[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Mark and CFishgo (long) Posted by Michael [Email] (#1365) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Michael) on Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:08:52 In Reply to: CFishgo is right...(longish), Noel, Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:21:19 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
I'm not sure how saying that SUVs handle badly, brake poorly and accelerate slowly is contentious...and the assertion that to say this is tantamount to arguing that a bike could replace a car for a 250 mile trip is beyond me. And certainly the manufacturers would be surprised to learn that their four-wheel drive off-road products were not designed to go off road.
No doubt the BMW X5 performs well, and the Acura MDX for that matter, but to argue that these exceptions prove the rule that SUVs are just like cars is just plain wrong. Explorers, Tahoes, Expeditions, Land Rovers, Excursions, Escalades and all the rest do, in fact, handle, brake and accelerate poorly compared to cars. So, my point holds that the safety of these things derives from their ability to demolish whatever, and whomever, they hit...isn't that the very definition of social aggression? Why not install a battering ram on the front and rear as well..no doubt they will protect the occupants, and the paint, even more! But these would be banned by the government because, although they might protect the drivers of SUVs even more, they would be a hazard to other motorists.I don't see how the danger of SUVs as they currently are differs in principle. And why are manufacturers increasingly concerned about lowering the height of the bumpers, making them handle better and reducing their fuel consumption...is that because they were safe and socially friendly to begin with?
And as anyone who looks at this issue with clear eyes will acknowledge, the vast majority of the time these things are being driven around by one person...no boat being pulled, no huge amount of packages in the rear. Certainly some families with a bunch of kids and their toys might benefit from having third seats..but as far as I can tell those seats are no different from the third seats in a minivan. And for plain cargo area, most station wagons are more than sufficient...but obviously not as cool.
I've read several studies about the demographics of SUV drivers..I wish I could point them out to you now, but I can't remember where they were. But they did say that the drivers purchased the vehicle because it made them feel more like they were single (if they were married), attractive to the opposite sex, wealthy and 'outdoorsy'. That is, they are appearance-conscious. Check out the ads for these vehicles and see it you think these are on the mark.
Look, I think people should be able to purchase whatever they want or need, and certainly some people really need an SUV...but the vast majority don't. And the vast majority of SUVs do handle, brake and accelerate poorly compared to cars, and do more damage to other vehicles in collisions, and do use more fuel and put out more emissions than cars. The tradedy of the commons is that some people will benefit themselves at a cost to others...SUVs aren't like other forms of fashionable conspicuous consumption, such as LV handbags or Gucci glasses-they have a direct cost to others in the forms of poor visibility for other drivers (but better for SUV drivers), better protection in a collision (but worse for other drivers), worse fuel economy and emissions (but more CO2 for everyone else)...all in the name of fashion for the majority of SUV drivers.
posted by 12.224.112...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.