SUV drivers

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. 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.

IMO, pickup trucks ARE SUVs.

> Their drivers sometimes drive them faster than
>regular cars in bad weather.

and are much more out of control than "regular" cars.


>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"?

They ARE driven by "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.


Nope - you're just a moron.

>It's a double standard.
>
>

gOn Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:31:18 -0500, "Magnulus"
> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

Really? Even if you only needed to haul 1 piece of plywood?


Get ****ing real.

> 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.
>

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:20:04 -0500, "Magnulus"
> wrote:

> I see idiots driving in trucks


No different from SUVs


>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.


You were blocking the left lane.

> That's an accident
>waiting to happen.



LLBs are.

>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.
>

On 29 Mar 2005 20:36:35 -0800, "Old Wolf" >
wrote:

>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.



Yes, they do. Even more often, they buy them so they can drive 5
miles on surface streets to work.

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


Nope - "Soccer moms" and "yuppies" are working class people these
days.

>
>> 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.

No, they are just as bad

Snow wrote:
> > 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everytime this subject comes up you can bet that someone will bring up
this old saw. SUV's were never designed as SW replacement. SW were a
very minor portion of the market even in their heyday. I'm surprised
you didn't add in the other old saw of needing a SUV because SW aren't
available as a tow vehicle. That is also false as even in the heyday
of SW, ones used to tow were a very small percentage of all SW which
were a very small percentage of all passenger vehicles.

SUV (original) were aimed at the fun market but soon came to be seen as
a "macho" thing. They were crude with most of them only part time 4x
(total lockup between axles in 4x). The current crop is an abortion.
Lousy handling on the road, not really capable of off-road.

Harry K

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...

"Harry K" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Everytime this subject comes up you can bet that someone will bring up
> this old saw. SUV's were never designed as SW replacement. SW were a
> very minor portion of the market even in their heyday.

As suvee's are today. They did replace the SW, the suvees came out of the
minivan market. Only the true 4x4's that have been around for 30 plus years
are anything different.

> you didn't add in the other old saw of needing a SUV because SW aren't
> available as a tow vehicle. That is also false as even in the heyday
> of SW, ones used to tow were a very small percentage of all SW which
> were a very small percentage of all passenger vehicles.

So no one who owns a suvee these days use it as a tow vehicle?? bull****!!!
60% of all suvees sold will tow something. And they make great tow vehicles,
providing they aren't over loaded, but this applies to even a Golf.

>They were crude with most of them only part time 4x
> (total lockup between axles in 4x).

The real ones still have this, though limited to only a few makes and
models.

>The current crop is an abortion.
> Lousy handling on the road, not really capable of off-road.

Well they are ugly and lack styling and have real ****ty off road
capabilities but not all of them have lousy handling, even the worse ones
are still better then some makes of cars.

Snow...

"Harry K" > wrote in message
ups.com...

SUV's were never designed as SW replacement. SW were a
> very minor portion of the market even in their heyday. I'm surprised
> you didn't add in the other old saw of needing a SUV because SW aren't
> available as a tow vehicle. That is also false as even in the heyday
> of SW, ones used to tow were a very small percentage of all SW which
> were a very small percentage of all passenger vehicles.
>
> SUV (original) were aimed at the fun market but soon came to be seen as
> a "macho" thing. They were crude with most of them only part time 4x
> (total lockup between axles in 4x). The current crop is an abortion.
> Lousy handling on the road, not really capable of off-road.

I can't speak for anyone else's reasons for buying an SUV. But I bought
mine to carry my musical gear including basses, PA, amps, keyboards, etc.
And I have to make it to the gig in any weather, anywhere. Many's the time
I've gotten a call from another musician (or distressed parent) to give them
a ride because they can't even get their car out of their own driveway.

And I'm not about to even consider throwing my 155 year-old Tyrolean bass
fiddle (cost me a year's pay) in the back of a pickup truck. It needs a
secure, climate-controlled environment. If someone with a pathological
hatred of SUVs doesn't like it, they can call someone else.

I've driven it along unpaved mountain roads, along cliff's, across sand
dunes, through mountains on packed snow atop ice, and flash-flooded fields,
all on the way to the gig. Never an accident, never a ticket. If I get
even a fender-bender I'm not going to blame my Explorer.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:36:56 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:
>
>>>Before SUV's, there were (and still are) pickup trucks. They have
>>>similar
>>>designs and capabilities.
>>
>>IMO, pickup trucks ARE SUVs.
>
> Huh?
>
> --
> Sloth Kills!
> http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Maybe what he meant to say is that most new pickups are really cars with a
short bed, poor fuel economy, poor handling, and BIG status. Sissy -fied
(is that a word?).

Most of the guys I work with drive full sized pickups everday. I've been
razzed for driving a car. Not manly enough for some I guess. I'll take 28
mpg and with a comfortable ride and room for two car seats
any day over one of those 4 door poseur pickups, with beds so small that a
mountain bike won't fit (LOL), crappy mileage, and marginal performance to
boot.

Call me old fashioned because my idea of a pickup is a WORK vehicle. A
utility vehicle whose purpose is to haul and tow without regard for prissy
extras like leather interiors, dvd players, and fancy wheels. Or expensive
paint jobs that can't be scratched.

I have for hauling and work an old F100 lwb standard cab that has a big bed
and costs me next to nothing to own. Its gas mileage is similar to many new
pickups as well. And it's TOUGH . I drive it on average 50 miles per
month.

That combined with cost of my car is still significantly less than a new
F150 crew cab that would (in theory) do the job of both.

The beauty of this country is that we all are free to choose what we want to
drive and I'm all for it.

I favor free market, removal (and/or equal application to all passenger
vehicles including light trucks) of the CAFE standards, and freedom of
choice for everyone.

I don't like SUVs in general but I don't begrudge people for owning them.
But I wouldn't own one for all the reasons that have been covered so
thoroughly in this group.

Cheers.

Roy

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.

In my observation, it's BECAUSE THEY CAN'T


For example, the oversized SUV with lift job who CANNOT turn out of a
parking lot at more than 3 mph and CANNOT do so without using at least
2 lanes.


>That's why they bought their SUV.

So their (lack of) driving skills would be hampered by their vehicle's
inability to maneuver efficiently?

>It
>has the capabilities to enable them to negotiate difficult road and weather
>conditions with confidence.

No, it does not.


>Are they being reckless?

Of course they are.


>Perhaps some are, but
>no more than regular car drivers.

"regular" cars can make turns, accelerate, and stop easily. SUVs
cannot.


>The vast majority are simply using their
>cars for the purpose they were intended (and designed) for.

Interesting - what what is the purpose of SUV? Ostensibly, it's to
drive OFF-road.

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

Very little difference, IMO.


>They have similar
>designs and capabilities.


Or lack thereof.

>Their drivers sometimes drive them faster than
>regular cars in bad weather.

But they can't do so safely.

> 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"?

If you think yuppies don't drive pickups, you must live on another
planet.


>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.

They're given a bad rap because they deserve it and because they're
very noticable.

>
>

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:31:18 -0500, "Magnulus"
> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

Even if you only haul 1 sheet of plywood a year on average?

I can't remember my parents ever using their wagons for hauling wood
although I'm sure they must have once or twice.

What I do remember is a family of 5 comfortably seated with plenty of
room, even when fully loaded for a cross-country vacation

> The wagons now days are just much more realistic in terms of what people
>need.

So you don't really *need* to haul plywood that often, do you?


>I drive a wagon and actually I rarely need that much cargo space,

I drive a coupe and I rarely need as much cargo space as I have.

>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.
>


How is that different from the wagons of the '70s?