SUV drivers
 

Why do SUV drivers drive differently than "regular car" drivers in adverse
road conditions? BECAUSE THEY CAN. That's why they bought their SUV. It
has the capabilities to enable them to negotiate difficult road and weather
conditions with confidence. Are they being reckless? Perhaps some are, but
no more than regular car drivers. The vast majority are simply using their
cars for the purpose they were intended (and designed) for.

Before SUV's, there were (and still are) pickup trucks. They have similar
designs and capabilities. Their drivers sometimes drive them faster than
regular cars in bad weather. They have accidents. Have they become
demonized by the media? No. Why is this? Could it be because they're
driven by working-class people rather than "soccer moms" and "yuppies"? My
point is that SUV's are being given a bad rap simply because their drivers
are an easy media target. It's a double standard.

Get a station wagon with AWD (all wheel drive). It will handle alot
better and get better fuel economy. Most people don't even need AWD.

Besides, station wagons now days actually look cool. Most SUV's don't.
SUV has mommy wagon written all over it.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:48:37 -0500, Magnulus , one of an infinite number
of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters said the following in
rec.autos.driving...

> Get a station wagon with AWD (all wheel drive). It will handle alot
> better and get better fuel economy. Most people don't even need AWD.
>
> Besides, station wagons now days actually look cool. Most SUV's don't.
> SUV has mommy wagon written all over it.

Agreed. I'd much rather have a station wagon (with or with out AWD) than
an over blown mom-mobile.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:47:38 -0500, MidnightDad , one of an infinite
number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters said the following
in rec.autos.driving...

> Why do SUV drivers drive differently than "regular car" drivers in adverse
> road conditions? BECAUSE THEY CAN. That's why they bought their SUV. It
> has the capabilities to enable them to negotiate difficult road and weather
> conditions with confidence.

No they can't. Example: the Cherokee I saw a couple of years ago: I was
on 17 southbound (it had just stopped raining) at the I-95 off ramp at GA
exit 29 when this broad in a Jeep Cherokee blew through the stop sign at
about 60MPH and hung a hard tight turn (and from the wrong lane - the
left turn lane - at that). The stupid bitch (yes, it was a woman driving)
damn near rolled the POS in the process. SUV's were designed with off
road use in mind. The closest many of them will get to off road is when
Mommy or Daddy Wuss backs over the flower bed when backing out of the
driveway.

> Before SUV's, there were (and still are) pickup trucks. They have similar
> designs and capabilities. Their drivers sometimes drive them faster than
> regular cars in bad weather. They have accidents. Have they become
> demonized by the media? No. Why is this? Could it be because they're
> driven by working-class people rather than "soccer moms" and "yuppies"? My
> point is that SUV's are being given a bad rap simply because their drivers
> are an easy media target. It's a double standard.

You mean like the woman in the ad for the Cadillac where we see Ms.
Yuppie driving home from the boutique to her mansion in her tank like a
flippin' maniac to find out at the end that she was carrying a bag of
something about the same volume as a 6" x 9" stereo speaker in the cargo
area?

And you wonder where some of us get out opinions of SUV's and their
owners from......

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:47:38 -0500, MidnightDad wrote:

> Why do SUV drivers drive differently than "regular car" drivers in adverse
> road conditions? BECAUSE THEY CAN.

No, they can't. Except for extreme conditions like snowy surfaces, where
4x4 and good snow tires make a difference they handle worse than normal
cars. The real reason why SUV drivers drive like suicidal maniacs in bad
weather is because they are stupid enough to believe the marketeers and
advertisers who falsely claim they can.

> That's why they bought their SUV. It has the capabilities to enable
> them to negotiate difficult road and weather conditions with confidence.

No, it has the capability to get through where others fail (i.e. snow,
ice, blizzard) but with extreme caution.

> Are they being reckless?

Some are, the rest is simply stupid.

> Perhaps some are, but no more than regular car drivers. The vast
> majority are simply using their cars for the purpose they were intended
> (and designed) for.

Some SUVs were designed for off-road use, the rest was simply designed to
get more money out of gullible idiots.

I know what i am talking about, I drive a truck as a second car and I know
all too well that you have to be just as careful with it in bad weather as
you have to be with any car.

> Before SUV's, there were (and still are) pickup trucks.

Most SUVs today have nothing to do with pickup trucks, they are jacked-up
passenger cars, usually with little to no off-road capabilities, made to
look rugged and suggest to their gullible drivers that they can drive like
idiots.

> They have similar designs and capabilities. Their drivers sometimes
> drive them faster than regular cars in bad weather. They have
> accidents.

True.

> Have they become demonized by the media? No. Why is this?

Because the majority of pickup drivers drive their vehicles because they
need to transport things, be it ladders and stuff for a contractor or
gardening equipment for a landscaper.

