nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

SUV Scum

RobAMerc

I was told today that someone was on the Gerry Ryan show saying that their car had been attacked and "SUV scum" had been scratched into the bonnet of her car.

What kind of mindless misguided fuc*ing scum would do this ?

I blame the Green Party and their propaganda for this type of behavior.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

I know I am, but it entertains me.
I feel like I am educating the masses, .

I am educated - I must go out and buy an oversize heap of junk to pretend I am better then everyone else. Christ if that is education!
As some one said earlier its like the united states of assholes

I don't like SUVs at all and I would like to see them banned from Irish roads unless they are used for commercial purposes. (farmers, builders, etc have a legitimate use case for them, no arguments here).

A very small part of my dislike of SUVs comes from the environmental impact of needlessly hauling around a much larger metal chassis for no good reason.

But my major problems are related to safety of other road users. A regular car owner, cyclist, motorcyclist or pedestrian typically has a much lower chance of survival if hit by an SUV than if hit by a regular car.

SUV owners like to think their children are safer because they own an SUV. In a lot of cases this is true (although many SUV have poor crash ratings), but this impression of safety is at the expense of the safety of other road users. Also, SUV owners must drive their children everywhere, because their kids are certainly no safer when they are not in the SUV. Not every accident it car vs car and typically due to the height of an SUV usually restricts visibility of people closer to the ground. I wonder how many SUV owners have reversed over children because the height of their vehicle has made it impossible to see what is behind them.

I like the fact that SUV owners bring up the begrudgery thing, because it backs up my firmly held belief as to why most people people buy SUVs. They buy them to show off. At best they are used a status symbol, at worst as a means to bully other road users. I've certainly witnessed enough of both.

I have no problem with people buying an expensive or high performance car if they want to show off. I think most non-SUV owners would feel exactly the same way. If it pollutes a more than a smaller car then you end up paying for it in petrol and now VRT and motor tax. It does not put me or my family at any significantly greater risk so I don't have any problem with it.

I just don't understand the SUV thing and why anyone would want to own one. They just don't appeal to me. I understand why you might want a nice BMW, Merc, Astin Martin, etc.

I've always assumed that I don't have any desire to to own an SUV because I'm very happy with my height, weight, hairline and the size of my penis.

prospect

rs wrote: »

I don't like SUVs at all and I would like to see them banned from Irish roads unless they are used for commercial purposes. (farmers, builders, etc have a legitimate use case for them, no arguments here).

A very small part of my dislike of SUVs comes from the environmental impact of needlessly hauling around a much larger metal chassis for no good reason.

But my major problems are related to safety of other road users. A regular car owner, cyclist, motorcyclist or pedestrian typically has a much lower chance of survival if hit by an SUV than if hit by a regular car.

SUV owners like to think their children are safer because they own an SUV. In a lot of cases this is true (although many SUV have poor crash ratings), but this impression of safety is at the expense of the safety of other road users. Also, SUV owners must drive their children everywhere, because their kids are certainly no safer when they are not in the SUV. Not every accident it car vs car and typically due to the height of an SUV usually restricts visibility of people closer to the ground. I wonder how many SUV owners have reversed over children because the height of their vehicle has made it impossible to see what is behind them.

I like the fact that SUV owners bring up the begrudgery thing, because it backs up my firmly held belief as to why most people people buy SUVs. They buy them to show off. At best they are used a status symbol, at worst as a means to bully other road users. I've certainly witnessed enough of both.

I have no problem with people buying an expensive or high performance car if they want to show off. I think most non-SUV owners would feel exactly the same way. If it pollutes a more than a smaller car then you end up paying for it in petrol and now VRT and motor tax. It does not put me or my family at any significantly greater risk so I don't have any problem with it.

I just don't understand the SUV thing and why anyone would want to own one. They just don't appeal to me. I understand why you might want a nice BMW, Merc, Astin Martin, etc.

I've always assumed that I don't have any desire to to own an SUV because I'm very happy with my height, weight, hairline and the size of my penis.

