Actually, people having opinions and expressing them in a rude, unnecessary manner should be stopped in my opinion. There's no reason to be so rude to another in any situation, especially when that situation does not concern them in any manner. They can form the opinions in their head, but obtain the facts before expressing them, please.


#1 I stated the market did NOT embrace us with 20 offers to choose from. We chose our jobs and accepted the drive.

#2 the point of this thread is not discussing our drive time, nor discussing why we cannot possibly move closer to not be on the road as much. The point is discussion SUVs. People can express their opinion just fine, I am not stopping that, But when their opinion is totally off topic and they assume things that are not true, then they are stepping out of line. I have not bashed anyone who actually has a valid point to add here, unlike you.


Side note - Boston driving includes 128/95 (which my husband has to drive on every day). However, I am not familiar enough with Boston roads and thus they look like a maze to me everytime I attempt to drive them. Not to mention the locals who don't give you the time of the day when you have no clue what you're doing (which I can totally understand, but doesn't help me!).

 

Now hang on a minute... you started this thread with a very specific question, which was based upon three specific words - why, hate and SUVs. Here, let me directly quote your first post:Heck, the title of the thread is even focused on SUVs.

Now, Art (chows4us) started to try to discuss a totally different problem (excessive speeders & hot-rodders) to deflect away from the SUV debate... but that's a completely different issue. Even he agreed it's off-topic, so why are you wanting to drag it back into the discussion?

The way I see it, as I've tried to point out before, there are two related but different discussions here:

1. Vehicle design, and the impact of it
2. Driver behavior

Based upon your first post, it seems to me that you wanted to focus on the vehicle design. That's what I've been trying to do, for the most part... although some people in this thread have focused more on driver behavior.

They ARE related to an extent, because how you feel when you're in a vehicle can impact how you choose to control it. Also, certain personality types will gravitate towards certain vehicles, and then drive those vehicles accordingly. Additionally, the type of vehicle you are in does affect the end results of driver behavior - in other words, their ability (or inability) to control the vehicle in a less than ideal situation.

That being said, trying to focus on how dangerous non-SUV drivers in non-SUVs are is a deflection away from the original question of why SUVs are hated.

Deflection is not on-topic nor a valid means of debate... of course it's the primary tool of the "spin" machine. (Have you ever seen the movie "Thank you for Smoking?" No, I'm not trying to start a discussion on smoking... I'm trying to point out how effective deflection is as a means to avoid an argument, unless it is recognized early and nipped in the bud.)Correct... nor is the point of the thread to discuss other drivers in unrelated vehicles.Exactly.

That being said, if you feel that someone is being blatantly disrespectful of you personally, report the post and it will be reviewed. Although some of the comments here have been less than complimentary, I haven't seen blatant personal attacks, unless I've missed something.

 

I have an SUV because it is useful and I like it. I also have a MINI because it's useful and I like it. If you like me when I drive my MINI, but think I become a selfish ******* when I drive my SUV, then the hell with you. I'm the same person no matter what vehichle I am driving.

 

Did I say it applied universally? No. There are many fine people in your situation (in my case, as I've stated before, I've even dated SUV owners). That being said, stereotypes can and do exist for a reason (e.g. soccer moms)... but as with all stereotypes, exceptions must be allowed for.

Again, the main focus is supposed to be on the design of the SUV. Chill out!

 

I wasn't responding specifically to your post, just overall comments in the thread. It's the "holier than thou" attititude of drivers of certain cars that gets me.

 

Step back for a minute and recognize that people are just expressing their opinion. And don't forget... we were asked.

One of my favorite quotes from this thread (and I don't think I've quoted it yet!):

 

One could go as far as to say that most SUV drivers employ the same attitude to any vehicle smaller than they are.

 

Most? Maybe, maybe not. Another stereotype / generalization...

But I have heard from a number of my SUV-owning friends about how they want to "run over" traffic, or to watch out, because they'll "run over" me in my MINI. Every time I hear it, it just makes me do this ->

Sure, it's a joke... but it's been said often enough to show there's a mentality behind it. Again though, this is turning focus on SUV drivers. As I said before, it's related, but not really what the original post was asking.

 

Holier-than-though attitudes are always annoying. When was the last time such an attitude was received warmly? Still consider the following


Vehicle Design:

Argument 1: SUVs are way roomier and i can fit 5-6 people inside one.

Counterargument: The center of gravity for many SUVs stands much higher than the ground (great driver view and that) and when you add in 5 men, you aren't helping that CG much. Turning at even lower speeds has an added element of risk (you can't do away with Physics here).

http://www.jdpower.com/cc/rd/cc/auto...cle.asp?id=111


Argument 2: If an assh*le hits my huge *** SUV, i'll be safe inside. If the same assh*le (who is always out to get me) hits me in my little car, i might be dead.

