SUV Scum

A few links also:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/7840/annoyingsportutilities.html
http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/suv_review_why_they_suck.html
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
http://www.net-monster.com/blather_suvs_part1.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1818/3_1suv.htm
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1454
http://home.comcast.net/~eliot_www/suvsuck.html

prospect wrote: »

Sorry,

Can you please remind me of what proved that an SUVs size & Stature interferes with other road users?

Also, while you are at it, remind my why the size and stature of a Hyundai Tuscon is worse than a Renault Grand Espace?.

Thanks.

P.S. Bar a handfull of MPG figures, I am the only person who quoted actual statistics, which clearly showed that a far higher percentage of Small 4x4s are safer than most of their small, large & executive saloon car and MPV equivalents.

Oh, and don't forget to give me your definition of what an SUV is, just so we are sure what you are talking about.

S.U.V.
n : a high-performance four-wheel drive car built on a truck
chassis [syn: sport utility, sport utility vehicle, S.U.V.]

I don't get it, your quite happy to drive a big SUV and insist its safer, so if everyone goes down the SUV road everybody will be safer .. YAYYY

Sounds to me like the, I'll be safer with a gun argument ..

Jesus .. Ireland is becoming a mini United States of Assholes

Well my hats off to you gentlemen, hence why i left

meathstevie

I think I'll finaly order that 30 year old ex-MOD Land Rover series III in England. Has a nice old fashioned diesel in it and is virtually indestructable. Look at that for longevity and maximising use of natural resources...not half the chemical pile of ****e the toyota and other hybrids will be after let's say their 10 year lifecycle...:D

A little P.S. : New York wants to make their taxi's more eco friendly...you'll have to do 30mpg ( petrol ) in the near future. Folks are going demented over here about cars that easily do 35mpg ( diesel ) in here.

If you really want Ireland to be greener there's only one solution...sort traffic jams..upgrade public transport and GO NUCLEAR. As long as there's no alternative to using your car to get around and our last kW of electricity either comes from coal,oil,gas and peat all reforms of car taxation schedules are just hypocritical revenue gathering exercises.

Btw..my 2.2 cdi vito runs on biodiesel..where's my VRT reduction ?

meathstevie wrote: »

I think I'll finaly order that 30 year old ex-MOD Land Rover series III in England. Has a nice old fashioned diesel in it and is virtually indestructable. Look at that for longevity and maximising use of natural resources...not half the chemical pile of ****e the toyota and other hybrids will be after let's say their 10 year lifecycle...:D

A little P.S. : New York wants to make their taxi's more eco friendly...you'll have to do 30mpg ( petrol ) in the near future. Folks are going demented over here about cars that easily do 35mpg ( diesel ) in here.

If you really want Ireland to be greener there's only one solution...sort traffic jams..upgrade public transport and GO NUCLEAR. As long as there's no alternative to using your car to get around and our last kW of electricity either comes from coal,oil,gas and peat all reforms of car taxation schedules are just hypocritical revenue gathering exercises.

Btw..my 2.2 cdi vito runs on biodiesel..where's my VRT reduction ?

Unfortunatly theres no way to prove how much bio diesel your burning in this vehicle. Until there is, there would be no way to levy this again VRT

Oh yeah .. 30 MPG American is alot more than 35MPG Imperial

craichoe wrote: »

S.U.V.
n : a high-performance four-wheel drive car built on a truck
chassis [syn: sport utility, sport utility vehicle, S.U.V.]

I don't get it, your quite happy to drive a big SUV and insist its safer, so if everyone goes down the SUV road everybody will be safer .. YAYYY

Sounds to me like the, I'll be safer with a gun argument ..

Jesus .. Ireland is becoming a mini United States of Assholes

Well my hats off to you gentlemen, hence why i left

A few links also:

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/7840/annoyingsportutilities.html
http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/suv_review_why_they_suck.html
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
http://www.net-monster.com/blather_suvs_part1.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1818/3_1suv.htm
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1454
http://home.comcast.net/~eliot_www/suvsuck.html

Okay, all the 2wd Hyundai Tuscons, Nissan X-Trails, Kia Sportages, Mazda Tributes, etc. etc. etc. are not included.
Also, Nearly all the others that are built on shared car platforms are also not included, e.g. The new Ford SUV thing isn't an SUV as it shares its platform with some of their cars.