Hi RS,

If you care to read back through the thread fully, you will see that all those reasons have been proven to be untrue. Except of course your personal dislike of them, which is obviously fine.

prospect

dodgyme wrote: »

I must go out and buy an oversize heap of junk to pretend I am better then everyone else.

And there you go people, your answer.

Thanks dodgyme, I was begining to think you wouldn't give yourself away.

Maybe you should go home now and chill out, your broken record posts are getting tiring.

Bye Bye.

DonJose

rs wrote: »

A very small part of my dislike of SUVs comes from the environmental impact of needlessly hauling around a much larger metal chassis for no good reason.

The Subaru Impreza and Legacy are worse on the environmental than a Hyundai Santa Fe, so you can throw that stupid argument out the window.

Hyundai Santa Fe
Co2 emissions 190-220 (depending on model)

Subaru Impreza
Co2 emissions 195-257 (depending on model)

Subaru Legacy
Co2 emissions 182-286 (depending on model)

DonJose

rs wrote: »

I wonder how many SUV owners have reversed over children because the height of their vehicle has made it impossible to see what is behind them.

Then we should also ban all kinds on MPV for this reason. We need a MPV Scum thread

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

Hi RS,

If you care to read back through the thread fully, you will see that all those reasons have been proven to be untrue..

ofcourse they have not been proven. Just the usual i need the SUV my life is better since I have it and massive amount of stupid comparisons for the sake of justifying the fact that you drive something you dont need and it impinges on everyone else.

I mean the idiots even say that when I said the SUV was bigger then a car it was not fact but an opinion. ? gerdoh!

jmayo

DonJose wrote: »

The Subaru Impreza and Legacy are worse on the environmental than a Hyundai Santa Fe, so you can throw that stupid argument out the window.

Hyundai Santa Fe
Co2 emissions 190-220 (depending on model)

Subaru Impreza
Co2 emissions 195-257 (depending on model)

Subaru Legacy
Co2 emissions 182-286 (depending on model)

Yes they might be worse for the environment, but they are a hell of a lot nicer to drive

Having perused through this thread I never knew anyone could be so mad to drive a fecking Santa Fe.

Edit: Nobody should accuse Santa Fe drivers, Rav4 drivers etc of being status seeking.
That should be reserved for Range Rover (particularly the Sport), Land Cruiser Amazon/VX, Discovery 3, Defender, X5, Grand Cherokee, Ml drivers.
Hummvee wantabees are just sad.
And to the poster that rates the Cadilac Escalade in the same sentence as an S class will you ever get real.
Next thing you will tell us is that an American car has good road holding.

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

Maybe you should go home now and chill out, your broken record posts are getting tiring..

No i will go home and do my back exercises.

I mean you said you had a bad back and needed the SUV because of it. Then you said you needed the SUV also for the occassional journey to the quarry and the quarry gave you a bad back. So my understanding is that you hadnt a bad back before the quarrying but needed it (for your back ) after getting the SUV for the quarry. Sounds to me that if you didnt get the SUV, you wouldnt go to the quarry, and if you didnt go to the quarry , your back would be ok. So instead of the SUV being the vehicle to help your back (which was the reason you gave) it actually contributed to you getting a bad back and your argument is completely made up.

prospect wrote: »

Hi RS,

If you care to read back through the thread fully, you will see that all those reasons have been proven to be untrue. Except of course your personal dislike of them, which is obviously fine.

My major issue is my concern over safety for other road users. I really fail to see how a larger heavier vehicle which typically gives the driver less visibility of road, and obscures visibility for other vehicles is safer for other users of the road (ie. me, and more importantly my wife and kids)

I have the same feelings about all larger vehicles in regards to safety. However, the majority of these are commercial vehicles (Vans, Trucks, etc) and are that size to accomplish whatever it is they need to do (haul stuff around the place). Most people driving themselves or their families around in a SUV could accomplish this exact same task in a lighter, regular sized vehicle. (The height of you average SUV is my major concern, not the width)

As I stated about the whole environment thing. I'm not too bothered and I'm quite happy with how the new taxation deals with higher polluting vehicles (SUV or not).

cancan

craichoe wrote: »

Well ..

