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.
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
craichoe wrote: » AFAIK if you want to bring a Tractor or JCB onto a public road you do need a license.. .
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.
devildriver wrote: » Very well reasoned contribution there! .
prospect wrote: » I know you need a licence, what I said was a TEST. I dont think you need to do a test.
Hifive wrote: » Glad you would stop short of the vandalism, as you seem to be filled with hatred for SUV and their drivers. Just some of your posts from this thread, started by you, on the same subject.http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055146687 Maybe you should try and concentrate more on some other aspect of your life. Regards, Hifive (XC 90 owner)
MuffinsDa wrote: » We've addresses your point before by pointing out to you that those you are comparing are not an alternative for a SUV and it's a seperate argument. If you lack the intellectual ability to grasp this simple logic then ... one more feather to the hat of the one who called SUV drivers "ignorant"
prospect wrote: » Only by people with obvious inferiority complexes.
Gegerty wrote: » Prospect you typify the term SUV scum. I'm guessing you're driving on your provisional too.
C_Breeze wrote: » What exactly is the problem with Jeeps? ... if a deisel XC90 puts out the same co2 as a sallon petrol mondeo for example why are people bashing SUV's ???? Am i missing something, because other than that i'd have to agree with MercMad and say it is just irish begrudgery
prospect wrote: » The trouble is your points/arguments don't carry any weight. I say an SUV is no more dangerous than a Vintage Roller. Your response is that you THINK a Roller driver would drive carefully. Hardly conclusive is it. You are assuming the Roller driver will drive carefully, you are assuming no component of the older car will cause it to have an accident, you are assuming the SUV driver will not drive carefully, you are overlooking the fact that modern cars have far more active and passive safety systems. So, if that is the best argument you can make, don't bother joining your school/college/work debating team.
MuffinsDa wrote: » btw, I'm not arguing for banning SUVs at all, it's all in the hands of the drivers really,
MuffinsDa wrote: » and in fairness there are many cases that they are justified (if you are a farmer / live in a remote and hard to access area / are a builder / ... ).
Hifive wrote: » Maybe you should try and concentrate more on some other aspect of your life. Regards, Hifive (XC 90 owner)
prospect wrote: » So we all have to justify our purchases now? What kind of dictatorship would have that rule?
prospect wrote: » I say an SUV is no more dangerous than a Vintage Roller.
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.
MuffinsDa wrote: » To quote our esteemed leader: "Are you deaf as well as stupid?" My argument wasn't that at all. My argument is that people don't drive their kids to school in vintage rolls royce, or a JCB. They are not a replacement for normal passenger car. SUV is. You have to compare like with like. You are really on a mission to ignore any logic to prove your flawed comparison works, eh?
prospect wrote: » That was my point earlier. Drivers kill people, not cars. So it makes little difference what vehicle you drive.
prospect wrote: » 1. There are far more Turcks, Buses, JCB's, Tractors etc on the road. ?
prospect wrote: » 2. Another stereotype regarding SUV's is that they are for driving kids 200yds up the road to school in the morning. So they do not spend a lot of time on the road, do they?
MuffinsDa wrote: » Not at all, you should be able to purchase anything you like as long as it's legal. However, the cost of ownership should be prohibitively high to discourage the use of them as they make the roads (unnecceasirly) less safe for other users. Pretty much same argument as high tax for a 6L car (polluter pays). If you still think you need one to drive your kids from Monkstown to Seapoint and can afford it, there should be no stopping you! That's just a suggestion though, a very impractical one probably and a bit of wishful thinking.
prospect wrote: » Not really. My point is simple. They are not as dangerous as most would believe. There are more dangerous VEHICLES on the road. What case can be made? Also, with regard to your point about the Volumes on the road compared to JCB's etc. I would say two things: 1. There are far more Turcks, Buses, JCB's, Tractors etc on the road. 2. Another stereotype regarding SUV's is that they are for driving kids 200yds up the road to school in the morning. So they do not spend a lot of time on the road, do they?
MuffinsDa wrote: » You have to compare like with like. Are you really that thick that you can't grasp the difference between -a passenger vehicle (Car/SUV) and a construction vehicle (JCB) -a vitage car (vintage rolls royce) and an everyday car.
