NationStates Jolt Archive

SUVs are moving death traps which kill everyone: if you're inside and involved in a rear end crash the people in the back are likely to be crushed; if you're outside you'll be flattened by the immense weight, whatever the speed.

4x4s - why? 99% of 4x4 owners use them to drive their kids to school. Unless you live in the countryside and drive to school through several very muddy fields, they are utterly pointless. Also, these behemoths are massive inefficient polluters, and should be the first to go of cars are ever banned. Any thoughts?

Your English and live in a predominantly middle class area arent you?

I totally agree. Though obviously there are circumstances where they are needed.Special case by case licensing anyone? Farmers and other rural types and heavy lifters and people with big families and loads might fund them useful.

I live in Scottsdale, AZ, a rich, white, old people mecca. You would not believe how many huge SUVs (Escalades, H2s, Suburbans, Navigators, etc .. . ) I see every day. I also share the opinion that these cars need to be banned. Especially where I live. They serve no purpose at all here. I can't even begin to describe how useless these cars are in Arizona. They do nothing here but cause trraffic problems and make seeing around corners impossible.

i was in a 1960s carpark today (built for minis, basically) and i went round a corner only to be forced to scratch my economic tiny 900cc cinquecento against a wall to avoid psycho in a Shogun with blacked out windows. he didnt even see me

Well, banning any such thing is pretty un-American, but I could see banning vehicles who fail to meet certain emissions standards (thus choking them out). I do hate SUVs and said pickup drivers, growing up on a farm where we actually needed them. But pickups are also needed by some in the city, like construction workers, and lighter duty trucks aren't so bad.

So, set emissions standards they can reach and you'll do the job.

but i'm talking about fucking soccer mums who drive two minutes down the road to drop the kids off, then two minutes to the supermarket, then 3 days home as they get causght in the congestions these behemoths cause. i'm english by the way. banning stuff is a VERY english thing to do

4x4s nowadays are just being used as things so people can brag about how they got this ginormous thing and they can drive it where they please which is funny in the ironic sense that noone drives them because the gas money is getting out of control

While we're at it let's ban Alcohol it kills more people than SUVs.

Then let's ban smoking. It kills lots of people.

Then let's ban fast food. It's unhealthy and idiots who eats to much of it may develop heart problems.

Then let's ban knives. They're dangerous. We can find more effective ways to cut things.

Then let's ban industry. It pollutes and some people die in industrial accidents.

Then let's ban water. It's the cause of many deaths. People drowning. People getting addicted to it, and dying when the go into withdrawal.

Then let's ban reproduction and make it illegal to be alive. Living has a 100% fatality rate and human's are the source of all pollution. Once we've banned living and have have killed everyone there will be no more death and no more pollution.

In case you haven't noticed yet I'm making fun of this rather silly proposition.

its also to hide small penises, or wives sleeping around

but i'm talking about fucking soccer mums who drive two minutes down the road to drop the kids off, then two minutes to the supermarket, then 3 days home as they get causght in the congestions these behemoths cause. i'm english by the way. banning stuff is a VERY english thing to do
rofl,minivans are just as good as SUvs if not better. and lower point of balance or whatever

alot of this crap should be banned for safety, economic, and various otehr reasons, at least banned from streets. you can have them as showcars all you want

mmmmmmm water

While we're at it let's ban Alcohol it kills more people than SUVs.

Then let's ban smoking. It kills lots of people.

Then let's ban fast food. It's unhealthy and idiots who eats to much of it may develop heart problems.

Then let's ban knives. Their dangerous. We can find more effective ways to cut things.

Then let's ban industry. It pollutes and some people die in industrial accidents.

Then let's ban water. It's the cause of many deaths. People drowning. People getting addicted to it, and dying when the go into withdrawal.

Then let's ban reproduction and make it illegal to be alive. Living has a 100% fatality rate and human's are the source of all pollution. Once we've banned living and have have killed everyone there will be no more death and no more pollution.

In case you haven't noticed yet I'm making fun of this rather silly proposition.

some of those aren't bad ideas you know, in moderation

While we're at it let's ban Alcohol it kills more people than SUVs.

Then let's ban smoking. It kills lots of people.

Then let's ban fast food. It's unhealthy and idiots who eats to much of it may develop heart problems.

Then let's ban knives. They're dangerous. We can find more effective ways to cut things.

Then let's ban industry. It pollutes and some people die in industrial accidents.

Then let's ban water. It's the cause of many deaths. People drowning. People getting addicted to it, and dying when the go into withdrawal.

Then let's ban reproduction and make it illegal to be alive. Living has a 100% fatality rate and human's are the source of all pollution. Once we've banned living and have have killed everyone there will be no more death and no more pollution.

In case you haven't noticed yet I'm making fun of this rather silly proposition.
lets ban you

OK, nice sentiment (I don't totally disagree with it) but one cannot EVER trample on people's rights like you are proposing. It is wrong to remove someone's right to choose, which is what you are proposing. Don't be a fascist. Because that's what fascists do. Instead, advocate education as to the problems SUV's pose. Change it systemically, not by force.

well done, chess squares

*does the evil fascist liberal dance to summon the demons of equality and anti-trust

lets ban you

Yeah!!!! Now we can start flaming and start unenlightening arguments that degenerate this board into a waste of space.

OK, nice sentiment (I don't totally disagree with it) but one cannot EVER trample on people's rights like you are proposing. It is wrong to remove someone's right to choose, which is what you are proposing. Don't be a fascist. Because that's what fascists do. Instead, advocate education as to the problems SUV's pose. Change it systemically, not by force.

I don't want to change it by force. I want people to see that SUVs are utterly pointless if you don't have a big family, dangerous if you do, and always major pollutants. Negative externalities, man

lets ban you
let's not be fascists. You are behaving like any right-wing nutjob, basically saying "you don't agree with me? You die!" I'd suspect people here would be immensely opposed to banning abortion. Can you philosophically explain why it's right to ban SUV's but not abortion?

suvs are big and uh.............really big

oh yeah lets try to ban stupidity

And I thought all fascists were conservatives. Blech.

Gimme mah godamn freedom. More and more I'm leaning Libertarian. The liberals have failed me. The conservatives are...well let's not go there.

I think White Kanatia summed it up pretty well.

some of those aren't bad ideas you know, in moderation

They're all stupid ideas. Let people live there lives how they want, and hold them responsible for whatever consequences may arise. Nothing is safe, living is the best way to ensure death. I do not want a bunch of unenlightened, do-gooders ramming their idiotic suggestions down my throat to keep me safe, while at the same time increasing government tyranny, which is one of the most deadly things known to man (other than living).

I don't want to change it by force. I want people to see that SUVs are utterly pointless if you don't have a big family, dangerous if you do, and always major pollutants. Negative externalities, man
There are things far more important than "negative externalities". Human rights, freedom these things are the most vital. Not some do-good attitude that "Oh, that's wrong, I'm going to ban it". The same attitude brought us things like Prohibition, the Inquisition, the current war on drugs, the list goes on and on. Liberty for all!

They're all stupid ideas. Let people live there lives how they want, and hold them responsible for whatever consequences may arise. Nothing is safe, living is the best way to ensure death. I do not want a bunch of unenlightened, do-gooders ramming their idiotic suggestions down my throat to keep me safe, while at the same time increasing government tyranny, which is one of the most deadly things known to man (other than living).
Libertarianism! Hell yeah! Way to be!

utterly pointless
Whenever I hear these words regarding banning something, I just get antsy. I hope you understand why.

And I thought all fascists were conservatives. Blech.

Gimme mah godamn freedom. More and more I'm leaning Libertarian. The liberals have failed me. The conservatives are...well let's not go there.

I think White Kanatia summed it up pretty well.
Welcome to the club man, welcome to the club.

think of it this way
would u rather have a nice sturdy truck or... a screaming metal death trap??

ban the SUV!!
ban the SUV!!

I'm all for it.

I'd also like to see a ban on cellphone use while driving.

think of it this way
would u rather have a nice sturdy truck or... a screaming metal death trap??


I say we make all cars death traps so that even the smallest wreck kills all involved.

I'll bet people would start driving more safely....

They're all stupid ideas. Let people live there lives how they want, and hold them responsible for whatever consequences may arise. Nothing is safe, living is the best way to ensure death. I do not want a bunch of unenlightened, do-gooders ramming their idiotic suggestions down my throat to keep me safe, while at the same time increasing government tyranny, which is one of the most deadly things known to man (other than living).

so you're suggesting that people should be allowed to kill other people i their SUVs and just say, "well i was doing the spped limit, so i get off scot free" or "so i smoke. whats that got to do with my young boy's lung cancer". Shhhhhhhhhh

For those "liberals" who want to ban stuff because it is wrong, you must understand that your ideology is also capable of producing totalitarianism, just as much as conservatism is. Just to give you an idea, Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) was a noted socialist in England. But he questioned his beliefs, and of this questioning came several works, notably 1984, an absolute Dystopia in which liberal ideals led to totalitarianism.

There is not much difference between the right wing nutjob and the left wing loon. Not much at all...

Libertarianism! Hell yeah! Way to be!
I still have mixed beliefs on the economy, welfare, taxation, programs, social security, etc. But as for social issues I'm completely Libertarian (which still mostly lines up with liberals and the American Democrat Party...guns being the one exception).

ban the SUV!!
ban the SUV!!

I'm all for it.

I'd also like to see a ban on cellphone use while driving.

Its been banned in the UK. Unfortunately, it doesn't work too well coz catching people is difficult. But accidents caused by mobile use have gone down

For those "liberals" who want to ban stuff because it is wrong, you must understand that your ideology is also capable of producing totalitarianism, just as much as conservatism is. Just to give you an idea, Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) was a noted socialist in England. But he questioned his beliefs, and of this questioning came several works, notably 1984, an absolute Dystopia in which liberal ideals led to totalitarianism.

There is not much difference between the right wing nutjob and the left wing loon. Not much at all...

Stalin and Hitler..... hmmm

I still have mixed beliefs on the economy, welfare, taxation, programs, social security, etc. But as for social issues I'm completely Libertarian (which still mostly lines up with liberals and the American Democrat Party...guns being the one exception).
No party represents my libertarianism well. The libertarian party often takes it too far (privatizing education, why?). So I have to work out a middle ground, sometimes I vote democrat, sometimes I vote republican (even though my absentee ballot for this election mainly had dem votes...)

but i'm talking about fucking soccer mums

Sounds good to me :)


On the car thing:
I don't think we should ban them. I hate them myself. I think they are horrible and serve no purpose, but i dont like giving the government power to 'ban' things. When gas prices get too high, people will ether switch to smaller cars or pay the cash for em. There is no perfect world.

Stalin and Hitler..... hmmm
Bingo. Both are responsible for the deaths of over ten million innocent human beings. And other bad bad things.

i think we just got off topic but uh ahh what the heck lets ban everything not in my best interests and call it a day

Obviously we can't ban them. Even if Joe and Jane Soccer Biotch abuse them ther are those that are better off with them, and we can't make thier lives harder because of some jackass in an H2. We can make the jackass in the H2s life harder, though. I don't know what it's like in the UK, but-

Here we can hold SUVs to the same safety and emitions standards as regular cars. Add to that, there should be improved safety regulations regarding SUVs hitting 'lesser' vehicle-decrease the impact fatality rate.

Redifine the loop-hole blue law that was meant to provide for farmers and businesses to buy the trucks they need to get their product out so that detintists aren't using it to get a tax break on their H2.

Gas-guzzler tax. There already is one, but applied specific to the SUV. This might sound like it's punishing the people who need one, but rather it encourages those that need one to buy more efficient ones to avoid the tax and save in the long run by having a more efficient vehicle.

Peer pressure. That's already sort of in effect, but some dipshit in an H2 in suburbia should be derided like you would someone smoking next to your baby. Yes, they are perfectly in thier right to have one. It's also perfectly in your right to be an asshole, we're just as right to tell you about it.

For those "liberals" who want to ban stuff because it is wrong, you must understand that your ideology is also capable of producing totalitarianism, just as much as conservatism is. Just to give you an idea, Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) was a noted socialist in England. But he questioned his beliefs, and of this questioning came several works, notably 1984, an absolute Dystopia in which liberal ideals led to totalitarianism.

There is not much difference between the right wing nutjob and the left wing loon. Not much at all...
As far as I can see, the left wing loon will ban anything that could potentially cause any harm, physical or emotional, to anyone. End result, totalitarian fascism.

Right wing nutjobs will ban anything considered *immoral*. End result, totalitarian fascism.

And Libertarians are stuck in the middle just screaming "FREEDOM!!!" :D

(but I still hold that liberals are generally much less glaring in their trampling of personal freedoms.)

personally i dont even have a car cuz mine is busted so i dont care what crap car i get

SUVs are moving death traps which kill everyone: if you're inside and involved in a rear end crash the people in the back are likely to be crushed; if you're outside you'll be flattened by the immense weight, whatever the speed.

4x4s - why? 99% of 4x4 owners use them to drive their kids to school. Unless you live in the countryside and drive to school through several very muddy fields, they are utterly pointless. Also, these behemoths are massive inefficient polluters, and should be the first to go of cars are ever banned. Any thoughts?

Hey, guess what? You're an idiot. I loathe people like you...