Counterargument: A favorite link:

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150

Ok that might be a little extreme since that blog is ancient history but the point is some of the cars (and smaller cars) have good engineering to withstand crashes. Do your homework if you want a good crash safety rated car.


Driver behavior:

Let me ask a few questions here:

1. Why do many SUV drivers tint their rear window? The bloody pos vehicle is already making it hard to scan the road ahead - tinting is so rude, obnoxious and inconsiderate.

2. With a greater stopping distance compared to a car, why do a good number of SUV drivers drive at similar speeds (*cough* 80mph *cough*) and maintain the same distance (as they would if they were driving a car) from the car in front of them? This is a different beast - change your driving habits?

3. Why don't people get the fact the word sport in their SUV doesn't mean it's a fracking Ferrari or even a Corvette?

Another scenario:

Jules just turned 18 and wants a nice jeep because it's sexy but ma and pa buy her an SUV because they want their little baby to be safe in an accident and it's a bad cruel world out there, out to get their little baby.

Although this thread isn't to discuss driving time, it does affect the original topic if that driving time is in an SUV More time spent in an SUV = more gas guzzled, more time you block the view of "lesser" drivers.


I realise this might sound holier than thou but it's a fact that SUV drivers annoy car drivers; doesn't matter if the SUV driver is an idiot or a responsible driver. There are enough morons out there driving SUVs that they give everyone a bad name.

 

I'm about to show that cans of worms come in six packs.

Everyone should know by now that I am all over anything MINI. But last month, I picked up this little puppy right here:



It makes every SUV I encounter seem positively quaint. The reason? I also have recently aquired a 26 foot travel trailer, and my other, 18+ year old truck was no longer as reliable or comfortable or spacious as this. It makes RVing comfortable, safe and enjoyable. I also use it for my typical major projects, hauling stuff around and other towing duties.

But that is far from every day.

The past two days I drove the thing to work. Just me and about 7000 pounds of truck. Tomorrow I might drive the MINI, or my Stratus. Or the old truck once I fix the transmission again. By looking at me and the particular vehicle I am driving, with no other idea of who I am and where I am going, you can draw any number of conclusions, good or bad. I seriously do not care, one way or another. I look at any number of cars, trucks and SUVs on the road and I can immediately draw conclusions, correct or not. What I have much better luck with is assessing behaviors. I will see a person in a SUV in their lane, driving sensibly, using their turn signals and not inhibiting traffic flow, being courteous, etc. I can see someone in a Yaris weaving, speeding, cutting off people and causing hate and discontent all while talking on a cell phone. Here is the 'sensible vehicle' being used in an obnoxious manner. The aforementioned SUV has to swerve to avoid hitting the Yaris that cut them off. This exact scene played out in front of the the other day. And I have seen similar every week. The only difference is the vehicles. THe behavior never changes.

Point being, one can never be too sure of the rationale the owner of that oversized vehicle has for owning it. Nor do you always see it beyond what you saw it used as beyond that moment. Granted, it's been proven statistically that a good number of people tool around in those things when something far smaller and more economical would be the more practical and safer solution. People are slowly coming to realize the 'error of their ways', as they discover the fuel issues. Aside from that, if fuel had not risen in price like it has over the last several years, people's complacency would have them staying with the larger vehicles without much second thought. In the evidence of environmental damage coupled with hitting people where it hurts in the wallet, people will make changes. But there will always be a need for certain types of vehicles, whether they seem 'appropriate' or not. And there will always be that immutable fact that there will always be, somewhere, a want.

 

I think you can blame that one on the manufacturers because most SUV's (and minivans) come with the rear side and rear windows 'factory' tinted already. And as I've said before, most the time when I can't see around an SUV it's because I'm following too closely. What about tractor-trailers? Are they considered rude because they are pulling an enclosed trailer that you can't see through?

 

To quote myself from the first page, Edge, I turned this into a discussion of WHY hate just SUVs when there are other cars doing the same thing OR worse (much worse) on the road. Why always focus on the SUV? (When motorcycles do wheelies past you, sports cars who weave in and out of traffic at ridiculous speeds, etc.) The point of the forum in my opinion, and I suppose my opinion counts here because I started the forum in the first place, was to ask why hate just the SUVs when there are so many other poor drivers that pose just as much, if not more, of a risk. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the beginning. However, Art has given very reasonable arguments that warrant that question.

No idea, never seen this done before/never done it to my cars. My MINI doesn't have tinted windows either.

I suppose so they don't get run off the road by sports cars going 100mph and passing them or weaving through them

Again, I don't think anyone believes this.


