http://www.msnbc.com/news/813301.asp?cp1=1MSN article

 

LOL... did anyone else see the "Sponsored by Trailblazer" logo at the top?

 

I pretty much agree that SUV's are dangerous not only for drivers of small cars but also for it's occupants.

A loophole in the laws allowed them to be classified as trucks instead of cars and so emmission, safety, and fuel economy standards do not fall under the automobile domain.

The worst thing about SUV's is the false sense security that they give drivers. There was a psychological profile done of female SUV drivers who all felt "bigger" and "badder" driving a big truck.

I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off by an SUV or seen one in a ditch in a snow storm after having it plough by me at full speed because they think "ha, I have a 4x4".

Not to dis legitimate buyers of off road vehicles and trucks but that only represents 1 in 20 SUV drivers IMO.

 

I do agree with most of the article but, DAMN does the author have a personal problem with SUVs! Personally I like driving an SUV better. For some reason in the CL I always feel like I have to race everywhere. With the SUV I'm a much more relaxed driver probably because I know it's weaknesses...heavy, high braking distance, limited manueverability. The biggest problem with SUVs is not the vehicle, it's that people dont' know how to drive them.

 

This guy is Ghey, he is part of the intensely liberal media that hates the automotive industry, and especially SUV'S. They are the safest cars if driven properly! Would u rather get into an accident in a civic or an expedition?

Spew pollution???? Is this guy kididng? They have to meet the same standards as cars.

Wow this guy needs to pull the stick out of his ass. I can't wait till i buy a nice new Suburban with a 6 inch lift, and huge 33 inch tires. Then i will follow him on the highway, and cut him off, so he will go cry to his mommy.

 

SUV's are the worst gas guzzlers around. Sure the Pinto was a safe vehicle when driven properly as well.

You need to get your head outta your ass. Intensely liberal media....RIIIIIGHT I guess your not biased either right?

Suburban with 6inch lift and 33 tires......trying to compensate for something?????????

 

I didn't know there were rednecks in NJ

 

With that mentality, everyone would be driving around in Ford Expeditions or comparably-sized vehicles, chugging along at 14 mpg. "Hey, everyone else has a Expedition... I better get one too some I don't die when one T-bones me"
This is the opposite of what we need... people who convince themselves that they need to use a 6000 pound behemoth to drive to work everyday because of those 2 times a year they need the extra space.

Sure SUV's are safer if driven properly (as opposed to driven improperly)... but that's true of any vehicle. A CL can be dangerous or safe depending on the driver. What doesn't change is the inherent danger of SUV's that the article was talking about. The combination of greater mass, higher ride height, inferior braking distances and handling ALL make SUVs much more unsafe to all parties. Now combine this with the ever increasing populus of inexperienced people behind the wheels of these large trucks.

I wish people would just stop and think about their buying decisions for once. If someone truely needs a truck, then by all means they should get a truck. But we have way too many people in this country who buy up their bigass Suburbans for the wrong reasons.

 

That’s an INCREDIBLY one-sided article, but I agree with MUCH of the information that is presented.

I am really getting annoyed by all the behemoths I see on the road everyday.

Shawn S

 

So what if they guzzle gas, that is the owners fault for buying one. I mean driven properly meaning not taking turns at 100 mph. Or riding sum1's ass to the point you wont be able to brake in time.

Yes, the media is extremely liberally biased. I don't see how you can deny that.

Trying to compensate for something? Dude, i was speaking hypothetically. I laugh at raised SUV'S(cept for wranglers cuz they are cool) I get alot of pussy, and i have a large cock thank you very much.

People have the right to buy what they want. Sure a car that weighs more will perform worse, so does that mean we shoudl get rid of camaros, because they are long and heavy? Wait so is a CL-S, the car that you own Zapata. Why don't you drive around in a civic? I mean your heavy Cl can easily kill someone in a civic.

When i have a family the first car i will go out and get is a stong, large, powerfull SUV to keep them safe. So when some drunken wacko comes by driving 100+mph in his civic i know my car can take the hit, and my family will be safe.

Zapata, once again you have proven yourself to be very cranky and in need of a bj. I think you need a nap pal.

 

This guy also tries to say SUV'S aren't safe because they perform poorly.

"but it still has the nimbleness and ride quality of a pig on stilts." (in reference to the escalade)

WOW, what a genius. First of all, the escalade is one of the smoothest cars i've ever ridden in. Second of all, why dont u complain about the hyundai elantra? That thing handles like shit.

"My best estimate is that the replacement of cars with SUVs is currently causing close to 3,000 needless deaths a year in the United States-as many people annually as died in the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001."

