>>No reasonable person advocates getting rid of old cars or tearing down old houses just because they are not energy-efficient. Fuel efficient cars have not been available until relatively recently. To use the house analogy, you wouldn't knowingly buy a NEW house with leaky faucets, no insulation, and drafty single-pane windows. So why would you buy a NEW gas-sucking hog of a car (SUV or otherwise) in this day and age when there are plenty of other options available?

I WANT A SUV so I can Go skiing,boating & off roading - Do I NEED it -NO,Do I NEED
my MINI so I can joy ride NO . I WANT or I NEED hummm yes two different things.

I guess all those opposed to SUV'S will not feel any quilt for all their joy riding,it is just a little bit of gas- MOTOR ON

 

>>If you guys really gave a whit about it, you'd all drive a hybrid, or a pure electric car, and only drive it when absolutely necessary. You'd take a bus to work, or even better, ride your bike. The whole idea of driving ANY automobile for pleasure undermines this entire line of reasoning. As for making people think, obviously flawed campaigns like this don't make me think; they make me despair, as it seems like this country thrives on hate. If you drive for pleasure, I guess it's because you don't care, or feel that you are so important that other people should sacrifice themselves or maybe you just don't know. You are wasting gas when you toodle along in a rally, but fail to see that what you are doing is exactly the same thing that you are chastising an entire demographic for. I, for one, don't see anything wrong with enjoying my car, and having fun "motoring". I wouldn't, however, condemn other people for driving something, particularly people that I don't know, knowing that I bought a car for fun, and drive it for fun. That would be hypocritical.
>>
>>By all means, take the long way to work, find the twisty roads, go for a Sunday drive, but don't kid yourself. You're wasting gas, and if it's not good for someone to drive an SUV because they waste gas, it's also not good for you to do the same.
>>


Very nice ditto

 

I think it is an interesting campaign but won't really work. Neat parody of the gov't anti-drug campaign that was about equaly as stupid.

Just look at the average fuel economy for new model year vehicles over the past 20 years to see what the explosion of SUV's minvan and light truck sales have done. We have gone all the way back to the early 80's in terms of MPG for new model year vehicles. Even with all the new technolgy that we have now vehicles overall get worse MPG then they did in 1982 or so.

SUV's do a lot more then consume more gas they are also genearly less safe then normal cars because of the inferior/obsolete body on frame design. Not all SUV's have this design just like not all SUV's are gas guzlers but the largest SUV's that suck up the most gas also have the inferior body on frame design.


SUV's, or the light trucks many are based on, might be safer in a two vehicle accident where the other vehicle is a smaller car but this is just because they out weight the car by a ton or more. In single car accidents, which according to the NHTSB, account for more then 60% of all fatal accidents SUV's/light trucks are less safe then cars. In most single car accidents you are going to hit a tree or some other obstacle that is more rigid and/or more massive then your vehicle.

A car or other vehicle with a modern unitframe design will absorb the impact in the crumple zones untill the force hits the safety cage that protects the passengers. Most light trucks don't have these features because they are not built using unitframe design. Many light trucks/SUV's also do not have side impact door beams all passenger cars are required to have them. Off the top of my head I don't remember which ones do and which ones don't but I know most Nissan trucks don't and many Toyota trucks do. I would need to do more research to come up with current info.

Trucks/SUVs are also much more likely to roll over in accident which is an additional thread.

Grr I can't find the statistics on single vehicle fatal crashes for the life of me.

I did find this however.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalr...title2=General

Compare the involvement rate of passenger cars to light trucks.




_________________
My other forums come say Hi.

http://www.literotica.com/forum
The General Board

http://www.bonnevilleclub.com

 

I could care less if they're saying it about SUV's or MINIs or frickin' oil-powered skateboards, the point is that finally someone has had the cojones to point out in a national ad that Saudi oil funds terrorism.







