So we will be running out long before all the oil ‘on the books’ is gone.

The good thing: at higher prices, we will be ‘encouraged’ to reduce usage and drive smaller cars, and alternate energy will come more into play. Wind power is now on par with regular generation for electricity for example.

Ignite Like the Hindenberg?

In reply to Why don’t you

Computer Dude wrote: “A hydrogen economy could concievably ignite the world’s economy like information technology did at the end of the 20th century.”
…
Sorry, but when you said this, I could not help but to thinking of the Hindenberg airship (inflated by hydrogen) blowing up. Seriously, I am all in favor of developing alternative energy sources, including hydrogen, which with today’s technology can be made a lot safer than the old hydrogen inflated airships. At the same time, we need to increase oil exploration and development to keep us going until alternative energy sources are plentiful and cost efficient, along with promoting more energy efficient vehicles, like the hybrids. (I happen to like the Ford Escape (although I do not have one, I own a Saturn), you can have a SUV and a hybrid at the same time, and really confuse the enviornmental lefty whackos 🙂 )

I prefer to let the market and free enterprise develop and promote energy alternatives, instead of mandates from government. The best way the government can get energy alternatives developed is to get out of the way, lessen regulation, and reduce taxes on R&D and development of alternative energy sources.

Gas is combustible

In reply to Ignite Like the Hindenberg?

The Hindenburg blew up in I think the 20’s. There’s over 80 years of progress between us now.

Gasoline is higly flammable as well, but it seems to do okay as a fuel source.

BIG truck

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I drove a full size van for more than 25 years. I needed it for work and a family with four children. YES YES YES I put over 500,00 miles
on it without a major problem. try that with your car of any model or type.

I have

In reply to BIG truck

a 2000 Kia Sportage I’ve had 4 years. 105,000 miles so far. Only thing I’ve had to replace are tires, brakes, fluids and windshield wipers.

Maintenance 90% of the time determines how long a car lasts.

NO

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

Ok, Girli

In reply to NO

Don’t make me drive my gas guzzling truck down to Norfolk.

go ahead.

In reply to Ok, Girli

I don’t know where you live, but with gas prices the way they are, I doubt that you’d be able to afford to make it down here. Tell you what, I’ll meet you half way. hahaha. With my car I can get to Delaware and back on one tank.

be careful

In reply to Ok, Girli

I bet she can kick some arse, CD 😉

hey

In reply to be careful

Are you following me?

Little Girli

In reply to hey

I’m not that far from you…

…

In reply to Little Girli

where then?

About an hour and 15 minutes

In reply to Little Girli

East on I64.

east

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

east on 64 takes you to 664, west would be Richmond area.

Sorry, I’m directionally challenged

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

East would put me in the Atlantic Ocean, wouldn’t it.

I meant west. An hour and 15 minutes West on 64.

so…

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

near Colonial Downs? 64 is confusing, I take west to go east.

Richmond

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

64 near VA Beach is incredibly confusing unless you’ve driven it about 45 times. It loops around the city so you have to go east to go west to get to the rest of the state. If you take it west from VA Beach you end up on 264 then 664 then 460. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

b&t

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

Bridges and tunnels. Don’t forget the bridges and tunnels.

Of course,

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

The tunnels are a cool place to hang out in for about 45 minutes during rush hour. Nothing like sucking down a big rig’s exhaust 100 feet under the water with no escape.

A pet-peeve of mine

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

.
Why is it that people use time to describe distance?

How far is podunk from here? About three hours, might be an answer.

Three hours? Is that by car, by train, by bike, by foot, by camel, or perhaps by super-sonic jet fighter?

Time should not be used to describe distance. If time is an accurate measure of distance, then by definition, distance would be an accurate measure of time. How long will it take to get to Pudunk? Oh, about 200 miles.

Just a pet-peeve of mine.

Max

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

Point taken, and a darn good point it was. I had to chuckle.

I don’t have the mileage

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

from Norfolk to Richmond in front of me…

It should be self-explanatory. How far can you got on the Interstate in an hour and 15?

expedia

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

according to expedia.com the distance from Norfolk, Virginia, United States to Richmond, Virginia, United States is 93.5 miles, or 1 hour and 30 minutes @ approx. 65 mph. Or would someone like that in kpm? anyone?

See, well, there you have it…

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

…

How far can you go on the Interstate. . . . .

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

…..in an hour and 15 (minutes)?

Well, driving at a posted 55 MPH, it would be 66 miles.

Driving at a posted 75 MPH, it would be 93 miles.

But if I decided to drive my classic 1953 Nash, which might struggle to keep pace with the 45 MPH minimum speed, I’d be lucky to go 50 miles.

And if the posted speed limit was like Montana, which has no posted speed limit at all (at least it didn’t used to), it all depends.

Being rather bold, driving my Berlinetta V-12 powered, 540-horsepower Ferrari Superamerica, I could cover well over 200 miles in that time, maybe as many as 240 miles if I really push it.

But on the other hand, if I drive my road hoggin’, accident causin’, gas guzzlin’ SUV, considering I’d have to stop to fill out the various accident reports because of the all the accidents I’d cause; and considering that I’d have top stop several times for gas, because I’d burn up so much; and considering I’d have to stop to get my respirator filled up, because of the pollution I’d be emitting; well heck, it might take me a couple of days to go even 90 miles.

And of course it’s self-explanatory. But that doesn’t make it accurate. Regardless, time is not an accurate measure of distance. But don’t take my pet-peeve too personal. You’re not alone; a lot of people do it. But the post was supposed to be funny, not intended to call anyone to task.

By the way, another one of my pet-peeves is the guy who turns right on a red light and obstructs the normal flow of traffic in the process. Probably one of those time-distance people getting the two confused.

You know what I hate…

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

…people who YIELD to you when they have the right of way. That’s more irritating than being cut off, at least then the guy’s trying to get the hell out of your way. But people who just stop at an intersection and look at you when they should be getting out of my way really piss me off.

you know what I hate?

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

I hate people who complain too much about people complaining or people who think they are funny by giving more information than is necessary about all the different ways you can look at a single topic or when looking at that single topic give you the same way to look at it over and over and over and when you finally finish reading it you hate that person for making you read all of that for no reason. and then I hate those people that hate people that hate them or other people because they hate… wait. I’m lost. Was it people that hate people or people that hate themselves? whatever, the point is … I think I would find that I hate myself if only I could figure out what I mean. oh well.

I think

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

ITgirli is really Suzanne Somers…only younger and cuter, of course.

God…that sent me into 1970s TV sitcom flashbacks…quick…where’s my Guinness! 😉

People who YIELD to you

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

.
You’re right, people who YIELD to you when they have the right of way is another one of my pet-peeves. Especially at a four-way stop. When that happens to me, I usually just sit there and insist that he/she goes first. It could, after all, actually be a set-up for an accident – he causes it ON PURPOSE, but then lies about it and, as the law says, when there are no witnesses, the person on the right has the right-of-way at a four-way stop.