...and libertarians are stuck in the middle...

libertarians are stuck in the middle shooting at the liberals and conservatives with miniguns, because they were allowed to buy them because it is their right as a person. sigh

whos the idiot? u are? oh ok
btw u spelled loath wrong in your insult
its spelled loath not loathe

whos the idiot? u are? oh ok
btw u spelled loath wrong in your insult
its spelled loath not loathe

no, he was right

SOED says so

libertarians are stuck in the middle shooting at the liberals and conservatives with miniguns, because they were allowed to buy them because it is their right as a person. sigh
Most people who buy guns legally don't actually shoot people with them.
Those that buy them illegally...well further restrictions obviously won't do anything! :p

btw u spelled loath wrong in your insult
its spelled loath not loathe
Loath is an adjective meaning "unwilling." It ends with a hard th and rhymes with growth or both.


Loathe is a verb meaning "to hate intensely." It ends with a soft th like the sound in smooth or breathe.


Examples: He was loath to admit that he was included in the deal.
(He was unwilling)

Alex loathes spiders.
(Hates them intensely)

yeah whatever

Most people who buy guns legally don't actually shoot people with them.
Those that buy them illegally...well further restrictions obviously won't do anything! :p

yes, but isn't it true that a lot of gun deaths are caused by shooting accidents. at least so i hear

that was a stupid question no offense
how else would people die in GUN accidents
now i realize you could club somebody to death but lets think realisticly here
why would more gun deaths be caused by something other than shootings?

yes, but isn't it true that a lot of gun deaths are caused by shooting accidents. at least so i hear
A lot of deaths are caused by STDs too. It's the same reason, lack of education. If people are properly educated about sex, they won't get STDs. If people are properly educated about guns, they won't accidentally shoot each other.

People die from alcohol too...I only see the Prohibition Party trying to ban that.

the day we ban all bad things is the day i lmao

that was a stupid question no offense
how else would people die in GUN accidents
now i realize you could club somebody to death but lets think realisticly here
why would more gun deaths be caused by something other than shootings?

deliberate shootings, perhaps?

A lot of deaths are caused by STDs too. It's the same reason, lack of education. If people are properly educated about sex, they won't get STDs. If people are properly educated about guns, they won't accidentally shoot each other.

People die from alcohol too...I only see the Prohibition Party trying to ban that.

How will america ever teach people about STDs if half of the states don't even teach evolution

alright so maybe i dont know everything so sue me
but u must admit that was kinda lame

How will america ever teach people about STDs if half of the states don't even teach evolution
Quite true. The resistance of the Religious Right to even allow high schoolers (who have sex, lots of sex) to be taught about condoms, and then ban abortions, is sickening. The conservatives are screwing America over way worse than the liberals ever could. I'm voting for Kerry and damn proud to do so.

I'm mostly on your side, I just think that banning SUVs and cell phones in cars is going overboard.

i love how you guys talk about sumting for like 30 posts then go right back to the main idea
that cracks me up

not banning cell phones, just their use in cars

where'd the name Backwatertin come from anyway? sounds kinda deliverance-like to me......(banjo plays)

ther have been more car accidents due to cell phone misusage than most other car related death thingys

i jest. i am sorry

hahahahahah
that a good one
touche'

ther have been more car accidents due to cell phone misusage than most other car related death thingys

yes, but they are not the only cause of car accidents

hahahahahah
that a good one
touche'

ta mate, that was blindin' guv, but i still don't go sarf of the river




see, i even take the piss out of myself

tru that but then again i never said nothin else about other car related deaths just that cell car usage has caused the mostest deaths

hey, are we the only ones in this thread.....thread.... thread..... thread...thread...

yes my friend it seems so

tru that but then again i never said nothin else about other car related deaths just that cell car usage has caused the mostest deaths
Actually, distractions are the main cause of auto accidents. Distractions in many forms, you spill your coffee, you fumble with the radio, looking at a billboard, leaning over to talk to someone in the backseat...and not paying attention while using a cell phone.

You can't ban everything that contributes to accidents. Some things are blatant, like banning intoxicated. Other things I believe are crossing the line, like banning cell phones in cars.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
this is really neato

maybe things like the famous wonderbra ad should be banned, or at least censored to be allowed in my room only.mmmmmm

you smart ass
hahahahaha
DISTRACTION EH
im guess im just a distracted individual then

i know a lot of people who brag about wearing wonder bras
it scares the heck out of me

well it distracts the HELL out of me

or, according to catholicism, it extracts the hell out of me

rice a roni commercials are annoying too

(Rice-a-Roni the sanfrancisco treat!!!)

sorry, i'm british. I get adverts like all your "Febreeze" ones, except (strangely for english to english) with poor dubbing


you know.

the ones with that dog

wow do i wish i was there
did u know i watch more bbc than any other station
and no im not being a suck up

i'd say that too, coz we have 6 bbc channels and about a million bbc radiostations

have u noticed that in the last hour we alone have managed to add like 3 more pages to this thread

how awesome is tht

Well, I hate to come back to topic, and ruin your wonderful fun, but here goes.

I think SUVs don't mean a thing to me. However, since the cheapest vehicle I could get was an SUV, I really prefer to keep it. My 1994 GMC Jimmy with a Vortec 4.3 liter engine and 165hp seems just fine to me. I say leave it alone.


And if you don't like 4x4s, then you are nothing more than a Yankee. Here in the South, we go muddin'. This requires a vehicle with 4x4 capabilities, preferably a pick-up truck, but also a SUV, and some badass tires and a lift kit. 35" Boggers would be nice, or Super Swampers. So die!

and we're completely off topic.
AND its my thread.
AND I managed to get some soft porn involved
wonderbra. lovely

Well, I hate to come back to topic, and ruin your wonderful fun, but here goes.

I think SUVs don't mean a thing to me. However, since the cheapest vehicle I could get was an SUV, I really prefer to keep it. My 1994 GMC Jimmy with a Vortec 4.3 liter engine and 165hp seems just fine to me. I say leave it alone.


And if you don't like 4x4s, then you are nothing more than a Yankee. Here in the South, we go muddin'. This requires a vehicle with 4x4 capabilities, preferably a pick-up truck, but also a SUV, and some badass tires and a lift kit. 35" Boggers would be nice, or Super Swampers. So die!

Actually, I'm worse than a Yankee.. I'm a liberal Brit

We owned you

and goin swampin is fine, i'm pissed about taking kids to school in 4x4s

You can try to pry my cold dead body from my SUV if they are banned. Its kind of obvious if your in an SUV your less likely die in a wreck.

and goin swampin is fine, i'm pissed about taking kids to school in 4x4s

Whats wrong with that.

buy a saloon car. they do the job just fine, and will cost you less

there is one good thing about 4x4s in the UK: a lot of them are being converted to 50:50 petrol and LPG. much more clean

Well I understand the resentment against soccer moms … they should be ‘educated’

I happen to be a little biased … I live in a rural town in Minnesota (on a farm none the less) while my truck is not used for exclusively farm work (we have a 3500 for that) just the act of comuting for about 8 months a year from where I live to town is enough to demand something 4x4 … we are caught in an area that is both horribly located (next to fields and lakes) which tend to drift but also never plowed.

The fact that I do also haul … (wood boat trailers and the such) just makes it even better.

So I love my 88 chev 1500 silverauto its my baby :-D (also gets me into my security job)

ps I hate soccer moms even in minivans :-D

You can try to pry my cold dead body from my SUV if they are banned. Its kind of obvious if your in an SUV your less likely die in a wreck.

1) Unless, of course, you flip, which is more likely to happen.

2) You're less likely to die...can't say that for the people in the Geo Metro that you just blindsided. But hey, they didn't hae a big enough car, so they don't deserve to live, right?

SUVs may sum up the selfishness and egotism that is rampant in American society today, but unless we're talking about the pollution problems they cause, there isn't a whole lot you can do to get them off the roads. Americans have always had the right to drain their bank accounts however they see fit. Personal liberties cannot be taken away unless you can prove that they affect others' rights.

While we're at it let's ban Alcohol it kills more people than SUVs.

Then let's ban smoking. It kills lots of people.

Then let's ban fast food. It's unhealthy and idiots who eats to much of it may develop heart problems.

Then let's ban knives. They're dangerous. We can find more effective ways to cut things.

Then let's ban industry. It pollutes and some people die in industrial accidents.

Then let's ban water. It's the cause of many deaths. People drowning. People getting addicted to it, and dying when the go into withdrawal.

Then let's ban reproduction and make it illegal to be alive. Living has a 100% fatality rate and human's are the source of all pollution. Once we've banned living and have have killed everyone there will be no more death and no more pollution.

In case you haven't noticed yet I'm making fun of this rather silly proposition.

Oh yes so silly why dont we have BIGGER cars and MORE pollution so we can all breath that o so wonderfus exaust.

nice eye candy though

Well, I hate to come back to topic, and ruin your wonderful fun, but here goes.

I think SUVs don't mean a thing to me. However, since the cheapest vehicle I could get was an SUV, I really prefer to keep it. My 1994 GMC Jimmy with a Vortec 4.3 liter engine and 165hp seems just fine to me. I say leave it alone.


And if you don't like 4x4s, then you are nothing more than a Yankee. Here in the South, we go muddin'. This requires a vehicle with 4x4 capabilities, preferably a pick-up truck, but also a SUV, and some badass tires and a lift kit. 35" Boggers would be nice, or Super Swampers. So die!
I proposed a reasonable comprimise that would have let you and your friends go huntin' for a 'purty mouth' all you want...but now you've got to go looking for it.

SUVs are moving death traps which kill everyone: if you're inside and involved in a rear end crash the people in the back are likely to be crushed; if you're outside you'll be flattened by the immense weight, whatever the speed.

4x4s - why? 99% of 4x4 owners use them to drive their kids to school. Unless you live in the countryside and drive to school through several very muddy fields, they are utterly pointless. Also, these behemoths are massive inefficient polluters, and should be the first to go of cars are ever banned. Any thoughts?

You can take my 4Runner keys...





from my cold, dead hands.

Why won't the US cut emissions overall. They contribute 25% global emissions. The US is killing the rest of us

You can take my 4Runner keys...





from my cold, dead hands.

Easily done. I'll just wait for you to take a corner too quickly and flip, causing the petrol tank to explode on impact

4x4s - why?

Snow.

Why won't the US cut emissions overall. They contribute 25% global emissions. The US is killing the rest of us
You can't get elected unless you do some whoring, and the Big Three (do we really get to count Chrysler anymore? They really are a german company now...) are some big pimps. Not to mention the dreaded "Don't make me lay of workers" blackmail they pull anytime someone threatens to have them make better products. Sure, we could be producing safer, more efficient, less poluting cars-but we'd have to get out of bed and it's warm under the sheets.

Japan doesn't seem to have any problem producing those cars, two seperate companies have hybrids that are doing fine out here in hippie land (Santa Cruz and the Bay Area). I don't know how the sales are elsewhere. But I don't see Toyota and Honda going out of business being at least partially responsable in what they make.

Why won't the US cut emissions overall. They contribute 25% global emissions. The US is killing the rest of us

Keep in mind, a decent portion of America refuses to acknowledge any science involving pollution. Such things would involve reconsidering the purchase of their next Lincoln Gargantuan, so it must not be true (and besides, Jesus is coming soon anyway, so who cares?). You must be one of those commie hippies to suggest such a thing!

4x4s - why?

Snow.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons for owning a 4x4. Looking manly or grocery stuffing isn't one of them.

4x4s - why?

Snow.

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.

yes, but the US govt. cannot be removed for 4 years min. couldn't they just not talk about it and then bribe the senate more than the big three do? in response to CannotThinkOfAName

rofl,minivans are just as good as SUvs if not better. and lower point of balance or whatever

alot of this crap should be banned for safety, economic, and various otehr reasons, at least banned from streets. you can have them as showcars all you wantTell that to your good Senator if he passes the test and makes into the white house. You do know his personal ride is an Escalde right?

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.

This coming from someone who lives in a place that gets what .. a total of 6" of measurable snow a year?

Try living in Northern Wisconsin, Michigan or most of Minnesota where plows are rare and it's nothing to drive 25 miles to town.

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.

Um...you've never lived in the Midwest, have you? Snowplows are fine in the city, but it takes them hours to do their work in rural areas, if they make it at all. While I do think it's a little silly to suggest that people need SUVs for those few terrible snow storms (some do get around without them, after all), it can't be denied that they are useful.

4x4s - why?

Snow.


Im my case yup :-D that and all the stuff I actually haul (event though we have a heavier farm truck for like cattle trailers there still is all the little machinery … and by little I mean don’t require a 1 ton just a 1/2 ) but like I said I think I fall in the category where it will be “alright”

I want to go to America and ask the senate why they are a bunch of corrupt assholes

Easily done. I'll just wait for you to take a corner too quickly and flip, causing the petrol tank to explode on impact

Won't happen .. it's a Toyota they are built better then your brit pieces of shit.

Um...you've never lived in the Midwest, have you? Snowplows are fine in the city, but it takes them hours to do their work in rural areas, if they make it at all. While I do think it's a little silly to suggest that people need SUVs for those few terrible snow storms (some do get around without them, after all), it can't be denied that they are useful.