Of course he has no information to back this up, just an estimate that he pulled out of his ass.

"And up to 1,000 additional people succumb each year to respiratory problems because of the extra smog caused by SUVs"

LOL, this is a funny one. Sure SUV'S conrtibute to pollution, but so does eveyr car out there. Even SUV'S have to comply to emmisions laws dude.

"This conservative estimate excludes a lot of problems that are hard to calculate, like SUVs’ harm to pedestrians, or their contribution to global warming. "

Wow, now suv's are killing pedestrians??? They get up and do it? They are also the cause of global warming i guess.

Zapata, did you write this article? This guy pulls so much stuff out of his ass he must be looser than Christina Agueilara.

 

OK, my last comment. This guy does not say one thing bad about suv's except for rollovers that is valid. Cars can roll over if you drive them too fats to ya know.

 

Unfortunately that’s how most of the “soccer moms” drive them. Hence the BAD RAP they get.

 

Large cock and get alot of pussy.......

You've acheived alot man!!!!!

 

Making fun of people on the internet......

You're a looser!

 

my question is how come gas guzzling SUV's are exempt from gas guzzler tax??

 

Yea, but alot of people in Civics drive them stupidly.

 

Now we have a totally ONE SIDED response to a ONE SIDED article.
You are the wrong person to be commenting on this because you own one of those monsters and believe everything that the advertisers are putting out there.

FYI…I’m pretty sure that vehicles classified as TRUCKS fall under different emissions guidelines so that part of the article is correct.

Huge SUV’s are like nuclear warheads…..Everyone wants to own one so they can be “safe”.
But once everyone HAS one, who is really safe???

Shawn S

 

True….But if an out of control CIVIC plows into a line of stopped traffic the results are less spectacular then when that same guy is driving a Ford Excursion.

 

Ok i thought they were the same, but i don't own one. They are no fun to drive . I bet the emissions are preety close in standards to cars though.

Also your comparisson to nuclear warheads is way off i think. People just buy them to feel safe, and they are the strongest cars. I would rather be in a Suburban than a Civic if i was to get hit by another vehicle.

 

True, but an out of controll Accord does more damage than a Civic. Do you see where im getting at here? We cant jus ban cars because they are big.

 

1. SUV's are more likely to roll over. The MDX is the ONLY SUV to achieve a 4 star rollover rating. Most automobiles are 4 or 5 star.

2. They DO pollute more than cars and they do not have to meet the same fuel economy standards because they are classified as trucks - this is an outdated loophole.

3. SUV occupants are less likely to be injured in a two car collision, however, they are also far more likely to be involved in a single vehicle accident because of poor handling and a false sense of security.

 

The part about danger to pedestrians is valid too.
I saw a show on Dateline a few months back where they crashed different cars into a standing test dummy.
When a CAR hit it, most of the injuries were LOWER on the body and resulted in broken legs and such.
But when a high vehicle like a truck or SUV hit at the same speed the injuries were much worse because of the higher impact point.
The subject is hit in the ARM and CHEST area resulting in greater chance of lasting injury or death.

Like I said earlier, the article is definitely ONE SIDED, but there are a lot of facts hidden in the propaganda.

 

True, but you have to put the weight difference in perspective.

A 2003 Ford Excursion, 7.3L V8 weighs ~7688 lbs.

A 2003 Honda Accord V6 Coupe auto weighs ~3294

A 2003 Honda Civic Coupe auto weights ~2507


So, we're essentially talking about a 131% difference in weight from the Civic to the Accord. But from the Civic to the Excusion that's 307%, and for the Accord to the Excusion, 233%. That a tremendous difference in force of impact of a Excursion hitting a compact to midsized car, compared to a midsized car hitting another midsized or compact car.

Plain and simple, large trucks and SUVs require more care when driving them, and too many of today's suburbanite Smith's and Jones' don't get it. A 6000 pound truck by design is less safe because of it's increased weight, higher ride, and poorer braking and handling....period. This is a danger that presents itself to everyone driving around larger trucks, not just the people in them. And I refuse to go out and buy some huge truck that I don't really need, just so that I might not get hurt as bad in an accident with another large truck. I'm not going to give up a more efficient, better handling form of transportation which has exceptional safety, just so that I might win in an accident.

No one is saying ban SUV's and trucks. Banning them would just be stupid. I grew up in a rural community, and as such I understand the necessity of owning such types of vehicles in day to day living. My father would not be able to function in his business without his truck. What most of us here are saying is that too many people (especially in urban areas) buy these vehicles for the wrong reasons, and not for the serious day-to-day necessity of having the utility of a truck.

 

My point in bringing up the weights of the cars was just to say that we can't bitch about the increased weight cuz some cars are very heavy(er) also.