That “set-up” is as common as someone pulling in front of you then slamming on the brakes to avoid “the dog” running across the street.

I saw Suzanne Somers…

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

On TV the other day. She does not appear to be capable of aging.

IT Girli

In reply to About an hour and 15 minutes

A simple yes or no will suffice…

🙂

just where

In reply to hey

do you want me to follow you, ITgirli? 😉

on a long walk ……

In reply to just where

….off a short pier

hahaha

In reply to on a long walk ……

oh dear…you hate me

Oh well…that’s how it usually ends up…my foot in my mouth, someone else’s foot up my arse.

no.

In reply to on a long walk ……

I don’t hate you yet, but that doesn’t mean I won’t eventually. Hey! that means we both have something to look forward to!! great! My day just keeps getting better.

you have no worries

In reply to on a long walk ……

only one person ever earned the distinguished honor of me labelling him “The person I hate.” It took him 15 years of him badgering me, harassing me, defaming me, and even calling the police on me for something his “friends” did to him (he didn’t know at first) to try and get him to swing at me at a party one night.

Nonetheless…I guess if you want it, you can try to get me to hate you. But, it takes a lot of work.

I’m lazy

In reply to on a long walk ……

far too lazy to hate people, or to work at them hating me. I love laziness.

jck…

In reply to on a long walk ……

I’m sure it can’t be *too* hard…

🙂

well ITgirli

In reply to on a long walk ……

I’m not much of a workaholic myself…

As for who hates me…I don’t work for or against it. I just tend to be me and let whomever figure out how they want to feel about me.

Give’m hell.

In reply to NO

…

Without a doubt, NO.

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

…

Status symbol? Not Necessary? BUNK! And Quit Judging

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

.
All this crap that’s being spewed around here presuming to know other people’s intentions is just that — crap.

SUVs are simply convenient for the people who have them. Having to transport the kids, the kid’s friends, the kid’s stuff, groceries, and so on, makes an SUV the vehicle of choice for a lot of families.

If the government wouldn’t have meddled in the auto industry in the first place, placing unrealistic emissions controls on vehicles — complete with loopholes, of course — the family station wagon would have never died.

For the most part, absolutely every SUV owner I know uses it in a manner, and for the same reasons, that made the family station wagon popular in the 50s and 60s. No more, no less.

To those who call it a “status symbol” you simply don’t know what you’re talking about – get real.

And ALL of you “anti-SUV zealots” are simply judging others in one way or the other. Get off your high-horse, and just live and let live.

Your observations are not consistent with mine.

In reply to Status symbol? Not Necessary? BUNK! And Quit Judging

Most here are NOT owned by families with kids.

Many here ARE owned by those who are retired.

The vast majority on the roads here are occupied by one person only.

Exceedingly few on the roads here show any signs of bearing cargo.

Very few owners here require 4-wheel drive.

Many here are purchased owing to the perception that they are “safer”; yet,

The vast majority here do NOT know how to properly or safely operate an SUV or any type of 4-wheel drive vehicle.

My observations lead me to conclude that SUVs are not generally purchased as the result of a rational decision making process.

To whom are they “marketed”?

In reply to Your observations are not consistent with mine.

.
If we could agree on my premise, I think I can show where my assertion is much closer to reality than yours; and my premise is this. Advertisers and marketers spend millions of dollars determining the optimal “target audience” for a product. And advertising is targeted to those audiences most inclined to buy the product. That’s why you’ll see beer, potato chips, and fast food type advertising when you watch a football game, none of which you’ll likely see if you watch a day-time soap opera. (Well, maybe you’ll see the fast-food, but not the beer.) And to whom are these SUVs marketed? You don’t see the SUVs marketed to retired folks, but rather to families “on the go”.

But don’t take my word for it. Do a little on-line research about the demographics of SUV owners, and prove me wrong.

For example, here’s a little something that I found from MarketResearch.com:

“…..Perhaps most of all, the rise of the van and SUV market is a measure of the comfort provided by a larger vehicle to American families spending more time in their vehicles, in the commute to work, to school, to leisure activities, and on vacation. Given more time in their vehicles, issues of space and functionality have increased…..”

On the SUV as surrogate for the Station Wagon.

In reply to To whom are they “marketed”?

While such a conclusion seems reasonable at first glance, under close examination its veracity comes into question.

Given that it was the LACK OF DEMAND for station wagons that resulted in the severe curtailment of their production, to conclude that the SUV has become its functional successor inplies that there has been a recent dramatic increase in the demand for station wagons to the extent that such far outstrips the supply of same, and that the suppliers have chosen to not increase the supply.

Furthermore, if these assumptions are correct then it also true that the suppliers deliberately decided to meet the demand for the capacity that a station wagon provides with a product that is both more dangerous and costly.

Lastly, that the demographics of BUYERS of SUVs might suggest certain kinds and levels of use, they are not in fact a reliable proxy for the actual USERS of such.

Wrong again

In reply to On the SUV as surrogate for the Station Wagon.

.
You are really one for pulling something out of your (whatever) and spewing it forth as fact, when, in reality, there’s no basis in fact at all. (As illustrated in my vehemently disagree message.) And here, you do it yet again.

Of course it was a “LACK OF DEMAND” (your emphasis, not mine) that led to the demise of the family station wagon. But why was there a lack of demand? The reason is twofold. One was the gasoline shortage that resulted in long lines at the pump; and the other was the fact that unreasonable emissions standards forced auto makers to make them smaller and smaller and less powerful. (The same fate met by those fabulous muscle cars.)

Here’s an interesting article on the station wagon:

http://www.stationwagon.com/history.html

Prove what you say, or at least back it up with some semblance of factual reality.

It’s easy to say that I’m wrong, while offering no proof.

In reply to Wrong again

All you’ve done is agree with one of the assumptions that underlie your position, and then claim that it proves me wrong.

You’ve both failed to refute my statement as to the assumptions inherent in your position, or offer any proof for the said assumptions.

And, ad hominem arguments will hold no sway with me.

Actually, you’ve done that very thing yourself

In reply to It’s easy to say that I’m wrong, while offering no proof.

.
You said, “All you’ve done is agree with one of the assumptions that underlie your position, and then claim that it proves me wrong”.

That’s exactly what you’ve done, deepsand. The difference, however, is that I’ve included some support for my assertion, while you’ve offered no support whatsoever. Now granted, my support wasn’t the most technical, but it did have some semblance of legitimacy as a research paper on the subject. Certainly better than your pie-in-the-sky and hollow claims. Can’t you offer at least something as support? (I didn’t think so.)

Believe whatever you want. You can even believe in the tooth-fairy, for all I care.

So wrong.

In reply to It’s easy to say that I’m wrong, while offering no proof.

I’ve made general statements based on my personal observations of the habits of drivers in that area of the country which is home to over one-quarter of the population of the US. That this empirical data may not support your contention, or may not hold true at your location, does not serve to invalidate it.