I must say, the "I love my SUV bunch" really have proven what an arrogant bunch of a55holes they really are. They've completely ignored information i've posted from sources.

I didn't even think SUV's were all that bad, but after this thread i think differently.

Heres to you being penalised heavily, if you don't get it, i guess the governent will just have to take it out on your wallet.

Anyways .. heres a small idea of what you have coming in the near future.. just for road tax !

http://www.belastingdienst.nl/reken/motorrijtuigenbelasting/

for:
Voor welk soort voertuig wilt u een berekening maken?

Choose:
Personenauto

For Region:
Zuid-Holland

Then the rest is self explanitory.

And thats excluding the green tax on SUV's

Have fun, but enjoy it at a premium .. I guess its just yere tough sh*t really because it won't affect the rest of us.

I sppose you can write a strongly worded letter to the EU Council and maybe they'll listen to your whining

Holland holland holland.

What you probably fail to see from your dope filled room, is that

a) Holland hand a bloody fantastic public transport system

b) Have bike paths everywhere giving an alternative to driving

c) I have searched and searched google and there is nothing about wanting to ban SUV's in the Netherlands or a movement to achieve such ?

Also, when you are off on another thread encouraging people to buy a 4x4 to drive from dublin to australia, your credibility goes out the window.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54629304#post54629304

Since bangers can make it that far no problem, I fail to see your exception for allowing 4x4's for a trip like this

http://mongolrally.theadventurists.com/

nytraveller

rs wrote: »

Most people driving themselves or their families around in a SUV could accomplish this exact same task in a lighter, regular sized vehicle. (The height of you average SUV is my major concern, not the width)

But what about the safety of sitting higher in the SUV than a car. Surely in a SUV on a busy motorway, you get to see a much clearer view of the road ahead and can therefore react quicker than the person in a car. That is safer for the driver of the SUV AND other road users.

Lets try to clear up the correct name. SUV?Jeep/4x4???
The way I see it the Yanks invented the term. They coulda done better!
The first vehicles that came to Ireland (most likely Land Rover) looked like the American 'Jeep' and the term was born and has since stuck in Ireland.
But alot has changed since then. Many new manufacturers started making their own versions of the original "Jeep" based on an American pick-up truck. Using the pick-up truck body, these early "SUVs" were no more than two door pick-ups with seats in the back. They handled poorly and had a tendency to roll because of their high center of gravity. In fact alot of Americans today still call their "SUVs" trucks.

Then in the 90s they added 4 doors and invented the term SUV. Ugh! They improved alot. Handling, suspension and comfort got alot better.
Now they have arrived in Ireland. I dont think the huge American SUV will ever catch on over here but smaller vehicles like RAV4 I believe are here to stay.

In America when you say you drive a 'jeep' it automatically means you drive a Vehicle made by JEEP. The fact that JEEP are now selling (crap) vehicles in Ireland means we should now drop the term 'jeep'. Dont you think it's unfair to the Land Cruiser, Rav4 and Patrol to label it a 'jeep' (Toyota being a vastly superior vehicle than JEEP).

As for 4x4, well we know some of them are not always four wheel drive. Some are AWD some are 2WD.

So I propose we get over ourselves and start calling them what the manufacturers want us to call them. Do we still call the radio the wireless?

Anyway, with the price of petrol rising, sales of some larger SUVs may be declining. But dont worry, the Yanks have already named the replacement term. Smaller SUVs or CROSSOVERS or CUVs (Compact Utility Vehicles) will be the next phase. Just when I finally got my head around the SUV term.

sesswhat

nytraveller wrote: »

Lets try to clear up the correct name. SUV?Jeep/4x4???
The way I see it the Yanks invented the term. They coulda done better!
The first vehicles that came to Ireland (most likely Land Rover) looked like the American 'Jeep' and the term was born and has since stuck in Ireland.
But alot has changed since then. Many new manufacturers started making their own versions of the original "Jeep" based on an American pick-up truck. Using the pick-up truck body, these early "SUVs" were no more than two door pick-ups with seats in the back. They handled poorly and had a tendency to roll because of their high center of gravity. In fact alot of Americans today still call their "SUVs" trucks.