I agree with you about them requiring more care, but i never disagreed. The guy in the article is trying to portray SUV's as wild weapons on the road that cant be contained.

You have the right to not buy a truck, but sum1 also has the right to buy one for shits. I don't see how that is a bad thing as long as they can handle it. Stop bein a hater :P . That might be what the populus is thinking, but this guy who wrote the article thinks any SUV owner is evil and a threat to your life.

 

Red Nj-s, no offense, but you sound like a babbling defensive idiot, so you should just shut your mouth.

As the article points out (and as you would know, if you had comprehended it), the marketing for the automotive industry accounts for 14% of the TOTAL advertising in this country, and thus supports a huge portion of the media.... The media loves the automotive industry, and an editorial writer is allowed to express his opinions, especially if they're well thought out, coherent, and backed up by facts -- three qualities which YOUR arguments totally lack.

First of all, from the article itself, and from the NHTSA, people in SUV's have a higher death rate than people in normal cars, despite their increased weight and size. SUV's are built on a TRUCK platform, which does not absorb or distribute impacts nearly as well as a car frame, and most SUV's lack the safety features of most modern cars (worse air bags, worse crumple zones, etc. etc.).

Furthermore, in a collision BETWEEN a civic and an expedition, every single person in the civic will face an enormously increased chance of death. Since SUV's make up only 15% of the vehicles on the road today, that means that they are greatly endangering the other 85%, which are normal cars.

No, they actually don't.

The reason that the public is buying SUV's is because the car companies WANT them to buy them. And the reason that the car companies want them to buy them is because they are classified as "light trucks" by all government regulations, and thus are not subject to all of the fuel mileage regulations, as well as many emissions regulations. The laws are DIFFERENT FOR TRUCKS. Do you think that a Semi passes the same test as your CL?

Because of these laws, SUV's are much cheaper to make, and can be sold for a premium... The profit margin on an average SUV is approximately 2 times more for the factory than the margin on a car, and that's why SUV's have become the lifeblood of car manufacturers.

He breaks it down immediately afterward. I agree that the 1000 he attributes to increased smog is hard to prove, but your argument that an SUV that gets 14 mpg and has lower emmision standards emits the same amount of smog as a 35 mpg 1.6L SULEV civic is absolutely laughable.

The other two follow DIRECTLY from accident statistics, which are very detailed and completely accurate. The SUV rollover rate is documented to me much much higher than cars, and people die in 75% of the accidents where the car flips over. Furthermore, by computing death rates in car-on-car collisions versus car-on-suv collisions, you can easily see how many "extra" people died.

Did you even read the part on how when an SUV hits a low car or a standard traffic concrete barrier, it tends to flip over due to much higher center of gravity instead of stopping or being directed back into its lane? It has nothing to do with being driven properly, it has to do with what happens in a small freeway accident -- does it pass relatively harmlessly, or does it turn into a disaster when the Explorer flips over the center divider into opposing traffic?

Nice reversal of position, and otherwise complete immature stupidity. I'm very happy that you profess to have a large cock to your (mostly guy) friends on the internet. I just included this quote of yours to remind myself who I'm arguing against... I know I'm not going to convince you of ANYTHING, but I was just hoping to help the other board members think about the situation, and actually process the information in the article, which is very well written.

To those of you who read it and used your heads to think: .

I personally don't agree with everything he says, and I'm not for regulations that would ban SUV's; however, people need to understand that they're not "safer", and to acknowledge the actual advantages and disadvantages.


Anyway, awaiting your brilliant retort...

 

i dont know how RED NJ-S is trying to justify buying the suv if u dont NEED them. All of his reasoning are nothing more then EXCUSES.

The article presents FACTS, not a fragment of the author's imagination. And they're very much close to the truth cos i've read and seen similiar reports from other sources. Why would he attack the SUV for no reason? Even half of this reasons are enough for a person with a brain to realize that suv are a threat.

Red is one of those americans who feel like they can do anything just cos they WANT to :shakehd:

 

To those of you who read it and used your heads to think: .

I personally don't agree with everything he says, and I'm not for regulations that would ban SUV's; however, people need to understand that they're not "safer", and to acknowledge the actual advantages and disadvantages.


Anyway, awaiting your brilliant retort... [/B][/QUOTE]

Once again with the making fun of people online. You are also a cool guy.

1st off, i never said he wasn't allowed to express his opinions. Secondly, how can you say the media isn't liberally biased, and that a large number of them don't hate the automobile? I see a new article daily about how the car is ruining the enviornment.

OK, but let them catch up. More and more are getting side airbags and the like. I still would rather be in the Expedition in an accident.