You are correct sir … nothing like those 1 am calls from friends to go pull them out when they managed to either catch a drift and get sucked in the ditch or slip through a intersection … (that or just get stuck in the middle of the road …. Lol mom trying to make it to work in her minivan … she does have persistence though she made it farther then I would have tried)

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.
Horse malarkey. Come on out to the Great North West in the middle of the winter. You'll find 15-18" of packed ice for a road, remember, we don't use salt here. The plows mainly get the wet new stuff off the top so your studs get better depth. You'll also see 95% of all vehicles are 4x4 pick-up trucks. The rest are FWD cars, or those SUVs that really don't know what they want to be. This is working man's country and 4x4 pickup get us to and from the job. Oh BTW, you can keep the salt too, it will make a truck disintegrate in no time.

Tell that to your good Senator if he passes the test and makes into the white house. You do know his personal ride is an Escalde right?

Oh no! He drives an SUV? Well, knowing that, I'd never give him my vote! Such a thing is unfathomable! :rolleyes:

You do know that most Kerry supporters don't give two sh-ts, right?

Mudding at its best.

Won't happen .. it's a Toyota they are built better then your brit pieces of shit.

Actually the British make, er.. nope, we don't mass produce cars anymore. And toyotas are JAPANESE, you moron. I was discussing canyonero like beasts. Although all 4x4s are inherently unstable and dangerous to the public

Mudding at its best.
Well that’s not the BEST muddin pic I have seen :-D but that’s cause I make my own pictures :-D

Actually the British make, er.. nope, we don't mass produce cars anymore. And toyotas are JAPANESE, you moron. I was discussing canyonero like beasts. Although all 4x4s are inherently unstable and dangerous to the public

A 4Runner is a Toyota you stupid ghit.

Horse malarkey. Come on out to the Great North West in the middle of the winter. You'll find 15-18" of packed ice for a road, remember, we don't use salt here. The plows mainly get the wet new stuff off the top so your studs get better depth. You'll also see 95% of all vehicles are 4x4 pick-up trucks. The rest are FWD cars, or those SUVs that really don't know what they want to be. This is working man's country and 4x4 pickup get us to and from the job. Oh BTW, you can keep the salt too, it will make a truck disintegrate in no time.

Rural people can certainly use SUVs as earlier posts stated. I can certainly agree with that. It is simply annoying trying to go down the highway and this big ass Hummer is blocking your view. People must enjoy throwing their money out the window to pay for gasoline that you'll be lucky to get for $2.

oh thanks for bringing up hummers. that is the ultimate car of world death. mpg? probably about 2

Well that’s not the BEST muddin pic I have seen :-D but that’s cause I make my own pictures :-D

Well there is always this one ....

A 4Runner is a Toyota you stupid ghit.

so still unstable. If its one of those dinky 4x4s thats not too bad as they aren't so dangerous

Rural people can certainly use SUVs as earlier posts stated. I can certainly agree with that. It is simply annoying trying to go down the highway and this big ass Hummer is blocking your view. People must enjoy throwing their money out the window to pay for gasoline that you'll be lucky to get for $2.


Though there are small suvs that do get like 25 mpg or better (kia’s sportage comes to mind … 2.0 leter 4x4) ridiculous

(actually was looking at getting something small as possible and still relitivly tall and fuel efficient)

I still need 4x4 but get the best on gas one I can get that still sits taller (things like Subaru are two low on most of their vehicles)

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.

That's great when the plow comes early in the morning, like when some public official lives on your side street. The problem comes when you've got kids to get to school and the plows haven't come yet. Or when there's been a snow storm out for an hour or two before you get out of work, and the roads haven't been cleared yet.

But never mind me. People are sheep. They need some over-intellectualized socialist prick to tell them what they do and do not need. Let people alone, and they'll buy all kinds of stupid things, spend the money on themselves instead of the state apparatus, work to improve their own lives instead of the socialist party pricks, and so on.

No wonder you lot want to disarm us too.

I think we should have a tax on gas and on SUVs so that they will only be bought by rural-type people.

oh thanks for bringing up hummers. that is the ultimate car of world death. mpg? probably about 2
Agree and absolutely worthless

I mean their rated towing is like 7.5 k
My truck is at 9.5 REDICULOUS they cant pull … they don’t do much better off the road except for moguls (where the independent rear is important)

They get like half the gas milage of my 1500 (I can squeeze 18 out with my air intake and high airflow exhaust) they get about 10

Silly massive things

yes, but the US govt. cannot be removed for 4 years min. couldn't they just not talk about it and then bribe the senate more than the big three do? in response to CannotThinkOfAName
Well, to be really immune the president would have to wait for his second term, and then he'd have to get it passed through the congress, all of whom have to get re-elected in some phase or another-the checks and balances at work. The president just signs the laws and is our 'face' to the rest of the nations around the world, as well as starting out or supporting policies-that still have to go through the larger bodies. The ol' checks and balances thing. And then there is still the 'don't make us lay people off' blackmail that so many buy that prevents public opinion from going with it. Even with that-there is good things being done, a comprimise. Ford is working on hybrid engines for SUVs and small trucks, but since Toyota and Honda are on their second or third generation cars, you have to ask what the hold up is. Saturn, a GM company, did release an all electric car, but didn't really support it. (and it only had a 50 mile range per charge)

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.

That's great when the plow comes early in the morning, like when some public official lives on your side street. The problem comes when you've got kids to get to school and the plows haven't come yet. Or when there's been a snow storm out for an hour or two before you get out of work, and the roads haven't been cleared yet.

But never mind me. People are sheep. They need some over-intellectualized socialist prick to tell them what they do and do not need. Let people alone, and they'll buy all kinds of stupid things, spend the money on themselves instead of the state apparatus, work to improve their own lives instead of the socialist party pricks, and so on.

No wonder you lot want to disarm us too.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH USING A 4X4 IN THIS SITUATION IT IS FUCKING IDIOTS WHO TAKE THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL IN SUMMER BUY A SALOON

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH USING A 4X4 IN THIS SITUATION IT IS FUCKING IDIOTS WHO TAKE THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL IN SUMMER BUY A SALOON


Most school districts in America don't have school during the summer.

Also want to point out that Che/GMC released a hybred 4x4 half ton truck … should check it out it gets like 30 mpg :) also is only at like 40 k (when a normal is at like 36-38 k) it is not that bad

If I had the money for a new vehicle like that I would defiantly keep my eye open

Most school districts in America don't have school during the summer.

not even in june, july or september?

not even in june, july or september?


Not july … some into the first few weeks of june … sometimes in September but only at the end

Though in mn we still have snow on the ground in june sometimes :-P

Also want to point out that Che/GMC released a hybred 4x4 half ton truck … should check it out it gets like 30 mpg :) also is only at like 40 k (when a normal is at like 36-38 k) it is not that bad

If I had the money for a new vehicle like that I would defiantly keep my eye open

I get 20+ with my V8 Toyota Tundra ... 17-20 when pulling my pop-up camper or JetSki's (2) on a trailer.

I get 20+ with my V8 Toyota Tundra ... 17-20 when pulling my pop-up camper or JetSki's (2) on a trailer.
But this is a half ton! Lol that is great mpg for something that weighs in the 6k range and can still tow into the 9 k range

not even in june, july or september?


Most are around Labor Day (End of Sept) to Memorial Day (End of May) but some do go into June (but usually not up to the summer solstice) for a week, maybe two.

Not july … some into the first few weeks of june … sometimes in September but only at the end

Though in mn we still have snow on the ground in june sometimes :-P

I'm british, so snow is just a myth to me. The best I ever saw was when I was at Niagra Falls in March '99 and there was 4ft of snow

But this is a half ton! Lol that is great mpg for something that weighs in the 6k range and can still tow into the 9 k range

Tundra is a 3/4 ton (1850 pound load capacity) and I can tow up to 7k with the setup I have.

Empty weight on it is ~4200 lbs. btw.

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.

That's great when the plow comes early in the morning, like when some public official lives on your side street. The problem comes when you've got kids to get to school and the plows haven't come yet. Or when there's been a snow storm out for an hour or two before you get out of work, and the roads haven't been cleared yet.

But never mind me. People are sheep. They need some over-intellectualized socialist prick to tell them what they do and do not need. Let people alone, and they'll buy all kinds of stupid things, spend the money on themselves instead of the state apparatus, work to improve their own lives instead of the socialist party pricks, and so on.

No wonder you lot want to disarm us too.

I don't need to hear right wing hysteria. It is pretty obvious that cities and towns don't need SUV's. Snow plows are regular there and if not the kids get to enjoy the wonderful snow day! So get out the snow chains if the city officials are incompetant.

And as an aside, don't act like a sheep where Bush is concerned who is leading half the American people by their noses.

I'm british, so snow is just a myth to me. The best I ever saw was when I was at Niagra Falls in March '99 and there was 4ft of snow

I can remember snow storms that bury 1 story houses here in Wisconsin. Drifts that the snow plows have to take out in chunks (they are taller then the snow plow vehicles (usually a type of gravel truck).

The UK sees a measly 1" of snow a year in my area. It makes up for it with 100000" of rain. And I live close to a flood plain. Its like drowning rats come october

It is pretty obvious that cities and towns don't need SUV's. Snow plows are regular there and if not the kids get to enjoy the wonderful snow day! So get out the snow chains if the city officials are incompetant.

Chains and studded tires are illegal where I live. And the near by city (of 10k + Population) usually just plows the main roads until the snow has stopped.

Tundra is a 3/4 ton (1850 pound load capacity) and I can tow up to 7k with the setup I have.

Empty weight on it is ~4200 lbs. btw.

If ya want to be picky the chevy silver auto is rated to 2040 but :-P still

(also may want to note that factory top rated for a tundra is 22 mpg highway)

couldn’t find the specific mpg for the hybrid on the sight … they just keep giving me the normal 1500 gas mileage

I can remember snow storms that bury 1 story houses here in Wisconsin. Drifts that the snow plows have to take out in chunks (they are taller then the snow plow vehicles (usually a type of gravel truck).
I keep saying this, but no one cares what I say anyway...

there are plenty of legitimate reasons to own a 4X4. I wouldn't want to live in Tahoe, much less a more rural area with even worse winters without one or at least a front wheel drive. Interestingly enough, though-down here in pavement land there is a bunch of H2s and other such nonsense, but when I get closer to Tahoe suddenly it's almost all Subarus. The difference between the pretenders and those who need it, I guess.

The thrust is, there are people need them and there are people who use them recreationally-and there's no real reason that they should be disallowed. However, as I tried to reasonably state earlier, there is some adjustments that need to be made to the way they are handled and consumed. We've learned a long time ago the invisible hand leads us straight off the cliff.

hey, stop turning by lovely british rant into an american car advert. On a lighter note, woo my thread is successful!

Chains and studded tires are illegal where I live. And the near by city (of 10k + Population) usually just plows the main roads until the snow has stopped.


Also agree they are illegal here except for cargo trucks

(besides as anyone that has driven on ice)

4wd is best
fwd second
rwd third

lol it just handles well and accel
fwd has the handling sorta but not accel or pulling

(also may want to note that factory top rated for a tundra is 22 mpg highway)



Yep, depending on how/where you drive you will get between 17 and 25 on the highway (or at least I do with my Tundra)

Chains and studded tires are illegal where I live. And the near by city (of 10k + Population) usually just plows the main roads until the snow has stopped.

Does everyone have frequent blizzards where they live? I hope no one is scared of a few inches. Even in MA where I used to live you'll be lucky to get a couple of feet in a short period of time in a winter. How much is too much? Jim Borgman did a great cartoon on the subject if anyone ever happened to have seen it. But I suppose it's like rain in LA. Freaks you out.

hey, stop turning by lovely british rant into an american car advert. On a lighter note, woo my thread is successful!


Sorry I just find myself using excuses to play devils advocate even though it is not really so in this case… us Midwesterners get upset when you talk about taking our trucks away lol

Does everyone have frequent blizzards where they live? I hope no one is scared of a few inches. Even in MA where I used to live you'll be lucky to get a couple of feet in a short period of time in a winter. How much is too much? Jim Borgman did a great cartoon on the subject if anyone ever happened to have seen it. But I suppose it's like rain in LA. Freaks you out.

Well, within the last 5 years I have driven through snow that comes up to the hood of my 4x4 truck (as well as water from rain that has done the same in low lying areas).

i would have nothin bad too say about 4x4s if they werent gas guzzelers
i can honestly say that a partial reason why gas is so high is because of trucks and suvs

Well, within the last 5 years I have driven through snow that comes up to the hood of my 4x4 truck (as well as water from rain that has done the same in low lying areas).


We have had slow years around where I live for the last 5 years or so

I mean really its pathetic I think the worst last year was um 18 inches in 4 hrs no biggie
(total of about 2.5 feet total in that one snow)

oh btw that was one snow :-P and it was early November (like the third)

you live in america. it costs like a dollar a gallon. i live in the UK. it costs 86p a LITRE. Thats about £4.30 a gallon, the equivalent of ~$7.00. Don't complain about petrol prices

But never mind me. People are sheep. They need some over-intellectualized socialist prick to tell them what they do and do not need. Let people alone, and they'll buy all kinds of stupid things, spend the money on themselves instead of the state apparatus, work to improve their own lives instead of the socialist party pricks, and so on.

No wonder you lot want to disarm us too.

And, of course, spend their money on things which crank out enough toxic by-products to choke the rest of the world. There are larger issues here than he's-got-his-I-want-mine, if you can even fathom that.