So you have probably narrowed it down too, The Hummer and the Landrover Defender. And to quote my adversaries, there is only a few of these, so they don;t count.

So, conversation over. There are only a few vehicles in this country that count as SUV's, and because there is so few, it doesnt matter.

prospect wrote: »

Okay, all the 2wd Hyundai Tuscons, Nissan X-Trails, Kia Sportages, Mazda Tributes, etc. etc. etc. are not included.
Also, Nearly all the others that are built on shared car platforms are also not included, e.g. The new Ford SUV thing isn't an SUV as it shares its platform with some of their cars.

So you have probably narrowed it down too, The Hummer and the Landrover Defender. And to quote my adversaries, there is only a few of these, so they don;t count.

So, conversation over. There are only a few vehicles in this country that count as SUV's, and because there is so few, it doesnt matter.

Ok .. Well I guess the Manufacturers, The Revenue Commissioner, the NRA and everyone else here, including myself is wrong..

But the priceless bit is:

The new Ford SUV thing isn't an SUV

:rolleyes:

Anan1

prospect wrote: »

It is not a fact if you can't prove it.

I think it may be time you paused to collect yourself, no?;)

craichoe wrote: »

Ok .. Well I guess the Manufacturers, The Revenue Commissioner, the NRA and everyone else here, including myself is wrong..

Your definition said it has to be 4 wheel drive. There are many two wheel drive X-Trails etc.
So, by your definition, they are not SUV's.

Anan1 wrote: »

I think it may be time you paused to collect yourself, no?;)

Source: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/fact.html

Fact:
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

prospect wrote: »

Your definition said it has to be 4 wheel drive. There are many two wheel drive X-Trails etc.
So, by your definition, they are not SUV's.

I'm actually breaking my ass laughing here

Tell me what they are so before you wet yourself

Anan1

prospect wrote: »

Source: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/fact.html

Fact:
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

That's not what you said though, is it? Honestly prospect, you need to slow down and t-h-i-n-k.;)

craichoe wrote: »

I'm actually breaking my ass laughing here

Tell me what they are so before you wet yourself

I can't. Thats my point.

You guys are looking to ban (or whatever) something which you can't define.

Do you not understand how, ignorant that argument is. You are arguing against a type of vehicle that you effectivly don't like the style of!!!!!

prospect wrote: »

I regularly get stuck behind groups of cyclists, and trucks & agricultural vehicles on my road. Maybe we should ban them.

Think of other words when you say the word "truck"
mmmm....'work' 'goods' 'distribution'

Think of other words when you say the words "agricultural vehicle"
mmmm....'work' 'goods' 'distribution' 'staple food' 'harvesting'

Think of other words when you say the term "SUV"
mmmm....'selfish' 'unnecessary' 'big'

and as for those cyclist getting in your way when you are driving your SUV. ???? I would be banned if I responded to that comment! true colours is all I can say.

Anan1 wrote: »

That's not what you said though, is it? Honestly prospect, you need to slow down and t-h-i-n-k.;)

It is exactly what i said, and this kind of nit-picking shows it is obvious that you are fighting a loosing battle.

It is not a fact if it cannot be proven.

is the same as

A fact is something that can be shown to be true.

So, now that you have distracted the conversation away from the point, and once again been proven wrong, lets talk more about how silly the Anti-"Cannot be properly defined Vehicle" argument really is.

dodgyme wrote: »

Think of other words when you say the word "truck"
mmmm....'work' 'goods' 'distribution'

Think of other words when you say the words "agricultural vehicle"
mmmm....'work' 'goods' 'distribution' 'staple food' 'harvesting'

Think of other words when you say the term "SUV"
mmmm....'selfish' 'unnecessary' 'big'

and as for those cyclist getting in your way when you are driving your SUV. ???? I would be banned if I responded to that comment! true colours is all I can say.

So,

A truck obsturcting your view and your ability to drive safely is okay, because it is necessary.
But, the situation suddenly becomes more grave, and un-acceptably dangerous if it is an SUV because you THINK it is unnecessary.

If blocking your view makes a situation dangerous, it is irellevant how necessary the vehicle causing the obstruction is.