The data which you offered up is about buyers, when in fact the issue is the drivers. The two are not one and the same, and the former does serve as a faithful proxy for the latter.

Furthermore, you claimed that the SUV was the successor to the station wagon, while failing to offer any proof of such.

And, you’ve failed to address the logical conclusions that can be deduced from said position.

Station Wagon Replacement

In reply to On the SUV as surrogate for the Station Wagon.

Neither emission standards nor fuel economy killed off the traditional station wagon.

Smaller families and the invention of the mini-van is what lead to the demise of the station wagon.

The SUV is nothing more than a mini-van on steroids.

A “macho” man does not want to be seen driving a family sedan, mini-van, or station wagon!

Instead, to appease his macho ego, he goes out and wantonly disregards the environment and common sense by buying an over sized overpowered vehicle.

For nearly everyone I have talked to, the choice of which vehicle to buy is based on emotion and instant gratification. NOT a logical review of their vehicle needs.

I did rethink my $5000 per SUV excise tax concept. The emotional reaction of the SUV buyer would cause them to not hesitate to pay any extra fee or tax.

A much better way to limit the oversize vehicle market would be to require a speed governor in every vehicle.
Those that get more than 1/2 of the current CAFE standard would be limited to 80 MPH.
Those that get less than 1/2 of the CAFE mileage would be limited to 60 MPH.

Watch how fast the “macho” man moves to a more fuel efficient vehicle to feed his need to speed.

Chas

That’s backwards

In reply to Station Wagon Replacement

.
The mini-van was created as a result of the need that was begging to be filled because the auto makers were forced to “down-size” the station wagon. If you consider the time-line, the station wagon pretty much died in the mid 70s. The mini-van started to come onto the scene in the early to mid 80s. There was probably a 5-10 year gap in-between for the need to percolate.

The need (real or perceived) always comes before the product, not the other way around. (At least generally speaking. There are, after all, the occasional “pet rocks”.)

Marketing basics:

Find a need and fill it.

Or

Build a better mousetrap, and they will beat a path to your door.

Not:

Build it and they will come; that only happens in fields of dreams.

Have you spent any time with marketers?

In reply to That’s backwards

From experience, I can tell you that as a lot they are rather unconcerned with, if not oblivious to, realities.

They ARE convinced that they can divine the hidden & pent up demand that only they can tap.

Detroit Model

In reply to That’s backwards

Sorry Max, if you take a close look at how the US automakers develop and market cars, they do follow the build it and they will come model.

Just look at 3 cars that made major impacts:

1964 Mustang

Dodge Caravan

Ford Explorer

All 3 had no defined market when they were introduced.

All 3 were nearly quashed by upper management as a waste of time and effort.

All 3 had a major impact on what the US public drove.

All 3 only made it to market because they had a person with a dream behind them.

When a new idea makes it to market and catches on, the other 2 manufactures follow suite with similar offerings. That is the closest the big 3 come to allowing market forces to influence design.

What killed off the full size station wagon and the basic full size sedan was market forces. Not government regulations.
In the late 70’s and early 80’s, we had both stag-flation and the children of Earth Day coming of age.
When they bought their first cars, gas mileage and low pollution were priorities.
Many took career paths following their passion for the environment that did not pay enough to buy and feed a full size car.
Couple that with smaller family size and delaying starting a family until in their 30’s, and the market for the full size car disappeared.

By the way, up until just a few years ago, you could still buy a full size Chevy station wagon.

The US automakers only do well when the US public desires the type of vehicle that they wish to build.

GM in particular is almost arrogant in what they wish to build.

One need only look at the Chevy Vega (GM’s response to Japanese imports) to see just how true this is.

Part of the problem is that most of the design engineers in the US auto industry have a passion for cars. (not that that in itself is bad)

Designing a big powerful car is looked on as a plum assignment.

Working on an affordable small car is looked upon as punishment. Possibly even a career limiting assignment.

For that matter, look at nearly any successful product. Most are discovered and developed by accident. Scotch Guard and the Post-It note are prime examples.

Market forces do drive supply and demand.

Market forces are a poor source of new product development.

Chas

Chas – That’s Crazy

In reply to That’s backwards

.
Of course there was a defined market for those vehicles. There weren’t people clamoring and being persistent about specifically wanting a Mustang, of course, but there sure was a defined and targeted market.

There was intensive market research done in the early 60s. Lee Iaccoca, himself, described the market demographics as “a market in search of a car” as the primary driving force behind the Mustang’s creation. Market research indicated that the automobile buyer wanted a sporty alternative to the Ford Falcon or Chevrolet Corvair. The Ford Mustang was created to fill a need (or a want) in the market that was already there. The mini-van was no diffferent (another one of Lee Iaccoca’s successes); and the SUV is no different.

You should read Lee Iaccoca’s book. He discusses this in great length.

Niche Markets

In reply to That’s backwards

All 3 vehicles were perceived as catering to niche markets much smaller than they ended up achieving.

The most market researched car of all time was one of the biggest flops. Remember the Edsel?

GM in particular makes product decisions based more on internal politics than the market. One example is the Pontiac Fiero. It was killed off because it was perceived as a threat to the Corvette.

I suspect that the next GM brand to disappear will be Saturn. Not because there is not a market for a US brand small car, but because GM has no real interest in making small cars.

Chas

The SUV is the successor to the Jeep, …

In reply to That’s backwards

not the station wagon.

The SUV provides proportionally less cargo space, human or otherwise, than does either a station wagon or a mini-van, at a much lower fuel efficiency than either.

Like many products, vehicles are designed & marketed to maximize profits, not utilitarian value to the customer.

For many it’s “Power Toys,” as epitomized by …

In reply to Station Wagon Replacement

“Tim, the Toolman.”

For some, it’s machismo, with SUVs being the new “Muscle Cars.”

And for others, it’s the adult version of playing at being “GI Joe.”

So, what’s the problem?

In reply to For many it’s “Power Toys,” as epitomized by …

So, if someone wants to buy and own one of these vehicles, whats the problem? Let them have freedom of choice as long as there is an auto manufacturer willing to manufacture these vehicles. It is their choice to pay for them and to pay for the extra gasoline it takes to run them.

BTW: I do not own a “macho” car, I have a 4 cylinder Saturn SL2.

The problem is the consequences to others.

In reply to For many it’s “Power Toys,” as epitomized by …

If you will read my prior posts re. the drivers of SUVs, you’ll have your answer.

Were it the case that their behavior on the road affects no one but themselves, I’ve have no issue with their presence there. However, such is far from the case.

When you say “macho man”. . . . .

In reply to Station Wagon Replacement

.
…is that as opposed to a girlie-man?

I said “machismo,” not “macho man.”

In reply to When you say “macho man”. . . . .

Max, at no time have I impugned either your rational for wanting to drive an SUV or your driving skills & habits.

Stop taking my general observations as being personally directed at you.

deepsand – I wasn’t referring to you

In reply to When you say “macho man”. . . . .

