Anyone here own an SUV? [Archive]

SPG

Jan 23, 2003, 02:23 AM

Settle down there tough guy. I just thought it was funny that an auto maker would go out and research the negative aspects of any of their customers.
For the record I do not own an SUV. When I bought a new car last year I considered the Durango, Xterra, and even the ML320. But in the end, they all use too much gas, are too big to fit easily in my garage, and the rollover effect blew the safety question out of the water.
When I put this up I was hoping to stir up some debate on the merits and disadvantages of the SUV's from the people who own them. A defense of their vehicle choice.
Ask anyone who lives up in the mountains near a ski resort and they will tell you that most of the vehicles that wind up in the ditch are SUV's. Why is that? If the SUV is no better at staying on the road even in the mountains where they're supposed to be designed for, than what good are they?

jefhatfield

Jan 23, 2003, 02:34 AM

i find much more arrogant drivers in 18 wheeler trucks, tricked out hondas and acuras, muscle cars covered with primer, and fast, red sportscars of almost every make

many if not most suv drivers are from that 1946-64 generation and are thus older and less likely to drive the thing like many of the teenagers i have seen...me included when i first got a license...he he

3777

Jan 23, 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i find much more arrogant drivers in 18 wheeler trucks, tricked out hondas and acuras, muscle cars covered with primer, and fast, red sportscars of almost every make

many if not most suv drivers are from that 1946-64 generation and are thus older and less likely to drive the thing like many of the teenagers i have seen...me included when i first got a license...he he

There is no worse driver in the world then a soccer mom in a volvo. She's usually driving the thing because she's already been in about 10 accidents, and since Volvo's are like tanks, she throws caution to the wind, plowing through stop signs, yield signs, red lights, etc..... :mad:

SPG

Jan 23, 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by 3777

There is no worse driver in the world then a soccer mom in a volvo. She's usually driving the thing because she's already been in about 10 accidents, and since Volvo's are like tanks, she throws caution to the wind, plowing through stop signs, yield signs, red lights, etc..... :mad:
...yeah women! and blacks! and homosexuals! and jews too! oh oh and the mexicans! Yeah! There all the problem!

3777

Jan 23, 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by SPG

...yeah women! and blacks! and homosexuals! and jews too! oh oh and the mexicans! Yeah! There all the problem!

Wow you have issues don't you:rolleyes:

It's funny how liberals will just bash and insult you after you disagree with them.....but they never really respond to the arguments in your posts. It's just "yhea well your ignorant and Bush is a crook and you piss me off" .........& why don't the Liberals respond? Because they have no argument. They are full of ***** and they know it, and they're just looking for a reason to put on gas masks and throw bricks through glass windows during G8 summits.:o Hippies:rolleyes:

zarathustra

Jan 23, 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by SPG

...yeah women! and blacks! and homosexuals! and jews too! oh oh and the mexicans! Yeah! There all the problem!

SPG, you need to be dropped off in Moscow, in January, without your passport, and see if you can make it out alive. You have too long been shacked up in your comfortable, upper-middle class liberal shangri-la. We should broadcast it as a new reality-TV-mini-series, "Reality Check", on FOX.

Taft

Jan 23, 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by 3777

Wow you have issues don't you:rolleyes:

It's funny how liberals will just bash and insult you after you disagree with them.....but they never really respond to the arguments in your posts. It's just "yhea well your ignorant and Bush is a crook and you piss me off" .........& why don't the Liberals respond? Because they have no argument. They are full of ***** and they know it, and they're just looking for a reason to put on gas masks and throw bricks through glass windows during G8 summits.:o Hippies:rolleyes:

Christ! Here we go again. All liberals are touchy-feely tree-hugging hippies! You're a joke! A complete and utter joke! And you're hatred of people whose lifestyle or ideology is to the left borders on racism. He was responding to the fact that you nastily generalized a liberal soccer mom in her volvo. Get a clue.

I contributed to the anti-SUV campaign that Arianna Huffington recently started. And I'm proud of it. The anti-drug campaign the anti-SUV ads parody are a joke and deserve to be parodied. And SUV's are one of the most gluttonous pieces of machinery a person can own these days.