_________________
BRG, CVT, black roof, nav system

 

I think the point is that SUVs have become SO commonplace and get SUCH poor gas mileage that something had to be done to address it. I don't think the ads say that SUVs should be outlawed, but they might just deter someone from buying an SUV if he or she knows that there are other classes of vehicles that will serve their needs and not be as wasteful. There is no way to control how many miles people drive, if they take the scenic route or not, etc, but all else being equal, the minivan/automobile will use less oil than the SUV. There are probably many people that have older cars that guzzle gas. The difference is that this might be out of necessity rather than preference. Most SUVs, on the other hand, are fairly new, and people are Choosing to purchase these vehicles instead of perfectly suitable alternatives that would meet 99% of their needs (since we all know that the towing, hauling, off-roading thing ain't happening). Nobody is going to outlaw them. Nobody is going to take them away from people that already have them. People's choice is still there. But perhaps it will add another dimension to the purchase that didn't exist before. The ads probably won't make a difference in most cases, but it might make a difference in some - which is progress. A little stigma never hurt anybody .

 

Don't forget kids, drugs contribute too!

 

I don't think people buy a SUV because they get poor gas milage. I think they buy them because they are a fad. Fads will go away and I realy think they are on there way out. Looks like the new smaller SUV will be pushed by the auto makers.

 

>>Don't forget kids, drugs contribute too!

 

Just want to jump in and had my idiot's two cents.

I'm not an SUV fan but my parents own one. Is that wrong? No, they had a choice of what to buy and they picked an SUV. Does this mean they are supporting terrorism, HA! If that's so then so's are government for allowing vehicles to have poor gas milage or for allowing American companies to purchase oil from Middle Eastern countries or how about the government selling weapons to the Middle East??? Some of the people we are shooting at over there are armed with weapons from us and have had training by us! Hell, my dad worked in Saudia Arabia for 7 years teaching their air force how to work and fly F-15s. Well that's okay you say, they are U.S. allies, well so was Iraq at one point.

I've rambled enough for now but one final thought. America is based on several ideals or concepts. One of those is freedom of choice, another is the free enterprise system and the last is free speech. Long live the SUVs, as long as Americans want them anyway.

 

I think the only way we'll ever solve the SUV problem is to have us all become nudists!

 

>>

 

>> :smile:

 

That picture in your signature is probably a terrorist! Just look at that hair!

 

Right. Ironic isn't it? (although I doubt that's what you actually had in mind)

As it's said..."I have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us." I think that's the whole point of this discussion. If the SUV-buying public could see that by exercising "freedom of choice" (as dictated by the marketing gurus at Ford and GM) they are actually digging themselves a big hole... well then, there might indeed be a backlash.

Hey, at least we're having the discussion, and are making attempts at defending our various points of view. If most people could get that far, it'd be something.

 

Okay - gotta add my 2 cents in here.... :smile: We have always owned some type of SUV and currently own a Durango - along with a few other vehicles. Never did the thought of contributing to terrorism enters our minds when we bought it.

We bought it because it was practicle for what we needed - hauling around family & friends, towing, driving on the beach...... :smile: Freedom of choice is what it's all about

 

>>That picture in your signature is probably a terrorist! Just look at that hair!

Yeah. Isn't that one of the guys on the FBI list?
They have interrogated the monkey but he
speaks no evil.

 

These issues allways seem to involve more emotion than fact. I make a living in the domestic oil industry. If you follow the logic of this whole SUV terrorist link then you should probably include environmentalists as supporters as well. If we could only build more nuke power plants and drill for oil everywhere then we could probably reduce our dependance on the middle east to nothing.

If people want to fix things lets go all the way. Not just pick easy targets to blame for a problem we all share. If you want to save the world then lead the charge scrap your evil car so nobody else can ruin the world with it and get a bike.