.
You said, “Stop taking my general observations as being personally directed at you.”

First of all, I wasn’t taking anyone’s observations as being personally directed at me. I was just wondering what the alternative to a “macho man” was. (Perhaps a girlie man, I suggested.)

Second of all, I wasn’t replying to your message. I was replying to Chas’s message and his use of “macho” man. That’s why it was directly under his as a reply, and not under yours. (If we reach the end of a thread, which we didn’t, I would have addressed a message to you, as I did in this case.)

Geesh, stop taking my specific observations made to others as being personally directed at you.

Very Different

In reply to When you say “macho man”. . . . .

Arnold’s “Girlie-man” remark was designed to belittle the California Democrats who were not willing to go along with gutting state programs to balance the budget.

My “Macho-Man” is a (predominantly US) male who is so insecure about his manly persona that he cannot do anything that would be perceived as less than manly.

In the context of this thread, an appropriate description of a “Macho-Man” would be a man who lives near L.A. with his small family. He drives his SUV alone on his 30 mile 2 hour commute back and forth to work.
His SUV never goes off-road, never tows a trailer, never hauls a load.
He bought his SUV because his buddies would harass him as being feminine if he drove a mini-van.

His choices in products and entertainment are carefully chosen to maintain and improve his position in the social pecking order of his “friends”.

His primary research for cars, gas grills and tools is to find something bigger and more powerful than his buddies have.

Chas

Yea – Be a MACHO-MAN!

In reply to When you say “macho man”. . . . .

Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man
You’ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
You’ve got to be a macho! (all right)

Macho, macho man (yeah, yeah)
You’ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I’ve got to be a macho! All Right!

Ugh! Macho..baby!
Body, body, body wanna feel my body,
Body, body, body gonna thrill my body,
Body, body, body don’tcha stop my body,
Body, body, body it’s so hot my body,

Every man ought to be a macho macho man,
To live a life of freedom, machos make a stand,
Have their own life style and ideals,
Possess the strength and confidence, life’s a steal,
You can best believe that he’s a macho man
He’s a special person in anybody’s land.

Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!

Rationalizations

In reply to Status symbol? Not Necessary? BUNK! And Quit Judging

If its transporting the kids, then a minivan is a better choice – more room and more fuel efficient. I will give you the example of the Toyota Ciena and the Toyota Highlander. Both have the same engines. The Highlander seats 5, the Ciena 7. The Ciena is about 10% more fuel efficient. 10% may not seem like a lot to you, but if we all reduced our consumption by 10% the price would be reduced as would emissions.

Emission controls – I am sorry Max, but I totally disagree. Whether we own a car or not, we all share the same air. In many urban areas, 50% of the pollution comes from automobiles. This in turn directly affects peoples health. In Toronto, the Board of Health estimates that over 1000 people a year die from the negative affects of air pollution. Even if that is an exagerated number, it far supercedes the number of people murdered in Toronto every year(60) and yet we put huge resources into solving those crimes.

I would argue that minivans are the real successors to station wagons.

If driving an SUV had no impact to my life, I would be happy to shut up. But it increases pollution in the air that I breathe(for no good purpose), and drives up the price of gas. That does impact me.

James

How about my “right” not to die?

In reply to Status symbol? Not Necessary? BUNK! And Quit Judging

When a 4WD/SUV crashes into my little Ford Focus, those nice safety devices – bumpers, crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, side impact beams, etc, becomes totally irrelevant when the SUV slams into my passenger compartment from ANY direction. The conservation of momentum during a collision basically assures that any vehicle of about two tons – such as a medium to large SUV – will get the better of a vehicle averaging about one ton (my Focus). At the immediate collision point, the heavier vehicle will slow down and stop. My Focus will be bounced backward in the direction it came, probably leading to serious head, neck, and chest injuries. At least in the UK I would have the NHS to fund my medical bills.

I accept that heavier cars will cause similar results, although the larger SUVs are considerably heavier than the largest passenger cars. The larger cars still have the crumple zones that would absorb some of the impact.

However, SUVs ride higher than passenger cars and this would result in a misalignment of load paths during a collision. In a frontal collision, the SUV would ride over the bumper and crumple zones of my car and head directly for the passenger compartment at eye level. Every safety device engineers have spent the past decade designing into cars is circumvented! In a side collision, the SUV would tend to override the top edge of the door and once again plough into the passenger compartment at head or chest level.

Check the statistics out for fatalities in car vs SUV or LTV accidents. Who dies most?

How do we deal with this? You said in an earlier post that “When the freedoms enjoyed by one person actually infringes on the rights of another, it’s up to the state to protect the rights of that other.”

Possibly a levelling out the playing field by reducing the numbers of such “killer” vehicles falls into that category.

No judgement here. I just think that “Live and let live” is pretty inappropriate. “High horse”? Not me.

Right on.

In reply to How about my “right” not to die?

It has been oft said that one’s right to swing his fist ends at the other guy’s nose, and rightly so.

And, as the purpose of government is to collectly do that which we cannot do individually, it falls to the government to keep our air clean & our highways safe.

Vehemently Disagree

In reply to Right on.

.
You said, “the purpose of government is to collectively do that which we cannot do individually.” How strongly can I disagree with that? The purpose of government, at least the US government, is to protect and guarantee the rights of the individual.

By what authority do you think the US government presumes to “collectively do” anything? Okay, put the same question to me. By what authority do I think the US government presumes to protect and guarantee the rights of the individual? My answer is the U.S. Constitution. What’s your answer?

The only “common” anything mentioned in the US Constitution is to provide for the “common” defense. And “collective” or “collectively” is never mentioned, while “individual” (the people) is often repeated. And the Tenth Amendment clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” That means if it’s not spelled out specifically in the Constitution, it’s the individual rights that trump all else.

The USA, by design, is an individualist nation, not a collectivist nation.

(By the way, I really hate debating domestic US issues with those who live elsewhere. First of all, the issue is usually none of their business. Second of all, very few of them either understand or agree with our particular form of government, whereas the people grant rights (or give up individual right) to the government, not the other way around, as usually is the case in their own country.)

2 points.

In reply to Vehemently Disagree

Read the Commerce Claus.

The States too are Sovereigns, each with its own Constitution and its own Rights. Furthermore, the peoples of each are free to request that their respective States to collectively protect them from the actions of others, both within and without, in matter where they cannot individually do so.

Lastly, I would suggest that you read some of the letters of the time re. the principles of government as held by those who gave us our Federal & State Constitutions.

Surely you jest

In reply to 2 points.

.
I have indeed read the early papers. I’ve probably read the Federalist Papers several times over, as well as Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Madison letters and/or biographies. I’m absolutely certain that I’m much better read on the subject than you. (Of course I can’t prove it. It’s just a sneaking suspicion.)

Go ahead, find the “collectivist” clauses in the papers you mention. Find reference to “collectivism”. (And don’t ask me to prove something that’s not there. It’s up to YOU to prove that it is there.)

Skirting the issue.