Explain to me why you think SUVs are either necessary or not evil. They consume a non-renewable natural resource at an alarming rate which contributes to pollution which constributes to global warming, not to mention increasing our counry's reliance on Mid-Eastern oil. The are also very dangerous when compared to a car. They much more likely to roll over than a car and their size makes them dangerous to other cars on the road.

For me, the environmetal threat that is embodied by America's love of these behemoths is quite alarming. Why does a person living in the Chicago need a vehicle that can cover terrain better than a small truck? I know so many people who own SUVs and then only use them for their commute every morning; probably the least efficient form of transportation available used every morning for a commute. Its a joke!

Whats the appeal of these things? Is it a status symbol? Is it to compensate for something small in the drawers? What can justify the environmental and political threat these things pose?

Taft

chibianh

Jan 23, 2003, 08:56 AM

we have a grand cherokee. we have a boat. we use the grand cherokee to tow the boat. you find me a small car, or even a small suv, that can pull a 24' boat. grant it, we don't pull the boat everywhere we go, but it's just an incentive for those summer weekends.

also, we are in colorado. weather is unpredictable sometimes and it's nice to know that our suv can handle anything mother nature can throw at us in the urban jungle. whenever we find time, we like to go hiking and do other outdoor acitivities in the mountains. have you ever tried making it up a pretty steep, long driveway (to get to a cabin) all drenched in snow or mud and lots of reasonably sized dips and such in a honda civic? i have and will never try again.

what i am trying to point out is that suvs are sometimes used for what they're meant for. others just like to know that the capability is there if the need ever arises.

also, spg, i'd say you can make the same argument for trucks, yes? i see tons of those around.

btw, i'm not an suv fanatic or anything. we got 4 vehicles. only one of those is an suv.

cr2sh

Jan 23, 2003, 08:58 AM

"They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."

You mean to tell me some upidy DC ***** spent $60,000 on an SUV and he doesn't intend to strap a wench on it, put 32's on it, lift it 4" and take it mudding? You don't say....

I like how he associates bad characteristics of society with a bad characteristic of society. What's next? The brilliant paper that concludes "Smokers don't like to exercise"? :rolleyes:

Restless? Yeh.. I'm a Jeep owner. :D

Taft

Jan 23, 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by zarathustra

SPG, you need to be dropped off in Moscow, in January, without your passport, and see if you can make it out alive. You have too long been shacked up in your comfortable, upper-middle class liberal shangri-la. We should broadcast it as a new reality-TV-mini-series, "Reality Check", on FOX.

Good to see someone's backing up 3777 with his pseudo-threatening posts towards liberals.

How exactly would dropping a liberal off in Moscow without a passport in January teach him a lesson abut anything.

"Do you speak english? No? Do you? Thank God. Where is the American embassy? Ten blocks that way? Thank you."

At the embassy...

"I'm an American citzen and I lost my passport. I'd like to get in touch with my family so I can get home. ... Thanks so much for you help."

Wow your right. I bet he'd see the light and turn to ther right after that ordeal. :rolleyes: Or do you mean that he should see the result of years of communism at work? Thats a little warmer, but the fact that people are resorting to associating leftism to communism (or even socialism) just shows how out of touch they are with reality. And its a little scary. If people think I endorse communism, that scares me a bit.

SPG's post was in response to 3777's liberal bashing and stereotyping. Anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity can see that.

Taft

DakotaGuy

Jan 23, 2003, 09:09 AM

I drive an SUV and proud of it. I also consider myself a Democrat.

Taft

Jan 23, 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by chibianh
we have a grand cherokee. we have a boat. we use the grand cherokee to tow the boat. you find me a small car, or even a small suv, that can pull a 24' boat. grant it, we don't pull the boat everywhere we go, but it's just an incentive for those summer weekends.

also, we are in colorado. weather is unpredictable sometimes and it's nice to know that our suv can handle anything mother nature can throw at us in the urban jungle. whenever we find time, we like to go hiking and do other outdoor acitivities in the mountains. have you ever tried making it up a pretty steep, long driveway (to get to a cabin) all drenched in snow or mud and lots of reasonably sized dips and such in a honda civic? i have and will never try again.

what i am trying to point out is that suvs are sometimes used for what they're meant for. others just like to know that the capability is there if the need ever arises.

also, spg, i'd say you can make the same argument for trucks, yes? i see tons of those around.

btw, i'm not an suv fanatic or anything. we got 4 vehicles. only one of those is an suv.