Oh, and way to drag up the phantom of gun revocation, too. A non-issue that is totally unrelated - great work.

Not to mention, +2 partisan-idiot points for double use of the word "socialist." :rolleyes:

you live in america. it costs like a dollar a gallon. i live in the UK. it costs 86p a LITRE. Thats about £4.30 a gallon, the equivalent of ~$7.00. Don't complain about petrol prices

did i mention this? thought so

that is impresive but in the upper peninsula of michigan through one storm or season cant remember which there was 212 inches
thats an incredible amount
so much that people made shirts ...... SHIRTS i tell u

did i mention this? thought so
Not that it makes it much better, but gas is @2.15 a gallon for the crap, and if you live anywhere near someplace worth living it's @2.40 to $2.50-I pay up to $2.75 to make my car forget that it used to have lead in it.

that is impresive but in the upper peninsula of michigan through one storm or season cant remember which there was 212 inches
thats an incredible amount
so much that people made shirts ...... SHIRTS i tell u


Oh I know that’s why I said pathetic … I remember being able to slide down off my grandmothers three story farm house’s roof :-P

Oh I know that’s why I said pathetic … I remember being able to slide down off my grandmothers three story farm house’s roof :-P

Heheh .. we used to do the same thing.

also if you find the right area you can sled down ski hills and tht is a load of fun

you live in america. it costs like a dollar a gallon. i live in the UK. it costs 86p a LITRE. Thats about £4.30 a gallon, the equivalent of ~$7.00. Don't complain about petrol prices

Isn't Britain the size of Illinois? Could practicaly walk across it. Besides most cars there are the size of a Volkswagon right? Or smaller. Public transportation? Must get from A to B somehow without paying through the nose.

maybe we can all go to some other place where gas is cheap and we will all live happily everafter

Ban SUVs! They are the most gas-guzzling waste of time!

if you would have followed this thread you would already know that that has been said so many times that i have lost count so could you do us all a favor and THINK BEFORE YOU POST!!!!!

Does everyone have frequent blizzards where they live? I hope no one is scared of a few inches. Even in MA where I used to live you'll be lucky to get a couple of feet in a short period of time in a winter. How much is too much? Jim Borgman did a great cartoon on the subject if anyone ever happened to have seen it. But I suppose it's like rain in LA. Freaks you out.We had 31" in town for the most part this year, on average should be 34-38", but that global warming thing. Total depth measured up at Anthony Lakes was 110", which is about 40" less than normal. But blizzards? Naw, haven't had more than 21" at any one given 9 hour period.

Well, banning any such thing is pretty un-American, but I could see banning vehicles who fail to meet certain emissions standards (thus choking them out). I do hate SUVs and said pickup drivers, growing up on a farm where we actually needed them. But pickups are also needed by some in the city, like construction workers, and lighter duty trucks aren't so bad.

So, set emissions standards they can reach and you'll do the job.


Actually, these SUV's and 4x4s are almost entirely enlisted as "lightweight" cars, therefore, there are lower emission standards for them. However, I do agree with you. there is just too much smog in our air these days and it is totally choking us. :mad:


:gundge: "BAN ALL SUV'S AND 4X4S!!!!!!!!" :sniper: **Angry mob runs out to all SUV's and 4x4s and entirely destroying them.....** :mp5:

I wanted to follow this up with a few practical examples from where I lived, but first of all, are SUVs more unstable? Yes, but that's why we need better driver education. If you take a corner at 50mph, in a car you slide, in an SUV, you roll, in a truck, you punch the gas and fishtail around it (much fun to be had). Are trucks horrible on gas? Yes, they used to be. Now? not so much. My buddy has a brand new 6.0L V8 Chevy Silverado that gets an average of 22mpg. I have an older 99 Ford Ranger 4.0L V6 and it only gets 22mpg average as well. They've made some great advances in fuel economy.

Places? Alabama. Hicksville. Trucks and SUVs are actually extremely usefull when the frequent micro-burst (over 90mph) winds kick up (you're heavy enough to not slide on the road at speed), and are even more useful when you have to travel the frequent dirt roads, washed out roads, or flooded roads.

Northern Maine. This should be obvious. It snows like crazy up there. I think there were 2 days of summer. Snow fell in excess of one foot per hour frequently. Plows can't even begin to keep up. Most people owned a 4x4 and a snowmobile.

Colorado. You need something powerfull to get you up the mountains anyway, plus it snows a lot, plus most people here are outdoors-type people and often need to haul or tow something.

For the guy who said simply put chains on? Chains were illegal in each of the cities I lived in for the above examples (they damage the roads too much).

For the guy who said just wait for the plows? Uh ... in Maine we waited 7 days one time, and in Colorado, I've waited over 4 days ... and I lived in the suburbs in both those instances. Oh, and they don't plow dirt roads, which our country has a /lot/ of.

Sometimes you /need/ a 4x4 just to /get/ to the grocery store. And before you deny this and say once again you just mean in the city, that's what I'm talking about.

And to the guy who said we should just put a tax on gas and gas guzzling vehicles so only rural people buy them ... first of all, we do. Most of the cost of gas here (and it's only $1.79 in Colorado, cheaper in Alabama) is actually tax. Secondly, do you seriously think it's the /rural/ people who have more money? A tax would simply mean the farmers and ranchers that are scraping out a living wouldn't be /able/ to afford the trucks they need, while the city folk who might not need them could still afford them.

Seriously ... what are you thinking? A ban or a tax is simply rediculous.

First of all, especially in California were most people drive 30 miles plus to work, nature will take its course and people will just stop driving them in order to live comfortably. (gas prices are going to go higher) Second, if we want to have less deaths by suv's, people could just drive slower and cops could actually give tickets when someone is going 100 down the freeway in a two ton pickup. (consequentially little imports at 100 in a crash will kill most involved also). Third, as the air gets dirtier and people get tired of paying insurance and the ridiculous price for vehicles as housing prices go up in populated areas will eventually decide it isn't worth the trouble. Once again leaving ginormous (I think this should be a real word) obsolete in city settings relegating the monsters back to the farms and rural areas. Also people, realize your kids aren't safer in these things. Read a safety report. We can't ban them but it will happen naturally anyways. Men who drive these giant trucks realize what girls say about you when you drive away, (small penis, compensating for lack of height or personality). Moms and Dads, realize they don't keep your youth and don't make you cool.

I wanted to follow this up with a few practical examples from where I lived, but first of all, are SUVs more unstable? Yes, but that's why we need better driver education. If you take a corner at 50mph, in a car you slide, in an SUV, you roll, in a truck, you punch the gas and fishtail around it (much fun to be had). Are trucks horrible on gas? Yes, they used to be. Now? not so much. My buddy has a brand new 6.0L V8 Chevy Silverado that gets an average of 22mpg. I have an older 99 Ford Ranger 4.0L V6 and it only gets 22mpg average as well. They've made some great advances in fuel economy.

Places? Alabama. Hicksville. Trucks and SUVs are actually extremely usefull when the frequent micro-burst (over 90mph) winds kick up (you're heavy enough to not slide on the road at speed), and are even more useful when you have to travel the frequent dirt roads, washed out roads, or flooded roads.

Northern Maine. This should be obvious. It snows like crazy up there. I think there were 2 days of summer. Snow fell in excess of one foot per hour frequently. Plows can't even begin to keep up. Most people owned a 4x4 and a snowmobile.

Colorado. You need something powerfull to get you up the mountains anyway, plus it snows a lot, plus most people here are outdoors-type people and often need to haul or tow something.

For the guy who said simply put chains on? Chains were illegal in each of the cities I lived in for the above examples (they damage the roads too much).

For the guy who said just wait for the plows? Uh ... in Maine we waited 7 days one time, and in Colorado, I've waited over 4 days ... and I lived in the suburbs in both those instances. Oh, and they don't plow dirt roads, which our country has a /lot/ of.

Sometimes you /need/ a 4x4 just to /get/ to the grocery store. And before you deny this and say once again you just mean in the city, that's what I'm talking about.

And to the guy who said we should just put a tax on gas and gas guzzling vehicles so only rural people buy them ... first of all, we do. Most of the cost of gas here (and it's only $1.79 in Colorado, cheaper in Alabama) is actually tax. Secondly, do you seriously think it's the /rural/ people who have more money? A tax would simply mean the farmers and ranchers that are scraping out a living wouldn't be /able/ to afford the trucks they need, while the city folk who might not need them could still afford them.

Seriously ... what are you thinking? A ban or a tax is simply rediculous.

O.K. I have been to all the places mentioned and none of them would be considered a large city, I think most of the people complaining are probably from places like california were a twenty mile trip takes you a hour and a half minimum in rush hour. Because of this, suv's take up twice the space so we have room for half the cars. In addition the weight of the suv's are destroying our freeways making us spend money on repairs rather then on expanding our freeways to fit the excess cars. Beyond that, when a road does open up, people get so excited about it they take off only to slam into the back of another vehicle when traffic slows back down. Add this into the fact that many people here commute 45 miles to and from work every day because suburbian has stretched so far to fit all the people and it adds up to a serious mess. The original person isn't complaining about the people who need them they are complaining about those who don't. Plus, you can get cars with four wheel on them, i.e. the subaru. I don't believe in banning them but I do see were this is causing serious strain. I lived in Utah I had a 4x truck. It was necessary there but there are barely any people there.

SUVs are moving death traps which kill everyone: if you're inside and involved in a rear end crash the people in the back are likely to be crushed; if you're outside you'll be flattened by the immense weight, whatever the speed.

4x4s - why? 99% of 4x4 owners use them to drive their kids to school. Unless you live in the countryside and drive to school through several very muddy fields, they are utterly pointless. Also, these behemoths are massive inefficient polluters, and should be the first to go of cars are ever banned. Any thoughts?
I agree, place the blame on the SUV and not the driver.

First of all, especially in California were most people drive 30 miles plus to work, nature will take its course and people will just stop driving them in order to live comfortably. (gas prices are going to go higher) Second, if we want to have less deaths by suv's, people could just drive slower and cops could actually give tickets when someone is going 100 down the freeway in a two ton pickup. (consequentially little imports at 100 in a crash will kill most involved also). Third, as the air gets dirtier and people get tired of paying insurance and the ridiculous price for vehicles as housing prices go up in populated areas will eventually decide it isn't worth the trouble. Once again leaving ginormous (I think this should be a real word) obsolete in city settings relegating the monsters back to the farms and rural areas. Also people, realize your kids aren't safer in these things. Read a safety report. We can't ban them but it will happen naturally anyways. Men who drive these giant trucks realize what girls say about you when you drive away, (small penis, compensating for lack of height or personality). Moms and Dads, realize they don't keep your youth and don't make you cool.


And the /exact/ same could be said for sports cars. Maybe we should ban them as well? They tend to get poor gas milage, don't do well in high speed accidents, and are seen as compensation. Yup. Ban them too. Everyone drive volvos from now on.

And to the guy who said we should just put a tax on gas and gas guzzling vehicles so only rural people buy them ... first of all, we do. Most of the cost of gas here (and it's only $1.79 in Colorado, cheaper in Alabama) is actually tax. Secondly, do you seriously think it's the /rural/ people who have more money? A tax would simply mean the farmers and ranchers that are scraping out a living wouldn't be /able/ to afford the trucks they need, while the city folk who might not need them could still afford them.
Way to not read what I wrote. First, I didn't say put a tax on gas, I know that there are taxes on gas, and yes I've even seen the stickers at gas stations explaining that breakdown so we don't blame them for gouging....

Second, didn't I address this very conclusion in my post? Oh yes, I did. First, I called for an adjustment to the loophole, not taking it away entirely, for the farmers and small businessmen to buy small trucks so that it's not used by dentists to buy H2s. The small business' still need those trucks, and I acknowledged that. Oh, and in my post did I acknowledge that there already was a gas-guzzler tax? Oh my, yes again. Hey, and didn't I address the notion that this might punish those who need them? Why yes, yes I did. I said that this would encourage those who need them to buy more effecient trucks, almost like I realisticly acknowledges that efficient trucks do in fact exist.

RIF.

O.K. I have been to all the places mentioned and none of them would be considered a large city, I think most of the people complaining are probably from places like california were a twenty mile trip takes you a hour and a half minimum in rush hour. Because of this, suv's take up twice the space so we have room for half the cars. In addition the weight of the suv's are destroying our freeways making us spend money on repairs rather then on expanding our freeways to fit the excess cars. Beyond that, when a road does open up, people get so excited about it they take off only to slam into the back of another vehicle when traffic slows back down. Add this into the fact that many people here commute 45 miles to and from work every day because suburbian has stretched so far to fit all the people and it adds up to a serious mess. The original person isn't complaining about the people who need them they are complaining about those who don't. Plus, you can get cars with four wheel on them, i.e. the subaru. I don't believe in banning them but I do see were this is causing serious strain. I lived in Utah I had a 4x truck. It was necessary there but there are barely any people there.

First of all, if we're talking about California, all that bumpy waviness in I-5 wasn't from SUVs. That was because California was STUPID and decided they'd pave all their major traffic roads with cement. Now, cement is great because it doesn't wear out, but it also deforms slightly under compression ... especially compression /waves/ (like when a big 18-wheeler tries to slow down and gets a bit of a wave pattern in the brakes). Your road damage is caused by incompetant politicians who cater to the masses by trying to sound cool (remember the campaign? "Rome was paved with cement too!") and don't actually do any research.