In reply to Surely you jest

“Collectivism?” Your term, not mine.

Just what do you hold is the purpose of government?

deepsand – I already answered that question

In reply to Surely you jest

.
When you asked, “Just what do you hold is the purpose of government?”, you showed that you apparently don’t read my messages. I answered that question here:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=170980&messageID=1753324

But here’s the answer again:

You said, “the purpose of government is to collectively do that which we cannot do individually.” How strongly can I disagree with that? The purpose of government, at least the US government, is to protect and guarantee the rights of the individual.

By the way, when you said that collectivism was my term and not yours, you are again mistaken. I got that word from YOUR very own message in which you said, “the purpose of government is to collectively do that which we cannot do individually”.

Are you playing games, or is your retention level at about a zero? When you can’t remember what I said, I could attribute it to simply not reading, but when you can’t remember what YOU said………Geesh.

Wrong definition.

In reply to Surely you jest

Main Entry: col?lec?tiv?ism
Pronunciation: k&-‘lek-ti-“vi-z&m
Function: noun
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

Second Point

In reply to 2 points.

.
State Constitutions are also structured the same way the U.S. Constitution is, in that powers are granted to the state by the people, not the other way around. If you want to try to cite a particular state constitution that doesn’t, knock yourself out. Go ahead and post it. (And I should assume by your post that you consider as legitimate those state constitutions that ban gay marriage. Glad to hear it.)

Common Law vs. Codified Law.

In reply to Second Point

Constitutions based on Common Law do in fact take the form you note; and, I’ve said nothing to the contrary.

Those based on Codified Law, however, are different, in that Codified Law attempts to address every conceivable issue that may be of concern in advance.

Roughly speaking, Common Law can be thought of as being of the form “that which is not forbidden is permitted,” whereas Codified Law is of the form “that which is not permitted is forbidden.”

As for gay marriage, I’ve made no statement that would support your assumption.

This is almost funny – Collectivist-Type thinkers

In reply to 2 points.

.
Collectivist-Type thinkers never use the early writings of the founders as support for their position. Why? Because it’s not there.

Are you for real?

Go ahead, find the “collectivism” sentiments in the writings.

Still putting words in my mouth.

In reply to This is almost funny – Collectivist-Type thinkers

Kindly refrain from making speculative assumptions that have no basis in fact, while at the same time failing to offer any proof for the position that you’ve taken in opposition to that which you’ve assigned to your opponent.

deepsand – And what words are those?

In reply to This is almost funny – Collectivist-Type thinkers

.
What words am I putting in your mouth? Collectivism? You said it. Do I need to point to it again?

Your term, not mine; and, it’s the wrong one.

In reply to This is almost funny – Collectivist-Type thinkers

I decline to accept your misuse of “collectivism” as defining my position. See definition below.

Furthermore, you’ve failed to state your position re. the proper role of government.

Main Entry: col?lec?tiv?ism
Pronunciation: k&-‘lek-ti-“vi-z&m
Function: noun
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

Amen to all you said

In reply to Vehemently Disagree

You got it right. Too bad not many Americans know the US Constitution, including members of Congress and Federal judges. The 10th Amendment is the most ignored and violated of the amendments in the US Constitution, especially beginning in the 1930s with FDR and the New Deal, and just got worse since then.

Irrelevant to my point.

In reply to Amen to all you said

My point is that one’s rights end at the point they infringe on the rights of others.

The Constitution does NOT give anyone unfettered rights, only limited ones.

I know many people who do not choose to buy an SUV.

In reply to Right on.

Some of them buy tiny vehicles.

Even when they can afford more substantial vehicles. They value discretionary spending over safety, or economy. Personally, I see it as false economy. I was rear ended, and physically unable to work . I was driving a Full sized Buick. The person who hit me was driving a Chrysler. We were better off, but I
wish I was driving my ’96 Roadmaster.

Maybe we should

In reply to How about my “right” not to die?

ban the unsafe small low cars 🙂

They’re only unsafe

In reply to Maybe we should

when hit by an SUV or LTV.

So, if everyone has an SUV, don’t you think that those urban drivers who regard an SUV as a status symbol would go for something BIGGER or more powerful? Then off we go again.

I’m going to buy a Ferret Mk 4, good British car. 4 tons, armour to .30 calibre, 6mpg off-road and a creditable 9mpg on-road (thats 8mpg US). Crumple-zone? No, that’s the other vehicle.

😀

Hilarious Sci-Fi

In reply to They’re only unsafe

short story where supreme court in US declares the police can’t protect everyone all the time so is OK to have arms on the road; story is about fellow in Pasadena who gets his car ready to cut down thru San Clemente on Fwy to SD, and had ‘previous trouble’ where armored car took out his friend.

Starts off with his ‘mechanic’ (actually armorer). YOu can imagine the rest. Total gas. Esp since I live in the greater LA area.

So we might have a car size race, assuming people want to hit each other; pretty soon everyone will be driving Damnation Alley size tank trucks. (I guess all the water in the movie came from the oceans overflowing from global warming)

The upside of high gasoline prices

In reply to How about my “right” not to die?

On this side of the pond, escalating gasoline prices have resulted in the sales of new SUVs declining 15%-20% from those of the previous quarter, and lots overflowing with used ones with rapidly declining resale values.

As SUVs account for roughly 1/4 of all vehicle sales, the manufacturers are not amused.

No electrons were harmed in the production & presentation of this message.

Yes!

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice NOT an unfettered right.

In reply to Yes!

Your rights end at the point they infringe on those of others.

Where is that thin line?

In reply to Freedom of choice NOT an unfettered right.

That is the crux of the problem. What do we do about smokers? What do we do about those that drive a SUV/Truck that don’t need one? What do we do with those that wish to kill themselves?

Lots of questions and no good answers because at some point you infringe on their rights as much as they infringe on yours.

When the answer is not clear cut, …

In reply to Where is that thin line?

compromise is the best solution.

Unfortunately, people generally seem to be becoming less and less willing to so do.

True, but…

In reply to Freedom of choice NOT an unfettered right.

..people owning SUVs do not infringe on the rights of others. I have seen people driving subcompacts hogging the road just as bad as a SUV, maybe worse, since subcompact drivers often drive slow in the left lane. It is not the owning of a vehicle that infringes on the rights of others, it is how the person drives the vehicle. If they can afford the vehicle and afford the cost of fuel, then let them buy it. It is a free market.

Road hogs.

In reply to True, but…

I take no issue with you in that regard. Big, little, 2wd, 4wd, etc. all too many drivers live in their own little worlds once they enter the cockpit of their craft of choice.

However, it is my overwhelming experience, from many miles & hours on the highways of the Eastern Megalopolis, that the majority of SUV drivers (as opposed to owners) fall into 2 classes.

One is overwhelmed by their vehicle, and drives with undue timerity. The other is so certain of both the abilities of the vehicle & their driving skills that they drive in an exceedingly aggressive manner.