Then in the 90s they added 4 doors and invented the term SUV. Ugh! They improved alot. Handling, suspension and comfort got alot better.
Now they have arrived in Ireland. I dont think the huge American SUV will ever catch on over here but smaller vehicles like RAV4 I believe are here to stay.

In America when you say you drive a 'jeep' it automatically means you drive a Vehicle made by JEEP. The fact that JEEP are now selling (crap) vehicles in Ireland means we should now drop the term 'jeep'. Dont you think it's unfair to the Land Cruiser, Rav4 and Patrol to label it a 'jeep' (Toyota being a vastly superior vehicle than JEEP).

As for 4x4, well we know some of them are not always four wheel drive. Some are AWD some are 2WD.

So I propose we get over ourselves and start calling them what the manufacturers want us to call them. Do we still call the radio the wireless?

Anyway, with the price of petrol rising, sales of some larger SUVs may be declining. But dont worry, the Yanks have already named the replacement term. Smaller SUVs or CROSSOVERS or CUVs (Compact Utility Vehicles) will be the next phase. Just when I finally got my head around the SUV term.

Yes the Yanks invented the term jeep, and used it to describe certain types of vehicle BEFORE it ever became a Trademark.

The first jeep in Ireland would likely have been the Willys jeep used by the thousands of US troops stationed in Northern Ireland during WW2.

The first Land Rover was based on this jeep and indeed used many of the parts from that jeep.

The term 4x4 came before either of these vehicles and I can't see the problem with using it to describe a vehicle with 4 wheels capable of 4-wheel drive.

nytraveller

sesswhat wrote: »

The term 4x4 came before either of these vehicles and I can't see the problem with using it to describe a vehicle with 4 wheels capable of 4-wheel drive.

http://www.hyundai.ie/configurator/index.cfm?fuseaction=hy.standard&variantID=7115

.......but Im sure you call this a 4x4.

jackofalltrades

nytraveller wrote:

But what about the safety of sitting higher in the SUV than a car. Surely in a SUV on a busy motorway, you get to see a much clearer view of the road ahead and can therefore react quicker than the person in a car. That is safer for the driver of the SUV AND other road users.

The higher up you sit the higher the centre of gravity, increasing body roll, reducing you're ability to swerve and increasing you're chances of rolling the car.

Also you're clearer view is a the expense of everyone else behind you and has an overall negative impact on road safety.

DonJose wrote:

Hyundai Santa Fe
Co2 emissions 190-220 (depending on model)

Subaru Impreza
Co2 emissions 195-257 (depending on model)

Subaru Legacy
Co2 emissions 182-286 (depending on model)

Compare an engine like BMW's 3.0 diesel engine, emissions for the X5 are higher than the 530d and even the 730d.
That and under the Euro series emissions standards, SUV style vehicle usually get some kind of exemption.

nytraveller

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The higher up you sit the higher the centre of gravity, increasing body roll, reducing you're ability to swerve and increasing you're chances of rolling the car.

Also you're clearer view is a the expense of everyone else behind you and has an overall negative impact on road safety.

The fact that I can react quicker because I can see more ahead of me, thus not increasing body roll, thus not swerving, thus not rolling the vehicle has an overall negative impact on road safety??????Really?

Im making one point here.

sesswhat

nytraveller wrote: »

http://www.hyundai.ie/configurator/index.cfm?fuseaction=hy.standard&variantID=7115

.......but Im sure you call this a 4x4.

I call that one a heap, I mean jeep.