Driving time is currently enjoying my MINI for 2 hours per day. Driving time is not regarded here, no matter what. That part is finished from this thread as it has no worthwhile addition to the discussion, period.

And there's enough poor sports car drivers and motorcycles to do the same.

 

Greatbear,

Excellent post. The fact is, we can never be sure just from seeing someone driving on the road why they bought their SUV and what they use it for. It's fine to rant about "irresponsible" use, but the fact is that we can't do anything about it, directly.

I believe that the only way the overall situation can improve is updating regulations, as I've said before.

Correct outdated regulations to enforce a "level" playing field between cars, SUVs, pick-ups and all other vehicles used as "passenger vehicles" in the areas of passive safety (crash protection), active safety (crash avoidance), fuel efficiency and emissions.

The other, more "invasive" regulations could possibly be an additional "class" of driver's license for all vehicles over a certain weight (say, 4000 pounds?). The harder part about that is it is a state-by-state issue, so it is much less likely to happen across the board, whereas vehicle design is more of a federal issue.

If either (or both) of those regulation changes were enacted, I think it would go along way to self-correction (over time... as old vehicles meet the junkyard).paceysgl5 - as I've tried to explain before, it's a simple answer. Let me explain once again. The reason for focus and attention on SUVs is the sheer prevalence of them. SUVs make up such a huge percentage of vehicles on the roads today, which is why they are getting the attention. Motorcycles and sports cars are very minor percentage, relatively.

Take that fact, and add in the attributes of the SUV (exaggeration, as I explained yesterday), and it's no wonder that the "rest of us" harbor some resentment towards being bombarded by SUVs day-in and day-out.

Have I made it clear enough? Can you understand WHY now? Even if you don't agree with the opinions?

 

Which is what I've been saying from the beginning - regarding keeping an open mind about people around you. You never know what situation they are in or why they do the things they do.

*gotta love when you're ignored from the beginning* :impatient

Yes you have been clear from the beginning. Those are perceptions however and I don't think it is a valid case for hating them all. God if I applied that sort of thinking to a particular race (or let's say, anyone with the name John) then I'd #1 be an idiot for assuming all John's are worthless and #2 be closing my eyes to the world of opportunity out there for meeting all these Johns's (okay bad example, and very broad, but the point is there).

 

You're not being ignored. It's back to the two topics at once issue (vehicle design & drivers).

Just because some SUV drivers may be able to completely justify owning an SUV, and may be responsible with it, does not change the fact that SUVs (as a whole) pose an increased hazard to drivers on the road.

There are issues with the vehicle design that are not corrected simply by stating (correctly) that many SUV drivers are responsible.

 

I get the feeling that we're going in circles :(

 

No, but that brings us back to Art's point about the fact that there are many other hazards on the road as well

*going around in circles*

Ha guess the feeling is mutual.

 

Again, you're personalizing it, making it about the people. Let's focus on the vehicle, because yes, we CAN reasonably generalize about SUV design, because the vast majority of them are subject to the same limitations.Not to the same degree or extent. Relativity applies too, based upon sheer numbers. And no matter what other hazards are out there, that doesn't reduce or remove problems with SUVs as a valid discussion point. Again, deflection does not change the valid facts.

 

This thread used to be entertaining, now it just plain sucks.

Off to the detailing forum to learn how to properly shine my MINI when it gets here.

 

Your anti-people look at it is too focused though. The people that hate SUVs for no reason other than the fact that they are not as safe as other cars fail to realize they are necessary for many people out there, and thus are needed. One cannot broadly state that they hate SUVs unless they want to simply prove themselves to be narrow minded.

 

No, we can gripe that the auto manufacturers have gotten away with minimal standards on SUVs because the laws gave them that loophole. Then, they market them as the big, tough vehicles, even when many of them aren't (tough, that is).

Auto manufacturers could design vehicles that met everyone's need (or perceived need) yet didn't pose these problems, but there's no financial incentive for them to do so, because regulations allow it, and people still buy them (often not knowing any better).

There's nothing narrow-minded about that. It's reality. Narrow-minded is refusing to see the evidence for what it is.

 

I think you statement of "unavoidable in very few cases" could be accurate for a time frame of about 30 years ago.
Income and real estate prices have a large impact on where people live, and companies that employ large numbers of people don't build in the middle of no where.

 

That's very true. My wife works for an airline in San Jose. The two of us combined don't make enough money to live in the Bay Area. She's got too many years in, to just quit and look for something else, and lose her retirement. I'm an old guy in a young person's game, so finding another job for me isn't easy either. So both have commutes because we have to live where we can afford to.

Back to topic.

 

Edge, would you be merciful and end this circular thread?

 

Good point.

Time to stuff the worms back in the can and put the lid back on... until it is opened again.

Thread closed.