I have personally been the victim or near victim of the latter far too many times, with the accident reports, repair bills & insurance claims to prove it.

I agree

In reply to Freedom of choice NOT an unfettered right.

.
“Your rights end at the point they infringe on those of others.”

I’ve said that many times myself.

That’s why it’s wrong for the government to take a dollar from the person who earned it only to give it to a person who did not. The “right” of the person to keep his own property (money) trumps any other argument.

So I can assume that you agree with me that absolutely every transfer of wealth social program is wrong since it infringes on the rights of people who want to keep their own property.

And my right to own an SUV should also trump your right, or better described as a desire, to prevent me from owning one.

Only if you live in isolation.

In reply to I agree

However, for so long as you live with others, your position is logically flawed to the point of being specious.

It is not logically flawed

In reply to Only if you live in isolation.

.
What a stupid thing to say. Just because you say it’s logically flawed, doesn’t mean it is. Moreover, it’s logic that not only contributed to the creation of the USA, but worked just fine for 160 years before Roosevelt started screwing it up.

Just one example to demonstrate the consequences of your position.

In reply to It is not logically flawed

Without a social contract there would be no SUV for you to drive, no fuel to to power one, and no highway on which to drive one.

Actually any unwanted interaction is infringement.

In reply to Freedom of choice NOT an unfettered right.

No matter what it is either by judicial fiat, or executive action, also…

NO — Small fuel efficient SUVs are Great

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

NO. Speaking of the urban class here. Rural people who feed us and tradespeople use trucks for work, that’s different. Another exception is a larger family. If you’ve got a 5 person family, a minivan may be the way to go. The topic is SUVs, but the often get lumped together.

I have a 91 4-door 5speed 4×4 drive suzuki sidekick 10km/l city, 14 hiway. Still runs great and reliable on 273,000 KMs. It goes to about 130-140km with an 8 valve 1.6 litre. That’s pretty good for a SUV compared to those new hybrids that get 24 km/l and I could never sit in (I think, never tried).

I’m 6-4 300lbs. One sits normally and comfortably. You’re out of the cornea burning headlights and glare 3 feet above road level.

4×4 city: No problems hilly city snowed roads even on really old tires. Not tippy with new large AT tires. Goes any and everywhere.

You don’t need the supply line of the US 8th mech infantry division and a Project Managers’ salary to procure fuel. One 40 litre tank will get you 320KM in 4-low, over 500-600KM in 2-high.

You may want the big SUV for psychological and social status issues.

You need the big SUV if you will spend your driving time:
-on the cell, blackerry, PDA, personal grooming,
-watching TV and generally do anything but pay attention to your driving.

Then the big SUV is then mandatory to protect you when other vehicles fail to evade you hurtle at them:

-driving through red lights,
-driving on the wrong side of the road,
-cutting across multiple lanes of traffic
-cutting them off
-hammering down, set ram course to express your indignation at the person in front for not pulling over to yield their place in line to you.

It may be old, but it sounds like a keeper to me.

In reply to NO — Small fuel efficient SUVs are Great

Funny how so many of the older vehicles are so much more fuel efficient than their successors.

My 1962 Chevy, 6 cyl., 3 speed manual trans., which got 26-27 mpg in town, and 30+ mpg in the open, would be today envied by many for its thrift. And, it carried 6 in relative comfort, with a large trunk to boot.

How true

In reply to It may be old, but it sounds like a keeper to me.

I forgot about all the six cylinders that we didn’t care about as we lusted after the V8s, most were in the high 20-to mid 30mpg’s as you say. Some of the older Broncos were supposed to be good.

I like my “zook”. It’s my first 4×4 and first suzuki but third japanese 1.6 liter. I had an 83 toyota corolla with similar mileage and an older totota crown. The cars were carburetted, the zook’s EFI witha computer that only handles fuel. Toyota and Suzuki did it right by the 1.6

I’ve got a neighbour who hunts and 4×4’s blew his clutch (familiar stories-it’s not uncommon to see logging roads littered with with guys who try to go straight through curves or imitate tumbleweeds) Anyway, he gets his buck and we tie it up on top of my zook with it’s tongue hanging out. It looks like one of those perfect “bad day at the office” shots. If you like I’ll send it to you.

I’m be inclined to have this motor rebuilt when the time comes, isn’t showing signs. I hear too many horror stories of $50,000 dollar cars, $1,000 dollar a year warranty maintenance contracts and people still being shoved non-warranty covered repair bills especially on VW and domestic product – not to mention reliability.

What are you driving now?

At the moment, a ’91 Chevy Cavalier, with 165K+ miles.

In reply to How true

I had to give up my ’81 Datsun 310 wagon. The drive train was in excellent condition, but the body finally fell apart, owing to the massive amounts of salt on the roads here during the winters.

My favorite 4WD vehicle was a ’58 Willeys Jeep wagon; gas mileage was crappy, but it was a ball to drive & handled exceedingly well.

The great thing about the old straight 6’s was that they were so easy to work on; open drive shafts with plenty of space under the hood. Need to replace the clutch plate and/or throw-out bearing? No problem; do it yourself in less than 2 hours, with time for a couple of cigarette breaks.

YES

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

YES

Well, I think it is time I voiced my opinion…

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

In some cases they are necessary.

My biggest problem with them is that they have become a status symbol.

The chevy S10 blazer really started off this whole debate way back in the early 80’s, actually if you want to go further back, international, willys, and gm have been producing an “SUV” for a very long time.
The S10 blazer was filling a niche in the market where people needed the extra seats of a minivan and the functionality of the S10 pickup because of terrain,or weather but they did not need the size or lack of seats associated with regular pickups or other fullsize options.

I absolutely despise the term “SUV”,I despise what the american car buyer have done to that market.
The “SUV” market is packed full of truck wannabes because the more affluent buyers demand a soft ride,low step in height,all kinds of electronic garbage,push button automatic everything,leather this and heated that, all of this crap makes me sick.
SUVs are turning into station wagons right before their eyes, because they demand what a wagon can offer but refuse to buy one.

This mentality has even invaded my beloved fullsize truck market, it is a GODD@MN truck, if you want a GODD@MN cadillac go see you local cadillac dealer.

I have owned fullsized v8 powered trucks from just about every american manufacturer to ever build a truck.I currently own a 99 1 ton 4×4 that makes almost 14 mpg and that is better than every other heavy duty pickup that I have owned.

I had to buy it used because I cannot afford to go order a new truck without all the power option garbage that I do not need,apparently americans are now so weak that they can no longer roll down a window without an electric motor helping them.

I drive my truck because, I use my truck, not all the time but I do use it for it’s intended purpose,unlike most of the people that demand their a truck be more like a caddy.

I also drove my truck close to 400 miles a week until the price of fuel leveled off at $2.00 or more per gallon.
I would rather feed my kids than spend $75 dollars a week on fuel.