Ok and an Accord will wreck the civic too. So does that mean all cars must be as small as the smallest vehicle? I don't see the point this is trying to prove. If the Civic hits a brick wall the Civic passengers will probably suffer more damage than the wall.


I corrected myself later in this thread saying i was wrong about that.

So people don't actually want to buy SUV's, it is a conspiracy? What is wrong with an SUV being a good profit maker, because of less gov't restriction? Shouldn't that tell you somthing about gov't power and its effect on the economy.

I don't bevleive i ever said this, but i have read before that the exhaust difference is extremely minimal.

About the whole accident part. Yea a big high car is gonna do more damage. I try to stay away from fast SUV'S cuz i know their drivers drive like whackos alot.

I was simply trying to show the obsurdity of Zapata's statement through a more absurd and yet, i thought, amusing one. Just because someone has a sense of humor does not deem them stupid.

 

ok my return argument probably made no sense, but basically I am sick of people bashing SUV's and cars, just out of pure hatoration. Also what qualifies as an SUV. Any car that is heavier or higher than your car? I think the whole argument is just absurd. I do know that I've gotten into a couple accidents. One in a van, and one in a car. They were about the same speed and situation, and the bigger heavier van unded up in much better condition. I do not think an SUV is less safe if you are a good driver who drives it wihtin reason. (where the car has grip so it doesnt roll over) Even a low camaro can roll over if your stupid enough.

 

No i don't. I beleive strongly in laws, but i do not think an SUV poses any more of a threat to society than your average car. I think it is the drivers who pose the threat.

 

Umm, no, the Pinto had design flaws.

If you don't think the media is very liberal, then I'm wondering what you're reading/watching/listening to ...

 

This linked article has very little to do with the "media"... MSNBC just took some excerpts from this guy's book.

I think he has some very valid points. I will never own a SUV personally

 

Well I did go a little overboard, but I guess I felt it was necessary at the time. I don't have any problem with you anymore, because this time your response actually made total sense and was an actual factual discussion...

Anyway, as for the media... I see what you mean, but on the other hand, dont' you see a new article daily in Edmunds, or C&D, or MT, where the latest gas-guzzling 450HP sports car is hailed as a gift from god to man? There's lot of different opinions, and most members of the media tend to drive to work etc... It's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, imho.




The point is that the civic is designed to absorb a certain amount of impact, and the Civic in this argument represents the average small american car... Even the average AMERICAN brand car is small these days. Anyway, the point it's trying to prove is: an Accord will wreck the Civic, but not the occupants. In other words, it all depends on the accident and the speeds and the direction etc etc, but in a symmetrical collision, the people in civic won't get hurt much more than the Accord.

If an Explorer hits a Civic in the same collision as above, with the Accord, the people in civic have a much, much higher chance of dying. Furthermore, the people in the Explorer have a higher chance of dying also, due to the fact that it might flip over the Civic or the guardrail when it bounces off (or plows through).

Comparing to a brick wall is pointless, SUV's have double the weight of an accord, whereas an Accord is only 30% heavier than a civic.


[Qoute]
So people don't actually want to buy SUV's, it is a conspiracy? What is wrong with an SUV being a good profit maker, because of less gov't restriction? Shouldn't that tell you somthing about gov't power and its effect on the economy.
I was simply trying to show the obsurdity of Zapata's statement through a more absurd and yet, i thought, amusing one. Just because someone has a sense of humor does not deem them stupid. [/QUOTE]

Well it's not like it's a conspiracy, but the Durango and its equivalents have been around forever, and the popularity of SUV's has skyrocketed in the recent years, whereas they were a insignificantly minor portion of the market earlier (any time before 1995).

It's not interesting to you to find out the reason for this change? People just awoke and had a brilliant new idea, "Let's buy a really heavy big car to go to Safeway?". There were market forces that brought that about... SUV's weren't a new invention, and it's not like they improved greatly and people started buying them, it was the other way around... The improvement came AFTER the increased popularity. That's very curious indeed.

Anyway, the reason is that car manufacturers had to turn to SUV's to continue raking in profits, because of the higher margins. It's great for the manufacturer, but it's not that great for the consumer, for a very simple reason: if there's a huge margin on the product, either you're overpaying, or you're getting shafted on actual product value (two ways to say the same thing).

The reason the margins are higher is because the engines/cats/exhausts/safety systems require much less R&D because the requirements are less strict, and the systems are much less sofisticated.

 

I don't think we disagree on anything man. I think if we discussed this in a different medium, like in person, that we would find out we agree on about everything. I still hold true that the media is extremely liberal. Except for Fox News/.