WHITE_P

Anan1 wrote: »

The problems I have with them have nothing to do with CO2. They obstruct my field of vision more than a car, and they're dangerous to pedestrians and other road users. Also, they tend to be driven and parked with little consideration for other road users.

What all anti jeep protagonists seem to forget is that a vehicle is in itself not dangerous, it is the person driving that poses the problem. I drive a commercial jeep for work not mine the companies, have done for the last 10 years and couldn't say they are any safer or not than a car, however the one accident I've had in a jeep was caused by a car driver on a country road and had I been in my own car at the time (a Peugeot 206), I definitly would not be here today, as it was I walked away without injury.

We all need to cop on and improve our driving standards and manners on the road. Look at the amount of muppets out there who use mobiles while driving, too close to the car infront, with there front fog lights on, at night.

Anan1

WHITE_P wrote: »

What all anti jeep protagonists seem to forget is that a vehicle is in itself not dangerous, it is the person driving that poses the problem.

With the greatest of respect, repeating this ad nauseum will not make it true. An SUV is inherently less safe than an equally large car.

Balfa

junkyard wrote: »

when I look at the skys on a clear morning and see the pollution left by planes I'm fairly sure they leave a lot more than me by a long shot.

Lol, are you talking about jet trails? They're caused by turbulence from the wingtips: it's just stirred air, not pollution. You can't see the pollution from jets because they burn lean. The state of some people :rolleyes:

It's fun to see people like you make decisions based on assumptions concerning things you don't remotely understand

Like Triangle and his infamous sloping MPVs. "Well it's wedge-shaped so it must be dangerous!". Tell us, triangle, have you even seen a scientific study on the risk of a sloping bonnet, or are you just making it up as you go along?

Mr.Boots

Its christmas....lets just all get along.........

emaherx

The argument that SUV's should be band because they are less safe is jus great.
By this argument all cars except the cars which receive the maximum Ncap rating should be band.
How many of the anti SUV mob actualy have cars that can claim this?

Stark

Balfa wrote: »

Lol, are you talking about jet trails? They're caused by turbulence from the wingtips: it's just stirred air, not pollution. You can't see the pollution from jets because they burn lean. The state of some people :rolleyes:

But you can see "stirred air"? The concept of air becoming visible when you stir it is a new one on me lol. FYI, contrails are made of crystallised condensed water from jet engine exhausts.

Balfa wrote: »

It's fun to see people like you make decisions based on assumptions concerning things you don't remotely understand

Ditto. Even though you can't see it, it's well known that jet engines contribute massive quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere.

E92

blackbox wrote: »

I'd agree with banning dangerous bullbars.

The EU has already banned them.

nytraveller

E92 wrote: »

The EU has already banned them.

Only metal bullbars are banned.
You can still install energy absorbant bullbars such as these
http://www.endura-fps.com/webstore/productdetail.php?product_id=1001

Orange69

I had an incident with a utter retard in a SUV today!

Was driving up a narrow street in Limerick. About 3/4 ways up this cnut in a honda "SUV" pulls on to the street and comes towards me. On my side of the street was a row of parked cars and on hers a 4 inch or so sidewalk. So i pulled in as far as was safe and waited for her to pass (I was in my corolla). I expected that she would maybe mount the sidewalk to pass me safely as it was very tight. But no, she sits there and starts ranting and waving for me to reverse back up the street. I was having none of this so i just looked on. Next thing she gets out of the "SUV" and comes over (she had a face like a bag of **** tbh) screaming that she will call the cops unless i move and that its because of "people like you" that she had to get her bumper resprayed! Anyway i pointed out that she could easily mount the sidewalk to pass me and that perhaps she should have a smaller car if she is incapable of driving an "SUV".

She then gives me this BS that she cant reverse because there is a school behind her (this was Saturday at 3pm). So she calls the police and the que of cars behind me are starting to get restless. Ended up me and a couple of other cars had to reverse back up the street so that this retard could go about her selfish life undisturbed.

To the owner of 06 L 1723, you are a selfish retard and give all SUV drivers a bad name!