FatBob
EB S and no evil SUVs

 

Oh, don't forget MINI of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia...etc. I bet ya that the MINIs sold there use 100% pure Middle Eastern oil :smile:

 

Look, it seems to me that our dependence on fossil fuels and our reluctance to find a suitable alternative has finally come home to roost. Our nation's gluttony for Mideast oil does, indeed, help fund the terrorism we now fight. It's also the reason we're knocking on Saddam's door this very minute.
I find it hard to point the fingers at SUVs, particularly, but they certainly contribute to the problem (as we all do).

So motor on...but know there's a price.

 

BP Rules!!

 

>>thats interesting. i dont think that that type of parody campaign would be too effective, not sure how many people would take it seriously.


Yeah, any more seriously than the commercials alleging that if you smoke a joint, you are funding terrorists. It irritates me that my tax dollars are being spent on "reefer madness" type commercials.

 

>>That picture in your signature is probably a terrorist! Just look at that hair!

OK, two pages of this and it's definitely not MINI Talk. And now we're talking about hair!

I'm moving to
this site!

(if you haven't done so already, you must check out the 12.2002 archive...the wedding pics in particular)

 

>>This is probably the silliest thing that I've heard in awhile. Who would contribute to terrorism more? Someone that drives an SUV 20 miles per week, or someone that drives their more efficient vehicle 300 miles per week? Whoever buys the most gas supports terrorists?! It's like Hollywood people spouting off about saving energy. Meanwhile, they show up at premieres in Limos, fly around in private jets, and own homes that use more energy than any SUV could imagine.
>>
>>We get 20% of our oil from that region. Look at your other purchases. Wanna help out? Don't buy anything made in China. Look at how many Al Queda weapons had that nice little "made in China" sticker on 'em.>>


Go get um Lizzy Bobio!!

I will not live my life on an every day basis to the MINImum so rich people can complain. They have theirs.

I have seen time and time again how so many rich folks preach what they DO NOT practice.

 

>>I've rambled enough for now but one final thought. America is based on several ideals or concepts. One of those is freedom of choice, another is the free enterprise system and the last is free speech. Long live the SUVs, as long as Americans want them anyway.

Finally someone mentioned freedom of choice and free enterprise. As long as ALL drivers pay their fare share of the cost of operating their vehicles, and don't go rely on government subsidies, they can drive whatever they want.

To summarize some earlier points.

1) SUV's are not as safe (28 deaths/100,000 vs 22/100,000 for cars). Insurance companies - our friends - will make sure SUV's cost more to insure.
2) Gas mileage is horrible. Gas is so cheap, this does not matter.

new items to consider:

a) Gasoline is subsidised. Currently the US government spends about $1 for each gallon of gas we get from the mideast to "keep the peace" in that area. We can all debate whether the US should be interventionist, and if so, to what extent? If we are so active in the Gulf, why not in Africa? or stepping in between India and Pakistan? It can be argued that it is the "strategic importance" of the Mideast - the oil. Suggestion: increase the federal fuel tax to cover this cost and let the market decide if it is worth it.
b) Roads are falling apart. The freeway system was designed with a 20 year life cycle. When was your favorite road last replaced? The only roads in decent shape are toll roads, and you pay about 5 cents per mile to drive on them. The public roads should be funded and maintained using fuel taxes. To get the 5 cents/mile at 27MPG would require a tax of $1.35/ gallon. This is $1/gallon more than the combined Federal and State tax here in California. Increase the tax this much and again let the market decide if an SUV makes any sense.

The true cost of gasoline in this country is closer to $4/gallon. Remove the government intervention, let the price rise to that level and let the market decide on the vehicle mix.

 

I don't recall reading or hearing anything about limiting choice. If there is a buyer, there will be a seller. The ads are targeted to the buyers. It is still their decision to make, but perhaps the ads will make them think twice.

I don't think most people have a problem with SUVs that are used out of necessity. The issue is that SO many aren't, and this is where SUV buyers are open to criticism.