And that's fine, if you want to complain about people who don't need big vehicles that are driving them. The solution isn't to punish the people who /do/ need them by pretending a ban or a tax is a good idea. Guess what? There might not /be/ a good solution! That can happen in this world!

Way to not read what I wrote. First, I didn't say put a tax on gas, I know that there are taxes on gas, and yes I've even seen the stickers at gas stations explaining that breakdown so we don't blame them for gouging....

Second, didn't I address this very conclusion in my post? Oh yes, I did. First, I called for an adjustment to the loophole, not taking it away entirely, for the farmers and small businessmen to buy small trucks so that it's not used by dentists to buy H2s. The small business' still need those trucks, and I acknowledged that. Oh, and in my post did I acknowledge that there already was a gas-guzzler tax? Oh my, yes again. Hey, and didn't I address the notion that this might punish those who need them? Why yes, yes I did. I said that this would encourage those who need them to buy more effecient trucks, almost like I realisticly acknowledges that efficient trucks do in fact exist.

RIF.

Thanks for bashing me, but you weren't the only one I was replying to. You weren't the only one to suggest a tax, and there were also others who thought it was a good idea. For your post, I actually do agree that the loophole needs to be closed (for those who don't know, trucks over a certain size no longer qualify as "luxury" or even as a "personal vehicle" but actually as a utility vehicle, which is taxed lower ... strange to think of an H2 as any kind of utility vehicle since it's basically worthless).

I can see how people who don't need 4X4 vehicles shouldn't have them, but don't try to say that people who do shouldn't either. I live in a part of the country where you actually have to engage the 4WD now and again. If you're driving it to and from work, and taking the kids to soccer practice, kiss my ass and get yourself a Prius. If you use it on weekends to go rock climbing or whatever, rent one when you need it. People have no sense.

IF, however, you need it to check a fence-line, or you have poor gravel roads to travel, or you're hauling salt blocks, own one. You can justify the ownership and the gas prices. Usually, though, if you own one of these and need it, you have a car too, one that gets better gas mileage.

I can see how people who don't need 4X4 vehicles shouldn't have them, but don't try to say that people who do shouldn't either. I live in a part of the country where you actually have to engage the 4WD now and again. If you're driving it to and from work, and taking the kids to soccer practice, kiss my ass and get yourself a Prius. If you use it on weekends to go rock climbing or whatever, rent one when you need it. People have no sense.

IF, however, you need it to check a fence-line, or you have poor gravel roads to travel, or you're hauling salt blocks, own one. You can justify the ownership and the gas prices. Usually, though, if you own one of these and need it, you have a car too, one that gets better gas mileage.

True. Myself, I own both a good 4x4 truck (that gets 22 mph anyway) and a motorcycle that gets 55mph and seats 2. When the weather's decent (not snowing or heavy rain) or I don't have work to do, I can take the bike.

The problem I have (I think similarly to you) with this thread is the idea that many people want to impose some kind of regulation for everyone regardless of actual usage need ... which is something that's almost impossible for a (non big-brother) government to determine. And to top it off, I'm getting the impression it's mostly folks from overseas that want to regulate the way things are done in the US. That just always puts a sour taste in my mouth.

True. Myself, I own both a good 4x4 truck (that gets 22 mph anyway) and a motorcycle that gets 55mph and seats 2. When the weather's decent (not snowing or heavy rain) or I don't have work to do, I can take the bike.

The problem I have (I think similarly to you) with this thread is the idea that many people want to impose some kind of regulation for everyone regardless of actual usage need ... which is something that's almost impossible for a (non big-brother) government to determine. And to top it off, I'm getting the impression it's mostly folks from overseas that want to regulate the way things are done in the US. That just always puts a sour taste in my mouth.

I'd just like to see people exercise some common sense. I don't really like the idea of people overseas or here, for that matter, trying to regulate what vehicle I own. I own a buick. It was cheap, and I'm going to drive that baby until the wheels fall off. It probably wouldn't pass muster with anyone but me. I'd love a 4X4, but I don't need one. If the roads are that bad, it's not a weekend to go to the folks.

I'd just like to see people exercise some common sense. I don't really like the idea of people overseas or here, for that matter, trying to regulate what vehicle I own. I own a buick. It was cheap, and I'm going to drive that baby until the wheels fall off. It probably wouldn't pass muster with anyone but me. I'd love a 4X4, but I don't need one. If the roads are that bad, it's not a weekend to go to the folks.

That's a fair statement. I guess I went off a little half-cocked. I just don't get why the knee jerk response would be "ban it" or "tax it" ... how about thinking about it instead? In this case, maybe if you're worried about the environment (and hate to say it, but it's businesses doing most of the polluting, not cars), then make a post saying, "why not stricter emissions requirements?" not ban the blame things. In fact, my truck would do better at emissions than quite a few cars on the road (when I last took it in, I was almost off the charts for how few emissions I had of any pollutants measured by the DOT). If it's safety you're worried about, there's far more unsafe things being driven on the roads of the US than trucks and SUVs. Motorcycles, for instance. Talk about something that will flip! Ban them? Sheesh.

Do you think we would have these problems (in this magnitude) if we didn't build highways everywhere, allowing people to live far from the cities and commute everyday? I really wish we could get back to just having urban centers and rural landscape.

Do you think we would have these problems (in this magnitude) if we didn't build highways everywhere, allowing people to live far from the cities and commute everyday? I really wish we could get back to just having urban centers and rural landscape.

More people live in the cities, and don't really need cars, let alone SUVs. What they need to do is stop being so stuck up, and get a subway ticket. People where I live DO need cars. There's no public transport, and it's not really feasible. There has to be some kind of town every so often in the middle of the rural spread. It's to prevent cabin fever, and to provide the kids with something to do, and to make things like window glass and lime for the outhouse available.

/sarcasm

They're all stupid ideas. Let people live there lives how they want, and hold them responsible for whatever consequences may arise. Nothing is safe, living is the best way to ensure death. I do not want a bunch of unenlightened, do-gooders ramming their idiotic suggestions down my throat to keep me safe, while at the same time increasing government tyranny, which is one of the most deadly things known to man (other than living).

How are you going to hold people responsible for the consequences of driving an unnecessary SUV?

in 200 years if/when the planet is mostly uninhabitable can the remaining population retrospectively sue long dead SUV owners?

when they crash, killing pedestrians, drivers of other vehicles, themselves and their passengers, shall we fine the corpse in the casket?

how do all the inhabitants of countries too poor to afford to purchase the world's dwindling oil reserves ensure the accountability of fat billy joe and his enormous pickup that does 8 miles to the gallon?

I'd also like to see a ban on cellphone use while driving.

They have that in New York. You can talk on one, but only with hands-free. The stupid thing is that the ban is on the entire state. That's stupid since most of the state has little traffic. The ban only makes sense in metropolitan areas.

Unneeded. Why? Snow plows.
That's about the 15th dumbest thing I've ever heard. I used to live in Minnesota and I can tell you that I had to drive on snow sometimes. Hell, only the major streets and highways were consistantly snow-free. Driving RWD vehicles on slick streets can be a lot of fun, but AWD/4WD is much safer. Besides, one thing snow plows do is make it really hard to get out of your driveway, unless you have a 4x4.

That's about the 15th dumbest thing I've ever heard. I used to live in Minnesota and I can tell you that I had to drive on snow sometimes. Hell, only the major streets and highways were consistantly snow-free. Driving RWD vehicles on slick streets can be a lot of fun, but AWD/4WD is much safer. Besides, one thing snow plows do is make it really hard to get out of your driveway, unless you have a 4x4.

Unless Utracia is maybe implying that with the huge gas tax and SUV tax that could be put in place, we could pave /all/ the roads and fund a massive snowplow force that would be ready whenever winter strikes! Think of the jumpsuits people could wear! And it would all be funded by mystical magical government money that comes from nowhere! </kidding>

Unless Utracia is maybe implying that with the huge gas tax and SUV tax that could be put in place, we could pave /all/ the roads and fund a massive snowplow force that would be ready whenever winter strikes! Think of the jumpsuits people could wear! And it would all be funded by mystical magical government money that comes from nowhere! </kidding>

The main arguement has been to ban these monsters off highways and metropolitan streets. I agree with an earlier statement that people are insecure so they need a gigantic meatal coccoon to make themselves feel good when their driving. Middle aged with a family so they can't spring for the Porshe. Soccer moms just needing that thing that tips over with the kiddies inside. Maybe that's part of the reason gas prices are rising. The SUV's are taking all the gasoline!!!! Sorry I was all over the place. Still, it's simple. If your in a rural area, fine. Just keep them off of I-75. The highway sucks as it is!

Most are around Labor Day (End of Sept) to Memorial Day (End of May) but some do go into June (but usually not up to the summer solstice) for a week, maybe two.

Uhm, isn't Labor Day the first monday in September?

Anyhoo, after having read all the posts so far, here's my idea. Emissions standards are the way to go. While traffic accidents are a problem, the ones who cause them often end up paying for them, (unless they're dead) the pollution caused by suvs and 4x4s is something that affects us all and everyone pays for.

Rural folk do need 4x4s, eŝpecially in winter in areas that receive snow. Urban folk rarely, if ever, need 4x4s and suvs. I have lived in a city that gets an amazing amount of snow in the winter, yet I was still able to move all my furniture, including a refrigerator, in January using a bicycle. Yes, you read that correctly. A bicycle. I use it to commute 365 days a year. When I hit snow deeper than 10", I just lift my bike over it. Mind you, I can go almost anywhere in the city in less than an hour as traffic jams do not affect me. When we move to the country, though, I plan to buy a 4x4 as I will need it. Probably get a diesel engine and modify it to use bio-diesel, as I can make that myself quite inexpensively. I'm one of those hippie-types, but as I get older, I find myself agreeing more and more with survivalist types BECAUSE of my hippie politics.

I don't have all the answers for our society, but I do have the answers for me and my mine.

Isn't Britain the size of Illinois? Could practicaly walk across it. Besides most cars there are the size of a Volkswagon right? Or smaller. Public transportation? Must get from A to B somehow without paying through the nose.

The UK is more like the size of Texas, and actually takes about 4 days walking non-stop at a rate of 3mph across the thinner bits east to west.

Well... Interesting thread we have here!!


I've read the majority of this thread (11 out of 13 pages), and I must say, some very good arguments we're made on both sides. This is my opinion on this matter:

It was brought up that SUV's handle better in the snow. This is true, only if the driver knows what the hell he's doing! I live in western WA, and when it snows (which is rare), there are dingbats that think that thier Phord Exploder will get them through anything and drive like it was a dry summer day. As a result, the majority of the cars I see in the ditches when we get the rare snowstorm: SUV's and 4x4's. I drive an old VW Bug, and it handles marvelously in the snow!

Secondly, It was brought up that SUV's are mainly symbols of greed and egotism. I couldn't agree more!

While it is true that you are more protected in a crash if you're driving a Suburban, a lot of the knucleheads that drive monstro-sized vehicles of this breed drive like idiots (drive around in Vegas or LA if you doubt this statement. I've driven in Vegas!) who will endanger the lives of anyone unfortunate enough to be in thier way.

I don't think I need to bring up the environmental factor, because that it's just plainly obvious that they pollute like crazy!

While people who live out in the sticks or on a farm could make use of a 4x4 or SUV, the dumbass soccer-moms and dads really don't need 4-wheel drive to take the kids to soccer practice on a warm summer day, just 3 blocks away.

The auto manufacterers are making a killing off of these vehicles! All they need to do is convince some idiots in suburbia that thier insignificant lives are incomplete unless they own a vehicle of this sort.

What it boils down to: The sky-high number of SUV's and 4x4's are related to what is esentially a fashion trend and a great advertisment campaign!

I hate SUV's with everything in me, but we can't ban them. In some instances they are needed, but the Escalade with brush-guards and 20" spinners is just not necessary under any circumstances!

Why can't the majority of people think for themselves?! ::brickwall::

I do agree. Again i say that i never suggested an outright ban (OK I did but only to provoke some reactions, and it was based on anger from damage to my car caused by an idiot using a 4x4), but only that they should only be sold to people who use them properly. SUVs have no use in their current state. make them safer. The chrysler one got a big fat 0 out of five for safety.

in my oppinion suvs and 4x4s are just the same as cars except they are bigger and maybe more powerful
so why dont we just let everyone get whatever they want so this can be settled or else people will just say the same thing over and over until noone responds here anymore and they are forced to lock this thread

in my oppinion suvs and 4x4s are just the same as cars except they are bigger and maybe more powerful
so why dont we just let everyone get whatever they want so this can be settled or else people will just say the same thing over and over until noone responds here anymore and they are forced to lock this thread

hello again! They aren't the same car though, coz 4x4s can pull shit through thick mud. SUVs just blow up alot

haldo
thats what i said they are most likely a lot more powerful than regular old cars but you are right they can haul ass through mud and muck

Well, banning any such thing is pretty un-American, but I could see banning vehicles who fail to meet certain emissions standards (thus choking them out). I do hate SUVs and said pickup drivers, growing up on a farm where we actually needed them. But pickups are also needed by some in the city, like construction workers, and lighter duty trucks aren't so bad.