WHITE_P wrote: »

What all anti jeep protagonists seem to forget is that a vehicle is in itself not dangerous, it is the person driving that poses the problem.

ok, please answer this question then.

Let's say you are driving along in your 206 and you are hit by another car. The accident completely not your fault. The driver or the other car is an idiot.

Do you think you would be safer if that idiot was driving another 206 or SUV?

In exactly the same accident at the same speed, a larger heavier vehicle with a higher bumper is more dangerous to whatever or whoever it runs into than a smaller lighter vehicle with a lower bumper.

AsphaltRisin'

prospect wrote: »

Bloody hell,

The gross misinformation with regard to SUV's in this country is nothing short of unbelievable. The level of ignorance is laughable, and this goes all the way to government level.

excellent. i like you.

This imported american ****e about "SUVs" is bollocks, S.U.V.s in AMERICA have "huge gas guzzling petrol engines", most modern 4wd veicles in ireland have 2.0 to 3.0 litre turbodiesel engines.. not 5 to 10 litre petrol v8s like you can get in america.

whay are people, in government too going on about bioethanol... the replacement for petrol, when deisel is less polluting, and is they way to go as it can be made much more easily, and the vehicles that run on it are more economical than ethanol cars. for goodness sake the taxt based on emmisions means all diesels will end up cheaper to tax becasue their emmissions are lower

some twit on the news the other night was talking about "tax implications of drivers of gas guzzling suv vehicles with their large capacity petrol engines", as the camera man filed a 99 mazda b2500 DIESEL pickup truck, a toyota landcruiser D4D pulling a horsebox (ie being used for something useful), a x5 3.0d (check out the drop in vrt and taxt for new bmw diesels if anyone can be bothered, they have super low emissions), a transit minibus and a battered landrover defender tdi.

yes, SOME, 4x4 vehicles have petrol engines, petrol merc ML, a few nissan x trail and those ****ty honda fake jeeps, petrol BMW X's, and porsche cayenne.... but these are not the majority, and arent really 4x4s, they're cars that wanna look like 4x4s.

there are far more big petrol cars out there than 4x4s, and people need to stop trying to find a convenient scapegoat.

And no, for all of ye who will jump in and start screaming "you drive a big petrol SUV dont you", no i don't , but i have in the past and will again in the future have well maintained DIESEL 4wds for heavy towing and for going off road for various reasons. and they're almost always commercials.

diesel engines in general are less CO2 polluting than a petrol of the same size, an dusually better than petrols that are considerable smaller, they also use less fuel comparative to their engine size and power in reltion to petrols... and sorry to burst anyones little eco crusader bubble... most suvs/jeeps/4x4s are diesel, and not the demons you want them to be.

and if i ever see someone foolish enough to put one of them anti pollution stickers on a car while im watching... they would NOT want to hang around.
they should have something better to do than putting stickers on peoples cars, especially ones with threats to destroy the car for the sake of the environment, or scratching cars with such slogans... if they didnt waste their self righteous little live doing that, they could devote themselves to coming up with eco friendly power sources, or stopping global deforestation, or combating aids, or promoting recycling etc etc etc etc....

Anan1

AsphaltRisin' - Don't you think it might be a good idea to read the thread before posting?;)

craichoe

cancan wrote: »

Holland holland holland.

What you probably fail to see from your dope filled room, is that

a) Holland hand a bloody fantastic public transport system

b) Have bike paths everywhere giving an alternative to driving

c) I have searched and searched google and there is nothing about wanting to ban SUV's in the Netherlands or a movement to achieve such ?

Also, when you are off on another thread encouraging people to buy a 4x4 to drive from dublin to australia, your credibility goes out the window.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54629304#post54629304

Since bangers can make it that far no problem, I fail to see your exception for allowing 4x4's for a trip like this

http://mongolrally.theadventurists.com/

Haha .. Dope filled room .. yeh .. everyone in Holland smokes dope .. what a small minded idiot you are..

I cant even think of a response, your that much of a tool