But you are not the type of person that this article, or the anti-SUV ad campaign targets. If we were really out to stop all wasteful emmisions we'd target the trucking industry or something. And how practical would that be.

The point is that the number of Americans that own SUVs is out of proportion with the number of American's who have a use for SUVs. The rest own them for reasons altogether different (and which are quite honestly a mystery to me).

SUVs are built for rough terrain, bad weather and hauling things. Only a fraction of SUVs are actually used for their designed purpose. And more and more SUVs are being built with a comfort factor similar to sedans. Which only underscores the point that American's aren't using them for their "rugged" activities.

My Mom and Dad own a car, a mini-van and a small truck. The truck is used by my little brother for outdoor activities (including his hunting trips). The van is used to haul stuff (and people) for the various activities my parents participate in (they are heavily involved in the schools). The car is used most frequenly and for everything else. Just because we own a, relatively, ineffecient truck, doesn't make my parents part of the problem. They live in a very rural and woodsy area and have a use for it.

Its not all black and white. But the statistics show there is an avoidable excess of these gas guzzling monsters on the road. I object to that.

Taft

zarathustra

Jan 23, 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Taft

Good to see someone's backing up 3777 with his pseudo-threatening posts towards liberals.

How exactly would dropping a liberal off in Moscow without a passport in January teach him a lesson abut anything.

"Do you speak english? No? Do you? Thank God. Where is the American embassy? Ten blocks that way? Thank you."

At the embassy...

"I'm an American citzen and I lost my passport. I'd like to get in touch with my family so I can get home. ... Thanks so much for you help."

Wow your right. I bet he'd see the light and turn to ther right after that ordeal. :rolleyes: Or do you mean that he should see the result of years of communism at work? Thats a little warmer, but the fact that people are resorting to associating leftism to communism (or even socialism) just shows how out of touch they are with reality. And its a little scary. If people think I endorse communism, that scares me a bit.

SPG's post was in response to 3777's liberal bashing and stereotyping. Anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity can see that.

Taft

I don't think you have ever been to an Eastern-block country. It will never be as easy as: "I'm an American citzen and I lost my passport. I'd like to get in touch with my family so I can get home. ... Thanks so much for you help.". NEVER. I know first hand.

My point was trying to make a living in a society where you have to struggle for EVERYTHING. All the pitty crap of, oh, he is liberal bashing and stereotyping, is absolutely meaningless. Real issues get obfuscated because you resort to screaming bloody murder when someone points out the obvious.

I do believe liberals are socialists - I also believe most western Europan countries are socialist as well. It's not a bad thing - I am not calling you names, it's simply the way things are. When you expect to redistribute wealth and overall stand for the liberal agenda, you are a socialist!

The majority of the time when I get into a hairy situation driving, it is a woman in a VOLVO/SUV! It's a fact that it gives them a false sense of security. For SPG to start dragging race and religion into this is uncalled for.

3777

Jan 23, 2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Taft

SPG's post was in response to 3777's liberal bashing and stereotyping. Anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity can see that.

Taft

Om my god your so full of crap it's not even funny. Your a complete hypocrite...... besides I thought you were done with me? Can't even live up to your own promises:rolleyes:

P.S. Please all Macrumors members, read all recent post by Taft, Spg, and myself ....and feel free to draw your own conclusions as to which of us are the @$$holes. :p

3777

Jan 23, 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Taft

I contributed to the anti-SUV campaign that Arianna Huffington recently started. And I'm proud of it.

Good to see someone's backing up 3777 with his pseudo-threatening posts towards liberals.

Taft

I rest my case:o

Taft

Jan 23, 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by 3777

Om my god your so full of crap it's not even funny. Your a complete hypocrite...... besides I thought you were done with me? Can't even live up to your own promises:rolleyes:

P.S. Please all Macrumors members, read all recent post by Taft, Spg, and myself ....and feel free to draw your own conclusions as to which of us are the @$$holes. :p

I invite you to expound on why I am a hypocrite. I'd really like to hear why you think I am one. Sure, I bash you, but I always, I mean ALWAYS, back it up.