Also as said before, if you maybe kept an appropriate distance from the vehicle, you would probably be better off.

prospect what you are trying to do is symantics. Basically we all know what we dislike on our roads. Big ugly, unnecessary large 'off road/jeeps/SUVsMPV's' call them what you like. Vehicles bought for percieved status and fueled by the vainity of the drivers.

mthd

prospect wrote: »

So,

A truck obsturcting your view and your ability to drive safely is okay, because it is necessary.
But, the situation suddenly becomes more grave, and un-acceptably dangerous if it is an SUV because you THINK it is unnecessary.

People can accept trucks blocking their view because there is no alternative to trucks, they are a necessity on our roads. SUV's on the other hand have an alternative; it's called the car

prospect wrote: »

, if you maybe kept an appropriate distance from the vehicle, you would probably be better off.

No I would be better off if assho*es in SUV's werent hoggin the road.

Typical SUV push everyone off the road attitude.

And yes I am more willing to put up with the obstruction of a truck doing deliveries etc than an SUV popping down to the shop for a pint of milk. oh the weight of the pint of milk, the big tank needed to carry it home.

Can you tell me why you need an SUV please?

ianobrien

A few of my friends have SUVs, and the reasons are

1. Uses it to tow his competition car, as it's got a 2 tonne towing capacity and can carry all his stuff. It's also his normal, everyday car
2. Another has a bad back and hip, and bending down to get into a car hurts her. She finds it easier to get into an SUV
3. Another has one because it can carry two truck tyres in the back, and got a good towing capacity, and he didn't want to get a car & a jeep.

I also have some "friends" who have SUV's as they "look good" and "are safe" (despite the fact that one of them rolled one twice!). The most off roading they do is the local rugby club!

prospect wrote: »

I can't. Thats my point.

You guys are looking to ban (or whatever) something which you can't define.

Do you not understand how, ignorant that argument is. You are arguing against a type of vehicle that you effectivly don't like the style of!!!!!

Well .. Fact is that in Ireland (if they follow European Directives, which they are so far with Driving Permits, Licensing categories and Co2 based taxation) that SUV's, 4x4's - Partime 4x4's or whatever you want to call them will be taxed heavily in the future to discourage you from driving them. This is already happening in other European countries.
MPV's are taxed heavily but there is a Levy on these vehicles in the case of a family.

This is the case already in Holland.

An SUV serves no other purpose than the individual wanting to have a "Big" vehicle.

When its used for commercial purposes then its not under the same tax regime as private vehicles.

Certainly you can have one, but you are going to pay out your ass for one. I never said I wanted them banned and their already classified by the EU.

Actually from one of their forums:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/forum/works/doc/2006_02_02_mid_term_review.pdf

EUROPEAN ENERGY AND TRANSPORT FORUM
FORUM EUROPEEN DE L’ENERGIE ET DES TRANSPORTS

SUVs: Given the much higher risk of pedestrian accidents with SUV vehicles, there is therefore a strong safety argument for moving towards preventing vehicles in this EuroNcap category from using public roads.

And

Consider and report on whether SUV vehicles should remain in the Class M1 motor car category and/or whether member states should be encouraged to charge higher vehicle excise duties on such cars to reflect their higher accident records;

So its happening anyway... I guess it doesn't matter how much we debate this.

stovelid

RobAMerc wrote: »

people dont like SUV's because they are jealous begrudging bast*rds - its as simple as that, and thats why a campaign against them will work in Ireland.

If it's simple begrudgery, why not the same hatred for other expensive cars?

I can understand when it is obviously used for off-road purposes, but the twats that force you to crawl by them on narrow roads; don't dip their lights, and otherwise intimidate other drivers can fcuk off.

BnA

dodgyme wrote: »

For the last time it is not about begrudgery!

You might believe that, personally, I believe a certain amount of it is.

But, I wasn't saying one way or the other. I just wanted to point out that the argument hearlded as "proving" that it is not about begrudgery is bull.

Cmar-Ireland

Mods, please close this thread and send it the same way as fog lights, and any future threads that go the same way.
It always leads into inflated ego's arguing for the sake of it with no valid points from either side.

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

Mods, please close this thread and send it the same way as fog lights, and any future threads that go the same way.
It always leads into inflated ego's arguing for the sake of it with no valid points from either side.