They need to haul a heavy load that normal cars can't carry. They haul
heavy trailers that normal cars can't haul. And they have to get around in
any weather condition, so 4x4 is a good idea.

> Could it be because they're driven by working-class people rather than
> "soccer moms" and "yuppies"? My point is that SUV's are being given a
> bad rap simply because their drivers are an easy media target. It's a
> double standard.

No, SUV drivers are getting a bad rap because the majority of them are
clueless and drive in an unsafe manner. A mommy doesn't need 2.5 tons of
steel to haul her offspring around while she is on the phone yakking away
with her friends instead of watching what she is doing and weaving in and
out of traffic.

Around here in about 90% of stupid maneuvers the driver is either in an
SUV or on the phone or, much more likely, both.

Chris

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
...
> Get a station wagon with AWD (all wheel drive). It will handle alot
> better and get better fuel economy. Most people don't even need AWD.
>
> Besides, station wagons now days actually look cool. Most SUV's don't.
> SUV has mommy wagon written all over it.

If only there was something around today that deserved the title station
wagon, the closest thing is the Dodge magnum but even that is on the small
size. I still have one of those rare real wagons (89 caprice) I can haul a
sheet of plywood perfectly flat, try that with any so called wagon of today.

Snow...

MidnightDad wrote:
> Why do SUV drivers drive differently than "regular car" drivers
> in adverse road conditions? BECAUSE THEY CAN. That's why they
> bought their SUV. It has the capabilities to enable them to
> negotiate difficult road and weather conditions with confidence.

That's the problem. The SUV has worse negotiation of difficult
weather conditions and difficult corners, but the driver feels
more confident. Hence more accidents.

> Are they being reckless? Perhaps some are, but no more than
> regular car drivers. The vast majority are simply using their
> cars for the purpose they were intended (and designed) for.

SUVs were designed for negotiating offroad conditions (ie.
bumpy surfaces). That is why they are so high off the ground --
so they can drive over ridges and bumps and troughs.

> Before SUV's, there were (and still are) pickup trucks.
> They have similar designs and capabilities. Have they become
> demonized by the media? No. Why is this?

Because pickup truck owners don't buy them to drive their kids
half a mile to school.

> Could it be because they're driven by working-class people
> rather than "soccer moms" and "yuppies"?

Hey, you're onto it.

> My point is that SUV's are being given a bad rap simply
> because their drivers are an easy media target. It's a
> double standard.

Pickup drivers are better drivers than soccer moms.

I see idiots driving in trucks all the time, driving recklessly. A few
days ago I was driving home in a 35 mph zone and there was this guy that
must have been going 50-60 mph in an old pickup truck. Of course, the idiot
was passing on the right hand side and not signalling. That's an accident
waiting to happen. And the stupid thing was- he slowed down for the
traffic light just like everybody else. All that Dale Earnhardt crap didn't
really get him a damn thing.

"Snow" > wrote in message
.. .
> If only there was something around today that deserved the title station
> wagon, the closest thing is the Dodge magnum but even that is on the small
> size. I still have one of those rare real wagons (89 caprice) I can haul
a
> sheet of plywood perfectly flat, try that with any so called wagon of
today.

If I had to haul plywood, I would get a truck for that as a second
vehicle. Or maybe a small trailer.

The wagons now days are just much more realistic in terms of what people
need. I drive a wagon and actually I rarely need that much cargo space, but
you know, it doesn't get any worse fuel economy than a comparable car (Jetta
wagon's fuel economy is identical to the Golf or regular Jetta sedan). A
wagon now days is just a sedan sized car with the extra trunk space put to
better use.

> If I had to haul plywood, I would get a truck for that as a second
> vehicle. Or maybe a small trailer.

Why do you think some people have the big suvee's ? its because they have a
need for carring loads of size. I have a Jeep daily drive, a Ford mid-size
LTD wagon for daily drives, a GMC 1/2 ton and the Caprice wagon for hauling
stuff.

> The wagons now days are just much more realistic in terms of what people
> need. I drive a wagon and actually I rarely need that much cargo space,
> but
> you know, it doesn't get any worse fuel economy than a comparable car
> (Jetta
> wagon's fuel economy is identical to the Golf or regular Jetta sedan).
> A
> wagon now days is just a sedan sized car with the extra trunk space put to
> better use.

No, they are realistic of what people think others need and should drive, I
would in a heartbeat get a new wagon but they don't have the carrying
abilities of what I need. If I were to replace my big wagon I would have to
get a Suburban or something of similar size. The crap wagons of today are
the automakers way of pleasing the tree huggers and other nature nazi's.
The suvee is a way of automakers to offset the lack of real wagons. At
least Dodge has realized that not everyone wants a
Golf/Jetta/Civic/Impreza/Echo sized wagon, the Magnum still has a ways to go
but it is a step in the correct direction.

Snow...