The argument that the high horsepower engines pollute more is horsesh!t,they are making more power through efficiency. An internal combustion engine is nothing more than an air compressor,the better it breathes the better it burns the fuel,more efficient combustion leads to less pollution and more power so don’t try that crap with me.
I do agree that most “SUVs” are not used as intended which is sad, but that is their choice not mine.
That statement raises a good point,the “SUV” market is so overpriced that people buy 1 vehicle to serve as a daily driver,tow vehicle,family truckster,and whatever else,because they cannot afford to buy or rent multiple vehicles to serve all purposes.

The fuel mileage on most “SUVs” is better than most mid sized cars of 15 years ago,and the mini”SUV” is a great compromise between econobox and “SUV” but might not fill all your needs,and the choice is still theirs, but they need think about that before dropping 40 large on an overpriced STATION WAGON.

By the way if some envirowacko ever confronted me about my truck,I would take my fur coat out of my TRUCK, pull it over his head, grab my wooden stick, and beat him like a baby seal,
Why, you ask.

BECAUSE IT’S MY CHOICE

The UV turned into an SUV.

In reply to Well, I think it is time I voiced my opinion…

The current SUVs are successors of the Jeep.

However, to say that the Willeys Jeep wagons were SUVs is a stretch. While they certainly utilitarian, and were used by hunters & fishermen who did more than road hunt/fish, they were far from sporty.

If you review my other posts here, I think that you will find that we concur re. their now being mainly status symbols, operated, for the most part, by the unskilled and/or unthinking.

unskilled dumb@sses…

In reply to The UV turned into an SUV.

if you ask me.
The problem with saying the JEEP started the “SUV”market is, that it never gets lumped in with the rest of them, it is almost in a class by itself.
The S10 blazer is probably the vehicle that started the current trend,it did the same thing for the “SUV” market that the chrysler minivan did for that market

I absolutely agree with you opinion about most people that drive “SUVs”.

I was in shipping and receiving before coming to IT,and if you talk to a career trucker he will tell you,when the snow flies the median strip becomes littered with “SUVs” because of untrained drivers.
New “SUV” buyers should be offered an offroad driving course just like new ATV buyers(they paid me to take one)just to get them familiar with operating a large vehicle in less than ideal conditions.

I have lived in rural Indiana all my life,and learning to flog a big 4×4 is a right of passage where I come from.The first time it snowed the year i got my license, dad took my out to an open lot, and taught me how to control a vehicle that seemed to be out of control. That type of training should accompany any new “SUV” purchase

When I was 17 I owned a 3/4 ton 4×4 suburban with 38″ tires. When it rained or snowed I would find a big open parking lot and nail the GO pedal,once the back tires started spinnning I could turn that truck completely sideways and drive it like that.The things I could do with that truck even impressed the officer that ticketed my a couple of times(because he said so).
You put a city dwelling “SUV” owner in my truck when there is snow on the ground and I’ll make him crap his pants within 10 minutes, but once he learns that kind of control he will no longer be danger to others on the road.

I never claimed that the Jeep was an SUV; only a UV.

In reply to unskilled dumb@sses…

The SUVs merely succeeded the Jeep.

I wholehardedly concur re. mandatory training for SUV drivers. Hell, even the old Willeys wagons, which had a much lower center of gravity than do today’s SUVs, still required some “training” time.

I’ve elsewhere noted that I too see the bodies of SUVs all over the place during winter. It’s funny to see the Yuppies ranting & raving by the road sides.

Sorry…

In reply to I never claimed that the Jeep was an SUV; only a UV.

that was worded totally different from how I was thinking no disagreement here.

No harm, no foul.

In reply to Sorry…

I suspected that such was the case.

No!

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

No!

Yes because…

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I have a 4 door Toyota Tacoma. I didn’t want an SUV as the back has a camper…I need an open bed.

I’m restoring a 1970 Bug, so I need a bed that can take some abuse. I also need to haul stuff around (like the brand spanking 42″ LCD TV I’m picking up in a couple of weeks.) Not to mention that camping, driving to certain places in New Mexico, and just getting “stuff” from point A to point B would be impossible with out a truck.

While some in the US don’t use their vehicle for anything more than a status symbol, some of us actually use them for what they are made for…

Plus, I’m doing my part for the environment…my other car gets 35mpg (and the Bug gets about 30mpg).

Sadly, you are an exception.

In reply to Yes because…

As i’ve noted elsewhere here, based on my voluminous observations during my travels in the Eastern Megalopolis, the vast majority of SUVs on the road are greatly underutilized, and are driven by those who are wholly unskilled in their operation to the extent that they represent a clear and present danger to all others on the road.

In short, for most they are but a status symbol.

You might be right :-(

In reply to Sadly, you are an exception.

Today I saw a lowered dually. What is the point of that!!?? I mean, come on.

I also have noticed that the “SUV” is not really more than a Sports 4 wheel drive Vehicle. People do try to drive them like sports cars and they tend to not use them for anything but hauling wet ware (usually at most only one plus driver).

While most people in New Mexico need a truck/SUV, there are those that don’t know that they are getting into. What really kills me are the folks that bought into the H2. My Bug does better off road than a H2. Arrggg!! I just wish they’d bring back the contractor license scheme for large trucks and not sell mid-size trucks without a IQ permit 😉

2 amusing observations.

In reply to You might be right :-(

1) When I return to central PA, where I grew up, which is mountainous, with large farmed valleys, I consistently see that those who might have use for 4WD vehicles don’t; and, that the SUVs are driven by the wealthier urbanites.

2) During winters here, the medial strips, etal. are littered with SUVs!

True!

In reply to 2 amusing observations.

It is pretty sad that my little Bug doesn’t get stuck, but some soccer mom in her Cadillac Mosteraide is on the side of the road STUCK.

‘Course the same lady was chatting on her cell phone, sipping on Starbucks and putting on makeup.

Which is probably how she …

In reply to True!

ended up on the side of the road to begin with!

on my way to work today

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I saw an SUV on it’s side in the middle of a flat straight three lane highway. My car couldn’t do that. And I’m glad it can’t.

That’s Terrible!

In reply to on my way to work today

.
Perhaps we should ban flat straight three lane highways.

we can’t

In reply to That’s Terrible!

Eisenhower had an interstate act created that states that at least 1 out of every 5 miles of US interstate must be a straight mile so we can land planes if necessary.

Urban Legend

In reply to we can’t

I would refer you to http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

This one is fairly commonly passed on.

On alt.folklore.urban newsgroup this one has been extensively discussed, and the newsgroup includes some ex military and NASA pilots, the problem is really simple. Planes need to land near fuel, mechanics tools and parts. Most military aircraft require many many hours of maintenance per hour of flying time.

James

That was just a Yuppie Turtle.

In reply to on my way to work today

…

Yes

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Because I like them!

SUVs rarely necessary for private use

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

SUVs may well be necessary for rural and country folk but are rarely necessary for the majority who live in cities or urban environments. Many are driven by women in the belief they give their family more safety and they give an elevated view of the traffic. Generally they are a menace, encouraging more aggressive driving, guzzling precious fuel and blocking the forward visibility of following car drivers.