So, set emissions standards they can reach and you'll do the job.

I agree there has to be standards set, and all SUVs, 4x4's etc. should be required to get better gas mileage, and it is possible, I hear Toyota and Ford are coming out with a highbrid SUV sometime in 2005.

Well... Interesting thread we have here!!


I've read the majority of this thread (11 out of 13 pages), and I must say, some very good arguments we're made on both sides. This is my opinion on this matter:

It was brought up that SUV's handle better in the snow. This is true, only if the driver knows what the hell he's doing! I live in western WA, and when it snows (which is rare), there are dingbats that think that thier Phord Exploder will get them through anything and drive like it was a dry summer day. As a result, the majority of the cars I see in the ditches when we get the rare snowstorm: SUV's and 4x4's. I drive an old VW Bug, and it handles marvelously in the snow!

Secondly, It was brought up that SUV's are mainly symbols of greed and egotism. I couldn't agree more!

While it is true that you are more protected in a crash if you're driving a Suburban, a lot of the knucleheads that drive monstro-sized vehicles of this breed drive like idiots (drive around in Vegas or LA if you doubt this statement. I've driven in Vegas!) who will endanger the lives of anyone unfortunate enough to be in thier way.

I don't think I need to bring up the environmental factor, because that it's just plainly obvious that they pollute like crazy!

While people who live out in the sticks or on a farm could make use of a 4x4 or SUV, the dumbass soccer-moms and dads really don't need 4-wheel drive to take the kids to soccer practice on a warm summer day, just 3 blocks away.

The auto manufacterers are making a killing off of these vehicles! All they need to do is convince some idiots in suburbia that thier insignificant lives are incomplete unless they own a vehicle of this sort.

What it boils down to: The sky-high number of SUV's and 4x4's are related to what is esentially a fashion trend and a great advertisment campaign!

I hate SUV's with everything in me, but we can't ban them. In some instances they are needed, but the Escalade with brush-guards and 20" spinners is just not necessary under any circumstances!

Why can't the majority of people think for themselves?! ::brickwall::

I know what you mean about some of the drivers who think that their SUV can get through any snow, we dont think like that. And although we have an SUV it is a Honda Pilot has a 5 star safety rating, and we drice it only when necesary, we mainly take the train or bus, or walk or ride a bike.

And its Ford, not Phord.

The UK is more like the size of Texas, and actually takes about 4 days walking non-stop at a rate of 3mph across the thinner bits east to west.

How the Hell is the UK the size of Texas, the US including Alaska is bigger than all of Europe, Britain is not as big as our second largest state.

what dif. does it make how big britain is or how many ears a goat has these thing are totally irrevlevant

But wait! There's a revolution happening! There are standards being set, and it's being agreed that SUVs and trucks should have to follow the same emissions standards as that of cars!

No ... sorry ... there've been good emissions standards since 1991 and the new regulations (where trucks and SUVs will be treated the same as cars) are going in effect between 2004 and 2009 (transition period for auto makers). No revolution. The emissions standards are already fairly close, but that gap will be closing in the next decade.

Federal emissions standards:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html#fed

Secondly, everyone's generalizations don't work except on simple gas milage. At the US/EPA Green Vehicle Guide, they measure pollutants and then CO2 emissions. There's still a good debate about CO2 being a major pollutant, and that's the only place the larger engines fall down. In fact, many of the larger trucks do better than the smaller trucks and cars in pollutants!

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-CHEVROLET-Silverado1500-05.htm

The silverado gives off less polutants with the 6.0L engine than it does with the 4.8L and the gas milage is only different by about 2 mpg! The Toyota Sequoia scores a 9/10 in greenest vehicles! One of the Voltswagen Jettas scores a 4/10 in comparison.

So, if we're worried about actual pollution, then let's just do some research before we condem all larger vehicles. Many of them do better than the small vehicles, and most do a /lot/ better than the sports cars (so should we ban sports cars?). If we're worried about gas milage, there's no comparison. Large engines use more gasoline. Strangely, though, they have to follow the same regulations and so put out the same, slightly more, or even /less/ pollutants than cars! So you want to talk about a tax for larger vehicles? How about simply needing to buy more gasoline?

Edit: Didn't mean to quote someone above this post

My dad has an SUV (Ford Explorer) and he's replacing it in about 2 months with something that gets better gas mileage, but still has 4 wheel drive.

My stepmom has an SUV (Acura MDX) and she has no plans to replace it.

My mom just replaced her SUV (Ford Explorer) with a Ford Taurus.

My dad has an SUV (Ford Explorer) and he's replacing it in about 2 months with something that gets better gas mileage, but still has 4 wheel drive.

My stepmom has an SUV (Acura MDX) and she has no plans to replace it.

My mom just replaced her SUV (Ford Explorer) with a Ford Taurus.

OMG someone figured it out!!!!
the secret to 4 wheel drive is not a truck or suv!!!
Its more like getting a CAR yes i said CAR that has 4 wheel drive
for this i have the utmost respect for you
thank you for brightening my day a little more!!! :)

OMG someone figured it out!!!!
the secret to 4 wheel drive is not a truck or suv!!!
Its more like getting a CAR yes i said CAR that has 4 wheel drive
for this i have the utmost respect for you
thank you for brightening my day a little more!!! :)

Sure, you can have 4 wheel drive in just about anything, but what's that got to do with pollution? Note the above epa study showing /several/ cars that are worse than SUVs or truck for pollution and /several/ trucks and SUVs that outrate nearly all cars for pollution. The only difference is gas milage, and I'd say, if they're not polluting any more per mile, then let people who want to waste their money on buying more gas for SUVs they don't need.

ummmmm
pollution is bad
i like haikus
you should eat a car

RANDOM ATTACK!!!!!!!!!

ummmmm
pollution is bad
i like haikus
you should eat a car

RANDOM ATTACK!!!!!!!!!

Ha! I hope that wasn't in response to me ... though I probably should have modified my response a little. I know you've been on the side against the craziness of a ban, but I wanted to point out not only is there a distinct grey line between 4x4s, cars, and trucks (in that they can be both, or all three as evidenced by the new brat: the Subaru Baja), but there's also a similar line between pollution, 4x4s, SUVs, trucks, and cars. One does not necissarily imply the other. The only thing that holds true, is the bigger the engine, the worse the gas milage is (in a general sense).

Actually, maybe we should enforce the standards of the EPA in terms of gallons of gasoline consumed instead of in terms of miles traveled. Then, instead of cars and SUVs being somewhat equal in how much the pollute (they pollute nearly the same amount per mile according to the EPA and by federal regulation), then the gas guzzlers would actually be /better/ because they pollute less per gallon of gas!

That's it, ban the cars until they can figure out how to live up to the pollution per gallon standards of the SUVs and large trucks!

trust me tht wont happen

trust me tht wont happen

Come on ... that was blatantly sarcastic ... at least, I /thought/ it was. Maybe I need to work on my sarcasm more :(

But it was still a good point, no? Low milage vehicles in the US manage to use more gas and output less polutants (per gallon) than most cars. Why don't we see a similar fuel rate based reduction on pollutants in cars? Not because they can't do it, but because it's not necessary, and it's cheaper to just barely meet the EPA regulations than to surpass them.

That was part of my argument against banning or taxing the SUVs and such and simply requiring them to meet the same regulations as cars (which is happening). If people still are not satisfied, or think that even /cars/ pollute too much, then they can try for stricter pollution control, not something rediculous like banning a vehicle type.

While we're at it, Cadillacs only get about 8mpg, if you're driving a 70's model.

Banning stuff is a VERY english thing to doIt's certainly a very Atilla the Blunkett thing to do. Perhaps we could ban him - and the sooner the better.

While it is true that you are more protected in a crash if you're driving a Suburban,Actually - it often isn't true. They are built on a truck chassis, and lack the properly designed crumple zones which proper cars have. In an impact with a solid object the decelleration experienced by the occupants can be considerably higher than in a car. Also - they tip over more easily.

[QUOTE=Chess Squares]rofl,minivans are just as good as SUvs if not better. and lower point of balance or whatever

alot of this crap should be banned for safety, economic, and various otehr reasons, at least banned from streets. you can have them as showcars all you want[/QUOT

Minivans drive nicer, are safer, more economical, often more comfartable and despite the "tuff" image of SUV's will go all the same places. Trust me I worked on a mountain this summer and took a minivan places most of these people never dared take their SUV's. I dunno about banning them though...maybe...I dunno

Actually - it often isn't true. They are built on a truck chassis, and lack the properly designed crumple zones which proper cars have. In an impact with a solid object the decelleration experienced by the occupants can be considerably higher than in a car. Also - they tip over more easily.

But the flip side is also true, being semi-solid objects themselves, if they hit a softer object (another car, a sign, an embankment) the occupants tend to escape unhurt and with little damage to the vehicle other than cosmetic. If they hit another solid object (a median, a building, a tunnel wall), but hit a glancing blow, they tend to bounce off and remain intact as well, instead of crumpling and causing further loss of control.

Yes, they tip easier, but to tip, you have to be under rotation at a decently high speed anyway and some simple driving lessons should correct that. But they also can drive many places cars simply can't, and don't experience as much damage as cars when driving continuously over rough surfaces (like washboarded roads, which we have plenty of here). They're also more visible, making accidents where the other driver says, "I just didn't see him!" much less likely.

There's two sides to every coin. This comes from a guy who used to drive an old honda accord throughout the countryside for about 6 years and only 4 years ago switched to a truck (and yes, I drive in the city almost as much as I drive in the country).

dunno if this was posted allready, but in a dutch town they're actually trying to ban suv's. The reason: 1) they're broader then other vehicles, so they take up too much space in the small townstreets; 2) they cause unnecissary polution.

The plan is still in a development phase, so it may never be implemented. But at least it starts a discussion about suv's (people now call suv's 'asobakken', which means a-social..eh.. dunno how to translate the word 'bak' ;)

But the flip side is also true, being semi-solid objects themselves, if they hit a softer object (another car, a sign, an embankment) the occupants tend to escape unhurt and with little damage to the vehicle other than cosmetic.
Tough on the other vehicle/pedestrian etc, though. They suffer disproportionate injuries compared to impacts from normal cars.

Yes, they tip easier, but to tip, you have to be under rotation at a decently high speed anyway and some simple driving lessons should correct that.
Unfortunately, my experience in the UK is that they're driven by people who shouldn't have been let behind a shopping trolley, let along two tonnes of unwieldy LandWhale.

But they also can drive many places cars simply can't, and don't experience as much damage as cars when driving continuously over rough surfaces (like washboarded roads, which we have plenty of here). They're also more visible, making accidents where the other driver says, "I just didn't see him!" much less likely.
However, over here - and quite possible on your side of the pond as well, the majority of 'em are used purely as posermobiles. Few of 'em ever leave the perfectly adequate roads we have.
The other specious argument is that they have more space in them. I've found them very inefficient, having less useable internal space than the old estate car I drive.
Of course there are people who can justify them - I live in a small town surrounded by farming land, and the farmers have LandRovers 'cos they need 'em. A friend has one to tow his horsebox and boat. My brother has one 'cos he lives on a farm, though he's not a farmer, and it's handy from getting round his other house in Spain.

SUVs are moving death traps which kill everyone: if you're inside and involved in a rear end crash the people in the back are likely to be crushed; if you're outside you'll be flattened by the immense weight, whatever the speed.

4x4s - why? 99% of 4x4 owners use them to drive their kids to school. Unless you live in the countryside and drive to school through several very muddy fields, they are utterly pointless. Also, these behemoths are massive inefficient polluters, and should be the first to go of cars are ever banned. Any thoughts?

Maybe you should go ask them car manufacturers to stop cost cutting with real safety features, real fuel economy and maybe stop the mis-marketting of these things?

Maybe you should go ask them car manufacturers to stop cost cutting with real safety features, real fuel economy and maybe stop the mis-marketting of these things?

If any politician tried to move against the auto industry for saftey and pollution concerns... they may have a hard time getting reelected. Hope you're not from Detroit!

i agree with mac
the mpg has gotten so low that people are buying gas almost everyday
that is basically the entire reason why our gas price is so terrible

Lets take a trip back in time before suvs and mostrous trucks were so popular
i can remember before bush was the pres gas was usually in the low like $1.30s for a gallon of gas and since then it has more than doubled also in the most recent years the # of suvs and trucks being sold has skyrocketed
thats like .......bad

i agree with mac
the mpg has gotten so low that people are buying gas almost everyday
that is basically the entire reason why our gas price is so terrible

Lets take a trip back in time before suvs and mostrous trucks were so popular
i can remember before bush was the pres gas was usually in the low like $1.30s for a gallon of gas and since then it has more than doubled also in the most recent years the # of suvs and trucks being sold has skyrocketed
thats like .......bad

Yes... I like Chris Rock's 'Head of State' mostly because at the start they give you a look at the gas prices at a station. Expect to find that now? Ha!

