devildriver wrote: » Very well reasoned contribution there! .
prospect wrote: » LOL, So if you kids is in a coma in hospital with a broken neck, (god forbid that would ever happen), you'll be thinking, "Well at least he needed his truck"!!! What a load of tripe. No vehicle ever killed someone, the driver does it.
craichoe wrote: » AFAIK if you want to bring a Tractor or JCB onto a public road you do need a license.. .
dodgyme wrote: » I hate SUVs and I think that people who drive them are scum. I would stop short of agreeing with the vandalism but i think SUV owners need to realise how much they are hated.
SUV drivers plain and simple are spanners, greedy foolish vain people who should have ingraved on there headstones when they die " here lays a greed, ignorance selfish moron - rest in peace --err" I think drivers particularly of smaller cars should have signs like the "baby on board signs" saying "I hate SUVs" or "SUV's kill" SUV owners are teh arseholes the owners of these F88kers in these killing machines I cant help but look them in the eye (in dublin no go traffic you could nearly have a conversation) scan the monster Problem when they get the car is they forget the journeys they can take on foot or bike. But want to show off their stupid big ego's in their stupid SUV. Thes people need a bit of insecurity councilling I will have my SUV because my pen*s is small my wifes is too. you can tell the are a g$b****e 100% if they drive an SUV Ah ya keep killing the planet and being a selfish neaderthal The making is in the man not the car. I dont need a Landcruiser to intimidate people. I am man enough not to need to intimidate people to feel like a man. I feel nothing but sorrow for the aggressive antics shown by you and your kind and they dont intimidate me, trust me on that one. You'd find out whan you's step outside the Landcruiser. Ye SUV drivers make my sick - you tell us why you have them - all bogus excuses! and then tell us ye dont care if we dont like it and that we are jealous which is more rubbish. Only daft ****ers are in the SUVs
prospect wrote: » All based on assumption. SUV's require a licence also. AFAIK Tractors & JCB's don't require a driving test, and people as young as 16 can drive them legally. Also alot of these machines are capable of speeds of up to 45Mph. I wouldn't like to be hit by a tractor doing 45MPh. So, All these points are pretty much crap.
MuffinsDa wrote: » Passenger vehicles. You can't haul 10 tonnes of goods in a car, so you need trucks. You can, however, transport 5-7 people in a car. In fairness your argument makes no sense, and you are trying to muddy the water with your silly examples. We're talking about passenger cars here. The SUV driver -as some other poster pointed out- wouldn't be driving a JCB or a vintage Rolls Royce if he couldn't drive a SUV, he would drive a normal passenger car.
craichoe wrote: » Rattly noisy Diesel .. yesh ... ehh .. how many germans drive a diesel ... ?
RobAMerc wrote: » Thats exactly whats happened - and the fools using the "Gas Guzzler" moniker annoy me most. Anan1 - I absolutely hate stereotyping - it drives me nuts that people call certain types of cars girls cars, or convertibles hairdressers cars, or Mercs old peoples cars - and calling all SUV owners wan*ers is exactly the same.
Anan1 wrote: » Honestly, prospect, nobody's that stupid. People drive SUVs as an alternative to cars. Not buses, tractors or JCBs, but cars. And SUVs are less safe than cars. Which part of this are you having trouble with?
craichoe wrote: » Truck is under a different category of license and requires experience and testing in that vehicle. White van man drives like an ass Vintage roll royce... well .. i think he sort of would be careful driving a vintage car Bus, same thing as i said for Truck license Tractor .. wouldnt be going fast enough JCB .. same thing again with the license
prospect wrote: » Really, What about a Truck, or a box Van, what about a vintage Rolls Royce, a Bus. Maybe a Tractor, or even a JCB.
prospect wrote: » The problem here is bandwagon jumping. SUV's in the states got a bad name in the early 90's. They were massive, dangerous and very polluting. These machines were in the 3 tonne league and with 5 and 6 litre PETROL engines, doing about 15mpg. The un-educated environmentalists and drama-queens here adopted that attitude and applied it to the European market equivalents. However, a 2.2 Litre Diesel Santa-Fe is a completely differnet machine. This, imo, is how the Anti SUV thing started.
E92 wrote: » Let me get this straight. You're talking about going from a V8 rumble and gorgeous growl and the superior refinement of 8 cylinders to a 4 cylinder clattering rattling noisy diesel? A bit extreme really. Why not stick with BMW since you already have one and go for something like an E39 540i? There was a 00 one on sale for €7,500 not so long ago. Or if you have (a lot) more money downsize and get a BMW 335i, more power than an X5 4.4i(before it was facelifted in 2004 I think it was) and 31 mpg(so almost a 100% improvement on the V8 X5) and even better(IMO) straight 6 sound.
MuffinsDa wrote: » What about a tank? :-)
MuffinsDa wrote: » Wrong. Blatently wrong. I don't even waste my time and energy explaining why!
Gegerty wrote: » I've also heard SUV drivers try to justify it by saying they are safer, as in if you have an accident you're less likely to get hurt.....showing total disregard for any poor bastard who is hit by an SUV.
prospect wrote: » Everyone is entitled to drive what they like.
prospect wrote: » SUV's are no more dangerous than most other vehicles on the roads.
prospect wrote: » SUV's are not more dangerous to the environment than most other vehicles.
prospect wrote: » A fair portion of SUV drivers are ignorant baxtards, likewise for any other vehicle.
prospect wrote: » The un-educated environmentalists and drama-queens here adopted that attitude and applied it to the European market equivalents. However, a 2.2 Litre Diesel Santa-Fe is a completely differnet machine. This, imo, is how the Anti SUV thing started.
prospect wrote: » To quote yourself, "Read before typing" I said vehicles.
Anan1 wrote: » Surely you are not seriously trying to tell us that SUVs are no more dangerous than cars?
dodgyme wrote: » what happens when you are plastered to the ground by one walking across the road? Is that now your personal safety first. Also SUV are not safer, that is a myth like your excuses.
prospect wrote: » The way I see it is: Everyone is entitled to drive what they like. SUV's are no more dangerous than most other vehicles on the roads. SUV's are not more dangerous to the environment than most other vehicles. A fair portion of SUV drivers are ignorant baxtards, likewise for any other vehicle. The problem here is bandwagon jumping. SUV's in the states got a bad name in the early 90's. They were massive, dangerous and very polluting. These machines were in the 3 tonne league and with 5 and 6 litre PETROL engines, doing about 15mpg. The un-educated environmentalists and drama-queens here adopted that attitude and applied it to the European market equivalents. However, a 2.2 Litre Diesel Santa-Fe is a completely differnet machine. This, imo, is how the Anti SUV thing started.
RobAMerc wrote: » but people hate the SUV drivers because they have the bigger car is that it ? Because in my opinion most of the folk who complain about the behavior would do exactly the same if they had a car big enough.
The changes were deemed necessary because collisions between an SUV, pickup or minivan and a car kill more people than car-to-car collisions, statistics show. Interestingly, when all types of crashes are considered, occupants of SUVs and pickups actually have a higher death rate than car occupants. This is mainly because sport utilities and pickups are more likely to roll over when they strike another vehicle, a curb or a guard rail, or if they miss a turn or swerve.