How is a post from an EU Forum review not a valid point ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54647549&postcount=260

BnA

Dyflin wrote: »

It's not me who's being desperate here, just showing that fact is stranger than fiction.

Same size Volvo petrol engine is still as economical and cleaner burning.
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=17500

How far does one need to go to prove that the Xtrail engine that was held up to the audience in such high regard is nothing special whatsoever?

Care to compare the other cars you berated?

Listen Lovie... Don't give me your aul' "fact is stranger than fiction" soft talk. You're the one that screwed up your facts.

I posted up the MPG's of an X-trail in response to some ill informed gombeen who was whining about Jeeps being Gas Guzzlers. I merely pointed out that it's mpgs were comparable to (and better than some) a lot of other very common family saloons on the road, like the petrol Avensis and all petrol volvos.

Now, I know there are pleanty of Diesel Family Saloons out there. with MPGs pushing up to the 60's. But, my point is that these ill informed morons like to pass off "Gas Guzzlers" as the reason they hate SUV'z but they have no problems with all these other vehicles.

I mean... simple question.... What is the MPGs do I need to be doing to become "Gas Guzzling Scum" ? 40.... 35....30.... Tell me where it is so I can be more careful next time.

To be honest. I don't know why I am getting so worked up about this issue. I don't even like the freggin things. I think they are pug ugly. But, all the gombeens I hear trying to justify their hatred of them with utter utter utter lies just drives me bleedin nuts.

craichoe wrote: »

An SUV serves no other purpose than the individual wanting to have a "Big" vehicle.

What purpose does a sports car with a large engine serve?
What purpose does an executive car with a large engine, large wheelbase and tonnes of accessories serve?

Anyway,

I agree with Cmar-Ireland, to a degree, this thread should be closed as all thats happening is that people are arguing around points and cherry picking misguided beliefs to build a futile and basically unfounded argument.

I don't agree that there has been no valid points. There have been many valid points made, its just that one half of the debate are choosing to overlook them.

I would like to say it was a pleasure, however trying to educate while having a debate is no fun.

I am heading home in my economical, average CO2 emitting, average weight & average sized SUV. If that makes you jealous, well thats just your hard luck. Get a life and worry about something important.

hottstuff

prospect wrote: »

I am heading home in my economical, average CO2 emitting, average weight & average sized SUV. If that makes you jealous, well thats just your hard luck. Get a life and worry about something important.

Big Bully!

prospect wrote: »

What purpose does a sports car with a large engine serve?
What purpose does an executive car with a large engine, large wheelbase and tonnes of accessories serve?

Anyway,

I agree with Cmar-Ireland, to a degree, this thread should be closed as all thats happening is that people are arguing around points and cherry picking misguided beliefs to build a futile and basically unfounded argument.

I don't agree that there has been no valid points. There have been many valid points made, its just that one half of the debate are choosing to overlook them.

I would like to say it was a pleasure, however trying to educate while having a debate is no fun.

I am heading home in my economical, average CO2 emitting, average weight & average sized SUV. If that makes you jealous, well thats just your hard luck. Get a life and worry about something important.

Yup .. so you just conveniently ignored everything else in my post ..

Funny that isn't it.

Bye !

astraboy

dodgyme wrote: »

prospect what you are trying to do is symantics. Basically we all know what we dislike on our roads. Big ugly, unnecessary large 'off road/jeeps/SUVsMPV's' call them what you like. Vehicles bought for percieved status and fueled by the vainity of the drivers.

O will you shut up!? Your points are not longer based on fact, but on ridiclous opinon. Maybe you had a bad experience with 1 or 2 guys driving Volvo XC90's or something, but stop tarring all drivers of 1 type of vehicle with 1 brush.

If we ban 'SUV's' in the morning, which is difficult as you cannot define one by weight, height, engine size or weather its 4 wheel drive or not, what would the drivers of these do? Probably buy big cars. So they still remain poor drivers, just in different vehicles! You have a serious attitude or else you are trolling, potter off in yout corolla now, and leave the rest of us that wish to drive a nice car, be whatever it may be, in peace.

Regards, astraboy.

astraboy wrote: »

O will you shut up!?.

god man! great argument