There's a better way to deal with this:

Require everyone who has wants to drive a large vehicle like that (over 4000 lbs.) should have a commercial drivers license that requires 40 hours of training to recieve. Also, put horsepower limitations on what kids under the ae 18 can have, like under 110. Those two would take care of a bunch of the stupid speeding and SUV problems that piss everyone off.

whoa whoa whoa i think that most of our speeding tickets come from elderly people who forgot which is the gas and brake
to tell the truth i think a whopping like 12 percent of all speeding tickets come from people over 18

i meant to say 52 percent not 12

suvs are big and uh.............really big

oh yeah lets try to ban stupidity

oh well thare goes bush.... thank god

Require everyone who has wants to drive a large vehicle like that (over 4000 lbs.) should have a commercial drivers license that requires 40 hours of training to recieve. Also, put horsepower limitations on what kids under the ae 18 can have, like under 110. Those two would take care of a bunch of the stupid speeding and SUV problems that piss everyone off.

110 horsepower? I forgot I lived in a Stalinist USA.

What about sedans that weigh over 4,000?

110 horsepower? I forgot I lived in a Stalinist USA.

What about sedans that weigh over 4,000?

Those too. People in S500's and Caprice Classics always seem to be doing 20 mph under the speed limit. Those cars are just as big an pointless as SUV's. I actually had to go around an AMG S55 doing 50 mph. What a waste.

110 horsepower for kids is perfectly reasonable. I cannot see any reason that a teenager needs either an SUV, 4x4 or a 400 horse Camaro or Corvette. We can keep them from drinking until they're 21, we should also be able to keep them away from lethal vehicles untill they've had a couple of years of driving experience.

Those too. People in S500's and Caprice Classics always seem to be doing 20 mph under the speed limit. Those cars are just as big an pointless as SUV's. I actually had to go around an AMG S55 doing 50 mph. What a waste.

110 horsepower for kids is perfectly reasonable. I cannot see any reason that a teenager needs either an SUV, 4x4 or a 400 horse Camaro or Corvette. We can keep them from drinking until they're 21, we should also be able to keep them away from lethal vehicles untill they've had a couple of years of driving experience.

You have an AMG S55?

I'm 16 and I'm perfectly responsible. Too bad 75% of my peers are not. I've never got drunk, smoked pot, or done anything illegal involving substances.

The safest cars are also the heaviest. I want my first car to be a Ford Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Car, or Mercury Grand Marquis. All the cars with 110 horsepower are dangerous, too small, or too slow. In Massachusetts where I live cars have to be able to accelerate fast onto the highways because the highways havent been upgraded since the years of Jimmy Carter.

You have an AMG S55?

No, I had to go around one.

and I'm glad that you are a safe driver, but those cars that you listed are not particularly safe according to crash tests and are definitely not safe to other drivers due to thier size and weight. Teenagers have a high propensity for running into things, hence the need for them to drive slower, lighter cars. Same with just about everyone else. My point is, if you want to drive a large commercial sized vehicle, you should have a commercial license.

I know what you mean about some of the drivers who think that their SUV can get through any snow, we dont think like that. And although we have an SUV it is a Honda Pilot has a 5 star safety rating, and we drice it only when necesary, we mainly take the train or bus, or walk or ride a bike.

And its Ford, not Phord.


I know *giggles to self*, I just don't like Fords under any circumstances, hence the reason I intentionally misspelled the F-word. :D

No, I had to go around one.

and I'm glad that you are a safe driver, but those cars that you listed are not particularly safe according to crash tests and are definitely not safe to other drivers due to thier size and weight. Teenagers have a high propensity for running into things, hence the need for them to drive slower, lighter cars. Same with just about everyone else. My point is, if you want to drive a large commercial sized vehicle, you should have a commercial license.


5 stars tells differently. I choose those cars with high safety ratings. I can't have a light car, once I start driving to school during the winter, its about 10 miles over fairly steep hills, and cutting out into rush hour traffic.

My dad offered to give me his Explorer, but I told him I'd rather have a full size sedan like a Crown Victoria.

Tough on the other vehicle/pedestrian etc, though. They suffer disproportionate injuries compared to impacts from normal cars.

So let me get this straight. Your argument is that they're bad because they hurt other vehicles disproportionately? Don't you think that's a pretty silly argument? I mean, to get everything so it's all proportional, every car would have to be the same size and weight. You couldn't ride motorcycles or bicycles, and semi-trucks would certainly be off-limits.

Unfortunately, my experience in the UK is that they're driven by people who shouldn't have been let behind a shopping trolley, let along two tonnes of unwieldy LandWhale.

Well, the UK is quite another thing, where the lanes are smaller and city driving is nearly impossible to avoid. Feel free to ban larger vehicles all you want on your side of the pond, but you simply can't equate your experience there with the experience here. Many, many drivers simply shouldn't be behind a the wheel of a vehicle, and it makes no difference what that vehicle /is/. Many other drivers (like myself) have to drive often both in the city and in the country ... this is in fact the rule, rather than the exception where I live.

However, over here - and quite possible on your side of the pond as well, the majority of 'em are used purely as posermobiles. Few of 'em ever leave the perfectly adequate roads we have.

That's certainly true over here, but it's not the large majority (though I won't speak for places like California, NYC, Chicago, or DC). Where I live (midwest) SUVs are common as they can function quite nicely in the city, on the highway, or up in the mountains as you take 6 people skiing with you in one car.

The other specious argument is that they have more space in them. I've found them very inefficient, having less useable internal space than the old estate car I drive.

If people are making the argument that they need SUVs for space, it's extremely easy to find SUVs that have more space inside than almost any car. Each car / SUV is built for a different purpose. Some might be built for gas milage, some might be built to handle rougher terrain, but not have tons of interior space (ie: subaru baja), or some might be built to have plenty of internal space.

Of course there are people who can justify them - I live in a small town surrounded by farming land, and the farmers have LandRovers 'cos they need 'em. A friend has one to tow his horsebox and boat. My brother has one 'cos he lives on a farm, though he's not a farmer, and it's handy from getting round his other house in Spain.

So what's the solution? Make every person justify how they're going to use their vehicle before they can buy an SUV because ... what? They're in a bigger car that could protect them better in an accident and could possibly hurt someone else more (though if they're in one of these nice perfect cars everyone's on about, wouldn't the car just use its crumple zones and everything is all-right?)?

I'm actually missing the argument here ... if people in the US get in a high-speed accident, it's rarely going to be head-on. More likely, it'll be a side-swipe on the highway. In this case, the SUV has a larger chance of rolling, and the car has a larger chance of running into a median or ditch and being totaled. Neither is good.

There's a better way to deal with this:

Require everyone who has wants to drive a large vehicle like that (over 4000 lbs.) should have a commercial drivers license that requires 40 hours of training to recieve. Also, put horsepower limitations on what kids under the ae 18 can have, like under 110. Those two would take care of a bunch of the stupid speeding and SUV problems that piss everyone off.

Well, since I have a commercial license, this wouldn't affect me, but I still think it's wrong. The problem isn't that people with SUVs are bad drivers, the problem is that people in general are bad drivers. We should have a 40 hour class for /everyone/, not just people who want to drive a large vehicle. You can't single out people who aren't doing anything wrong, like farmers and ranchers, just because you don't like how some other people use larger vehicles.

Just make it a little harder to actually /get/ a license in the US and you'd solve 90% of your driving problems. I have a friend who's sister has been in 15 accidents in 3 years. Her dad just pays the person to keep it off the insurance (which is totally legal, btw). She had to take her driving test 6 different times before she passed. Let's make those tests a little harder and we'll keep people like her off the road.

Just make it a little harder to actually /get/ a license in the US and you'd solve 90% of your driving problems. I have a friend who's sister has been in 15 accidents in 3 years. Her dad just pays the person to keep it off the insurance (which is totally legal, btw). She had to take her driving test 6 different times before she passed. Let's make those tests a little harder and we'll keep people like her off the road.


Her insurance costs must be through the roof

Her insurance costs must be through the roof

No. Like I said, her father pays out to whoever she has an accident with. She never goes through the insurance company. Her insurance is pretty low.

110 horsepower for kids is perfectly reasonable. I cannot see any reason that a teenager needs either an SUV, 4x4 or a 400 horse Camaro or Corvette. We can keep them from drinking until they're 21, we should also be able to keep them away from lethal vehicles untill they've had a couple of years of driving experience.
Oh please. I have a 1994 GMC Jimmy that accelerates at roughly the speed of a 4-Cylinder, and it has 165 hp. It is almost exclusively torque. Now, I have several boats, and I'm under 18. I need my Jimmy to haul my boat, and I like it because I can go muddin'. I don't think you Yankees need em', I agree with that. Or at least not the city folk. However, people in rural areas actually can use a 4x4. So here's an idea. Keep your grubby hands off my Jimmy, and go back to your apartment and think about why people hate liberals.

No. Like I said, her father pays out to whoever she has an accident with. She never goes through the insurance company. Her insurance is pretty low.
See, that's just another example of dangerous female drivers. That's been a problem for years.

its also to hide small penises, or wives sleeping around

You mean both. You can't have one without the other.

Oh please. I have a 1994 GMC Jimmy that accelerates at roughly the speed of a 4-Cylinder, and it has 165 hp. It is almost exclusively torque. Now, I have several boats, and I'm under 18. I need my Jimmy to haul my boat, and I like it because I can go muddin'. I don't think you Yankees need em', I agree with that. Or at least not the city folk. However, people in rural areas actually can use a 4x4. So here's an idea. Keep your grubby hands off my Jimmy, and go back to your apartment and think about why people hate liberals.


Hey! :mad:

I'm a liberal, and a Yankee! Have you ever been up here in the winter? There are hills everywhere that are covered with snow. I agree that the people in the suburbs dont need one, mainly the Soccer moms that drive an H2, or a Navigator. My dad lives in the suburbs and has an SUV because he's an executive of a company and has to go to work no matter what the road conditions are. He'd never buy a big SUV or luxury SUV, he hates showy people, so he drives a nice reliable middle class car, a 1995 Ford Explorer.

hmmm
i just figured sumthin out i really dont care if your liberalist or not

So let me get this straight. Your argument is that they're bad because they hurt other vehicles disproportionately?
Yes, partly. Cars, certainly European cars, are designed to deal best with impacts from other cars, because that's the commonest impact. The more vehicles on the road that fall outside that field, the more danger to car driving road users. As for pedestrian/cyclist impacts, 4x4s cause significantly worse injuries. Cars have for years been getting more rounded and softer in front, and there are European rules about how close hard objects under the bonnet can be to the outer skin, with tougher rules coming. 4x4s are generally not covered by these rules, and have hard high fronts with hard small radius fitments. Typically a collision with a pedestrian in a car will lift the casualty onto the bonnet; a 4x4 will usually knock them down and go over them.

So what's the solution?Tax the arse off them, with the annual vehicle license being graded according to mass as well as fuel consumption.

Yes, partly. Cars, certainly European cars, are designed to deal best with impacts from other cars, because that's the commonest impact. The more vehicles on the road that fall outside that field, the more danger to car driving road users. As for pedestrian/cyclist impacts, 4x4s cause significantly worse injuries. Cars have for years been getting more rounded and softer in front, and there are European rules about how close hard objects under the bonnet can be to the outer skin, with tougher rules coming. 4x4s are generally not covered by these rules, and have hard high fronts with hard small radius fitments. Typically a collision with a pedestrian in a car will lift the casualty onto the bonnet; a 4x4 will usually knock them down and go over them.

Tax the arse off them, with the annual vehicle license being graded according to mass as well as fuel consumption.

Like I said, then that is a rediculous argument. For the part about requiring soft things up front, we'd better continue on the same line of argument and get rid of semi-trucks, construction vehicles, and RVs. They can't lower their mass simply because of what they are, so they're too dangerous for people to use.

As to vehicles not being built to withstand impacts from other cars ... have you ever visited a automotive safety test lab? Every car in the US is crashed into from about fifty million different directions and by different objects. They have to pass certain safety standards or they aren't even allowed on the road.

Lastly, what's with you and people like you who really think taxing something is a good idea if you think it's a bad thing for people to have? Once again you (and others) are forgetting about the people you would /hurt/ with your tax. I know part of my family was put out of business on their ranch because Rhode Island decided to unilaterally increase their land taxes because they thought that people in the suburbs were holding on to more land than they should. Well, they got smaller lot sizes, but my family couldn't afford to keep making tax payments on their large working ranch (my uncle was a horse trainer). This tax idea would do the same thing. It would probably have your desired effect, but it would also hurt a lot of poor people who need these types of vehicles.

Like I said, then that is a rediculous argument. For the part about requiring soft things up front, we'd better continue on the same line of argument and get rid of semi-trucks, construction vehicles, and RVs. They can't lower their mass simply because of what they are, so they're too dangerous for people to use.

As to vehicles not being built to withstand impacts from other cars ... have you ever visited a automotive safety test lab? Every car in the US is crashed into from about fifty million different directions and by different objects. They have to pass certain safety standards or they aren't even allowed on the road.

*Sigh* Of course we can't get rid of all the dangerous vehicles. The point is, a lot of them are unnessary, and by reducing the amount of them, we reduce the number of fatalities in accidents.

2. Cars are tested to make sure they survive. The state of the other vehicles/pedestrians after the collison is usually an afterthought. E.g. A while ago in Britain, a car (Can't remember what, ironically a Renualt) was advertised as having received 5 stars (a first) in the Euro NCAP safety tests. That score, however, was only for car-on-car collisons. It's car/pedestrian score was significantly lower (2 stars). Most people won't bother to focus in on this when buying a car, so car companies often neglect it (My parents work in the automobile industry).