If you are childless or single I see little use.

In reply to SUVs rarely necessary for private use

My daughter on the other hand uses it to Haul, and to make money in her Truck…

Are SuV’s and trucks necessary for private use

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

No

No!!!

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Heck NO!!! I don’t think they’re necessary at all!!! In fact I hate them with a passion!

It all depends on your needs

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

It all depends. It could be a Yes or a No.

Give me a break. We don’t live in a Ford T Model era. We have plenty of choices.

In winter my AWD Toyota Highlander does a beatiful job of taking me safely up a hill to my home and also gives me around 30mpg – which is higher than many cars. On long highway trips it is as economical as a Toyota Camry. Carrying stuff from Home Depot or Costco is a breeze as it does not strain my back. In winter I also use snow tires which do help a lot. Summer I use the All Season Radials which are less noisy.

Recently, as the gas prices have escalated to a level which is somewhat breaking a tolerable ceiling, specially in Canada where prices are closer to $4 per gallon. I decided to try out a Smart car in a showroom. Man my knees alomost hit my stomach/chin. This baby is cute but good only for 2 grocery bags and very short trips around town, even it gives around 40 mpg. It may be good as a second car. I believe it is coming to the States soon. It may be great for NY city. It look like a Golf Cart to me.

Over size cars, vans, SUV and Trucks necessary?

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

No

Yes

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I don’t own one (but I do own a windstar) but for safety, for cargo, for kids and for people who can afford it, they meet a need far better than the Prius, which is just now beginning to see the issues of supplying elecrical power from batteries as the batteries and cables (motors, magnets, switches and circuits) age.

Later fires, perhaps even explosions may ensue until all the bugs are discovered and eliminated.

Japan gave us pathetically designed little cars that are death traps at speeds over 55.

Regards,
Les H

Japan gave us what the public wanted, & US manufacturers failed to provide.

In reply to Yes

For the vast majority of Americans, SUVs are neither required nor beneficial.

As for your “logic” re. vehicle mass, why not then have everyone drive a tank?

Yes

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I own a mid-size pickup (dakota quad cab), which I need to tranport equipment to and from work on a daily basis. It also makes transporting my canoe and mountain bikes a lot easier.

On a related note, I feel that auto manufacturers need to put more effort into designing and building (and hopefully at a reasonable cost) more environmentally friendly engines for trucks and SUVs. While I applaud them for making hybrid and super-efficient engines for small cars, I also look at it and think wouldn’t it make more sense to improve the engine for something that gets 9-14 MPG than bumping up a small car from 30 MPG to 40 mpg? That alone would go a long way to reducing petroleum needs (gas, diesel) and emissions.

My 2 cents anyways,

Dan

bigger is better….NOT!!

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I really think these big trucks should only be bought for ranches, construction, etc. I know so many people with big SUVs or diesel trucks that don’t haul anything. A mid size SUV should be able to handle most family loads. The whole “gas guzzler” tax isn’t much of a deterrent.

In most cases, NOOOOOOOOOOO

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I can see a few cases where they might be but for most folks it is a status and social thing, SUVs are cool and everyone has one so I need one also. Absolutely no thought to what kind of condition and state of energy usage they are going to leave their kids.

Yes. 7 passengers.

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

Family of 5. When we bought it we had 2 in carseats. Requires 7 passenger vehicle since two car seats will not fit in most vehicles and allow a third in the middle.

Now they have minivans that allow for 7 passengers. When I bought my SUV they didn’t.

My wife was setting in a turn lane waiting for traffic to clear so she could turn off. An older gentleman driving a DodgeRam 1 ton pickup, pulling a 22 foot bayliner hit her doing 55 mph. My oldest daughter suffered a slight bump on the head, my younger daughter didn’t get hurt, and my wife only suffered anxiety from worry about my kids. Our vehicle, a Jeep Laradeo had to have the rear frame straightend, the back hatch and glass replaced, and the dents popped out and one quarter panel repainted. By the way, the Dodge Ram wasn’t hurt to bad either.

When our 3rd child came along, it was time to move up to an additional seat because in our state, any child under 6 years and 60 pounds must be in a car seat, and any child under 18 must be secured by a shoulder restraint device. So we looked around and the GMC Yukon was our only choice. It has a bench seat in the back with 4 captains chairs in the front. That allowed us to put one car seat in the back, one in the front, and allowed us to load and unload the children without having to crawl in and out. It also allowed us to double up when grandma and grandpa rides with us, or when we have to pick up the extra’s at school. (Even if they have to have car seats.)

American life includes sleepovers and bunking parties. Occasionally, we still have to take two vehicles, but that is the price we pay for raising our kids to be active members of the community, with friends, envolved with church activities, school, and youth sports activities.

The reason we have the paradigm of “Soccer Mom” is that it is part of our way of life.

If it is any consolation, my SUV is a small Jeep Liberty Renegade. I don’t race it at Baha, but could I think. It only gets 21mpg, but it will go when the power lines are coming down and has 16 inch tires. I carry a double set of tire chains in the winter, and I can go in just about anything.

We live on a hill in rural Arkansas. (So far back in the sticks we still pump sunshine in and moonshine out. ) When it ices, we have to have 4wd to get to work. And we have to go since both my wife and I work at a hospital. Sick people need us even when it’s inconvienent to go. So we both drive SUV’s and will, no matter what the price of gas. Long before we have to give up our SUV’s, the rest of America will have gone to some form of electric cars. Then we will trade our SUV’s in for Hummers or whatever the Army is using then.

Yes that means that we will be a menace to the rest of you, and I’m sorry about that. But we drive carefully, and don’t run in to many people, yet anyway. So if you hit me and my bad old SUV tears up your little Honda, I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t have hit that big white SUV with your little bitty car.

of course they are not necessary

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

But what about people who have families,I own a mini van and suv, suv takes five adults and mini van more, I hate the van, but some people use them for work like carry tools and stuff,large trucks also are used for hauling,pulling, etc,,anytime you go to buy something if you had no way of hauling it you would either not buy or pay someone else to haul it for you.. they are not necessary to the ones who do not use them

Yes

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

I would like to see someone open a landscaping business without a big truck or SUV.
Better yet have you seen what 4 300 pound people do to the suspention of a Mini, Civic or ANY small car?

yes…

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

…becuase to deny them to anyone would be to deny freedom of personal choice.

I personally hate them… but others like them for whatever reason… so………………..

Absurd Question

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

You want to dictate to others how to live?
Then a “NO” means tyranny. Who will enforce it?
You value freedom?
The only possible answer is “YES”.

Takes a totalitarian bent of mind to even
ask such a question.

Sheesh.

—————————————–

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on
what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

– Benjamin Franklin

Your project is barking up the wrong tree

In reply to Survey: Are Big Trucks and SUVs really necessary?

YES, they are necessary in many areas with difficult terrain/weather.

[Author]

Replies