*Sigh* Of course we can't get rid of all the dangerous vehicles. The point is, a lot of them are unnessary, and by reducing the amount of them, we reduce the number of fatalities in accidents.

2. Cars are tested to make sure they survive. The state of the other vehicles/pedestrians after the collison is usually an afterthought. E.g. A while ago in Britain, a car (Can't remember what, ironically a Renualt) was advertised as having received 5 stars (a first) in the Euro NCAP safety tests. That score, however, was only for car-on-car collisons. It's car/pedestrian score was significantly lower (2 stars). Most people won't bother to focus in on this when buying a car, so car companies often neglect it (My parents work in the automobile industry).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing fatalities. What I'm trying to argue is that virtually every suggestion on here so far would have a large negative impact on groups that people aren't thinking about. When we're saying ban / tax SUVs and 4x4s, we're forgetting about the very large rural community that needs these vehicles and probably can't afford even more taxes against their livlihood. We're also forgetting about a segment of the city population (very large in Colorado) that spends its time in the rural or wilderness areas and needs these vehicles to get around.

Part of the reason I'm annoyed at all this is I see it (once again) as folks in the city making the rules for those of us in the country. Let me give you an example: There's an anti-gang law for the county in which I live (the county is larger than the state of Rhode Island, to give you an impression of how many people this law covers, and it includes 2 decently sized cities). This law says that you can't have 5 unrelated people living in the same house. Ok, that makes some sense to try and reduce gang hangouts (I disagree, but I can understand where they're coming from). Now, I wanted to rent a house with some friends of mine when we were working on the ranch. There was a nice big house, 5 bedroom, 2 living room, laundry, etc. This place was a mansion stretched out. Rent would be affordable for 5 people, and since there were 5 bedrooms, I thought it'd be great! Can't do it. Anti-gang law is in effect. Forget that there's only 300 people total in my town, we'd be considered a gang if we all moved into that house. The two cities had decided this should be a county ordinance, and there's nothing the lower-populated regions can do about it. I could give you dozens of these dumb laws that have affected life in the outlying areas in rediculous ways.

Now we're talking about banning / taxing SUVs and 4x4s and it just strikes a chord for me. I'd almost be inclined to say, "fine, do what you want, but make it a /city/ ordinance," ... though most of you are talking national laws, but I don't like the idea of taking away people's freedoms or livlihoods /wherever/ they are.

You want to raise safety standards on cars? How about having a position that they should, oh, I don't know, /raise safety standards on cars/ instead of taxing or banning specific ones? If my truck costs another $500 from new safety standards, I can probably afford that. If you want to tax me every year for owning that truck, I probably can't, and several people who would be grandfathered in (who already own their vehicles) certainly couldn't.

Get to the root of the problem, don't just try to tax your way into a solution ... you hurt more than you help.

i think we could all drastically reduce rising gas prices by
1 buying electric cars
2 ugrading engines to take that new gas thing thts not gas
or 3 buy a hydrogen powered car
hydrogen cars are not quite tht cheap and there not really fully developed but when they are whoo gas will be athing of the past and as a bonus we keep the earth a lot healthier

i think we could all drastically reduce rising gas prices by
1 buying electric cars
2 ugrading engines to take that new gas thing thts not gas
or 3 buy a hydrogen powered car
hydrogen cars are not quite tht cheap and there not really fully developed but when they are whoo gas will be athing of the past and as a bonus we keep the earth a lot healthier

Well, once we prefect Fusion (we're withing a percent of being self-sustaining now at LLNL!), energy will be virtually free anyway, so /everything/ will be electric! We'll only be paying for the system that transports the energy and the workers, and it's environmentally extremely healthy as well!

That's actually one of the arguments to stay with the slightly less efficient first stage reactors. You end up with Hydrogen ... a gas that burns clean ... instead of Helium, which no one seems to know what to do with. We'd end up storing a lot of helium if we used second stage reactors. Hydrogen we can sell, making the energy even cheaper!

Well, once we prefect Fusion (we're withing a percent of being self-sustaining now at LLNL!), energy will be virtually free anyway, so /everything/ will be electric! We'll only be paying for the system that transports the energy and the workers, and it's environmentally extremely healthy as well!

That's actually one of the arguments to stay with the slightly less efficient first stage reactors. You end up with Hydrogen ... a gas that burns clean ... instead of Helium, which no one seems to know what to do with. We'd end up storing a lot of helium if we used second stage reactors. Hydrogen we can sell, making the energy even cheaper!

Hydrogen would be good. But who wants to take on Big Oil? The money is mostly in suppoting them and they sure as hell wouldn't want alternative forms of fuel found.

Hydrogen would be good. But who wants to take on Big Oil? The money is mostly in suppoting them and they sure as hell wouldn't want alternative forms of fuel found.

True, and I have to wonder if a few key people have been buying up knowledge and suppressing it in exactly that field (not a conspiracy, just a few people who are rich on oil and want to stay that way ... and if anyone says Bush, I'm going to laugh and promptly ignore you ;) ).

However, fusion is underway! It's a government sponsered project with just the right amount of mixed in corporations (as we know the government can't do anything truly useful by itself). There's no way to hide it now ... only to sabotage it, and most people aren't smart enough to figure out how the thing even works, let alone sabotage it :). It's a public project, so information is releasable on it (somewhat). Right now, some major advances in materials science would make all the difference in the world towards fusion and free energy.

Hydrogen would just be the by-product. The waste, if you want to call it that. We already have hydrogen fuel systems and are working on hydro-cells rather quickly. How long do you think it would be before some company figures out how to use hydrogen for all kinds of other things ... once it's a nearly free commodity?

True, and I have to wonder if a few key people have been buying up knowledge and suppressing it in exactly that field (not a conspiracy, just a few people who are rich on oil and want to stay that way ... and if anyone says Bush, I'm going to laugh and promptly ignore you ;) ).

However, fusion is underway! It's a government sponsered project with just the right amount of mixed in corporations (as we know the government can't do anything truly useful by itself). There's no way to hide it now ... only to sabotage it, and most people aren't smart enough to figure out how the thing even works, let alone sabotage it :). It's a public project, so information is releasable on it (somewhat). Right now, some major advances in materials science would make all the difference in the world towards fusion and free energy.

Hydrogen would just be the by-product. The waste, if you want to call it that. We already have hydrogen fuel systems and are working on hydro-cells rather quickly. How long do you think it would be before some company figures out how to use hydrogen for all kinds of other things ... once it's a nearly free commodity?

Have you seen the movie "Chain Reaction"? Hollywood loves conspiricies and so do people. The idea of government concealing advanced technologies for their own ends is very popular.

It would probably have your desired effect, but it would also hurt a lot of poor people who need these types of vehicles.
Almost no one in the UK needs vehicles like this. Few of those who can justify one are poor.

Lastly, what's with you and people like you who really think taxing something is a good idea if you think it's a bad thing for people to have? Once again you (and others) are forgetting about the people you would /hurt/ with your tax. I know part of my family was put out of business on their ranch because Rhode Island decided to unilaterally increase their land taxes because they thought that people in the suburbs were holding on to more land than they should. Well, they got smaller lot sizes, but my family couldn't afford to keep making tax payments on their large working ranch (my uncle was a horse trainer). This tax idea would do the same thing. It would probably have your desired effect, but it would also hurt a lot of poor people who need these types of vehicles.

Thats beause the value of the land has gone up. Not the taxes. The Tax rate per $10,000 has either stayed the same or gone down.

Have you seen the movie "Chain Reaction"? Hollywood loves conspiricies and so do people. The idea of government concealing advanced technologies for their own ends is very popular.

Saw the movie, laughed a lot :). Actually, while I find the idea of government conspiracies intriguing, I also find them ludicrous for the most part. Unless it's one a /very/ small scale. But those aren't the conspiracies that are interesting ;). In this case, I would find it much more likely that a few oil tycoons are buying up information on alternate fuels (if there's a "conspiracy" at all)

Almost no one in the UK needs vehicles like this. Few of those who can justify one are poor.

Well, personally I don't care a whole bunch what laws you create in the UK, but I got the impression that most of this thread was targeted at the US? In the UK, I'd /like/ to see a slimmed down liberterian style republic, but I wouldn't presume to know a whole bunch about lifestyles and what people really want there. I only lived there for a few months at a time. In the same respect, I get annoyed with folks from Europe insisting (as I got the impression was happening on this thread) on legislation in the US that makes sense to /them/ based on arguments from /their/ lifestyles individually.

Here in the US, there are a lot of people who could justify owning an SUV or 4x4, and the majority of them would be poor.

Thats beause the value of the land has gone up. Not the taxes. The Tax rate per $10,000 has either stayed the same or gone down.

That's not the story I heard from my Uncle who had to sell his land that our family had owned since 1820. He was upset about some legislation going through in Rhode Island that would increase the land tax to try and cut down on large ownership of land. If you want to say they voted to increase land value, I suppose you could put it that way, though I don't think that's quite the right phrasing.

Either way, on a side note, how is it fair at all to lose your land to the government because you can't pay a tax on how much land you own? That seems pretty rediculous to me. I guess technically the government owns the land, but ... nah, I'll stop there.

The simple fact is that only Americans can afford the luxury of paying for those gigantic materials that suck up gasoline like a miniature black hole. Gas in other parts of the world is expensive so the SUV is a symbol of American wealth or perhaps decadance.

The simple fact is that only Americans can afford the luxury of paying for those gigantic materials that suck up gasoline like a miniature black hole. Gas in other parts of the world is expensive so the SUV is a symbol of American wealth or perhaps decadance.

If that's true, maybe the other countries should get a clue and start earning some money ;)

I drive an suv-a suzuki sidekick. I drive it to work 40+ miles away as well as to the supermarket 5 minutes away. I like having an suv because when I had the mini-cars, my usual view in the rear view mirror included a truck's grill or axle. My mini-cars included an 82 Honda Civic, a 78 Datsun B210-GX, an 82 Datson 200 SX and a 92 Eagle Summit. 3 of those cars had dents or some other kind of damage because some idiot did not see my car. My first car-a 1980 Mustang-was totalled because some jackass in a Towncar did not see my sister was at a complete stop at a light. The Suzuki has damage, too-a cracked windshield that withstood a direct hit from a flying wild turkey. I like, for the first time since I have been driving, that people see me. I like not getting stuck on the few weeks of snow and ice we have in NJ. I think anyone who wants to ban SUVs because they themselves are liberal weenies who get intensely jealous over what other folks can afford and find some lame excuse about the environment to hide behind should be sealed in a crate and sent to Antarctica...

I'm a liberal, and a Yankee! Have you ever been up here in the winter? There are hills everywhere that are covered with snow.
Hence why I said that I thought it was ok for people in rural areas of the North to have them, but not people in the Burbs or the cities.

The simple fact is that only Americans can afford the luxury of paying for those gigantic materials that suck up gasoline like a miniature black hole. Gas in other parts of the world is expensive so the SUV is a symbol of American wealth or perhaps decadance.

i truly think that your place in society should not be based on your material posssesions. people who think like that just want another reason to put other people underneath them and make them feel better.
this is my message to all those jerks
YOU ALL SUCK!!!!!!
F%@* YOU

Everyone, I have a statement to make ;). OK, I just want you to know that I am getting my Jimmy lifted 6 inches, and I'm putting 35 inch TSL Boggers on it. I am also cutting off the muffler and Catalytic Converter, and I'm gonna put straight pipes on. That's about it. So if I happen to drive by you, please let me know who you are, so I can take my big truck and drive over your little car.

i truly think that your place in society should not be based on your material posssesions. people who think like that just want another reason to put other people underneath them and make them feel better.
this is my message to all those jerks
YOU ALL SUCK!!!!!!
F%@* YOU
I don't think anyone I know thinks like that. However, a house on the river and a boat, and a truck, would still be pretty damn nice, as opposed to living in a trailer, or a cave.

I don't think anyone I know thinks like that. However, a house on the river and a boat, and a truck, would still be pretty damn nice, as opposed to living in a trailer, or a cave.

your right i agree BUT... if people are just being asses and gloating about what stuff they have pisses me off because im not the richest person in the world i dont have all the nicest stuff and when people put themselves above me because they can afford anything they want i get really REALLY pissed off

your right i agree BUT... if people are just being asses and gloating about what stuff they have pisses me off because im not the richest person in the world i dont have all the nicest stuff and when people put themselves above me because they can afford anything they want i get really REALLY pissed off

But quite often it's the poorer among us that feels the same way. I mean, at one time in my life, I had a lot of money. I lost most of it and was struggling (macaroni & cheese in a 1 room apartment kind of struggling) for a while. Now I'm doing ok again. When people come up to me all arrogant about how much money they have, it really doesn't phase me at all. So they've got money, so what? So they think they're better than me? That just makes them an ass. Nothing to get bent out of shape about. Personally, I think anyone who works for a living and takes pride in what they do deserves respect ... people who just get it handed to them need to earn that respect.

Well, I don't like SUVs at all. Their large, ugly, and driven primarily by soccer moms :cool: ...

But, the reason vehicle companies make SUVs is that they use gas like a rocket, so that the customer has to pay for gas, giving money to gas companies, which usually have some relationship with the original car company in the first place.

But I don't like what they do to the environment (the fumes, and the wonderful way they tend to squish others near them). They should be smaller and more environmentally-effiecient.