And its hard to be done with a person so inflammatory. If I were a stronger person I would've been done when I said so. Unfortunately, like so many others, when the flaming gums start a flappin', I can't resist their call.

Taft

Speaking of which, I noticed you didn't reply to any of my arguments in your post. Rather, you just bashed me. I'm the hypocrite, eh?

Taft

Jan 23, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by 3777

I rest my case:o

Wha-wha-what!!! What does that even mean? I'd like to be mad, but you have to explain why I should.

I really don't get it. :confused:

Taft

Rower_CPU

Jan 23, 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by 3777
<snip>
P.S. Please all Macrumors members, read all recent post by Taft, Spg, and myself ....and feel free to draw your own conclusions as to which of us are the @$$holes. :p

Well...you've made quite a strong case for yourself...

*checks box next to 3777*

MacFan25

Jan 23, 2003, 09:43 AM

I am sure that there are probably a lot of self-centered jerks that drive SUVs. But there are probably also a lot of self-centered jerks that drive all different types of cars too. Not just SUVs.

Sun Baked

Jan 23, 2003, 10:02 AM

These vehicles are quite unstable, they have a habit of rolling over WAY too easily.

I've seen so many SUV turtles stranded on the side of the road with their feet in the air. And one roll down a straight road (damn curb :)).

The rollover risk wouldn't be too big a problem if more of the drivers would wear their seatbelts while driving them, but week after week stories here in the valley of SUV drivers being ejected continue to pile up.

But even if you're belted in and "safe" in a SUV rollover -- the govt. standard for a 1000 lb roof crush strength will walk over and bite you. Which means the SUVs roof most likely will cave in and crush your face, head, or spine.

In simple terms SUVs are a mix of Murphy's Law and Darwin's Practical Joke for Safety Freaks. (ie, Coffin starter kits designed for people who drive big trucks like a they're little sports cars.)

[edit - NO, I looked at them and the Crown Vic was a better deal, though I would have rather picked up the LTD Wagon or Roadmaster if they were still made.)

MacBandit

Jan 23, 2003, 10:13 AM

Personally I only have 2 real problems with SUVs and one minor one.

1) The main reason people die in collisions facing SUVs is that there is no standard bumper height. Even Semi-Trucks often have a low bumper so the other car will not go under them. There needs to be a standardized bumper height. I know this causes a problem for off roading but you could make the bumper so the lower half could be flipped up and pinned in place while you are off the main roads.

2) They don't fit anywhere and often the people who drive them are very much like many people who drive motor-homes, they don't know how to drive them. There needs to be some sort of special drivers training for people so they know how to drive large vehicles. Also they don't fit in parking spots so they take two. Well they should have to park in the back 40 as punishment.

3) A minor thing for me is the gas mileage they get. Granted with the latest diesels they are getting much much better but they are still gas hogs. As I said before this is a minor issue for me and there are lots of cures for this coming down the road in the next few years.

Backtothemac

Jan 23, 2003, 10:28 AM

Here is reality.

you don't like SUV's get over it. You not liking something doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't buy it.

What about pursuit of happiness? What about individual freedom. You guys are all for individual freedom right!

sturm375

Jan 23, 2003, 10:29 AM

I bought a Chevy Silverado 1500 V8 Ext. Cab. Is this considered an SUV? Not that I care.

Main reason I bought it: I wanted a dometically produced vehicle that will last at least 10yrs. I also wanted to be able to haul my stuff around, as I am at a stage in my life where I expect to be moving frequently. It is 2WD, as I have no need go off road, and 4WD is more of a maintance problem. Again, Longivity is what I am after.

BTW, Most SUVs produced today are not tough and rugged. Ask a mechanic, they produce them on a car frame, not a truck frame anymore. Exceptions are from Ford and Chevy. Even these produce a smaller line of SUVs built on either a car frame, or custom frame not up to the rugged standards of a truck.

Also in the article, it made mention of how a side impact into a car, from an SUV, was made worse by the height of the SUV's bumper. On stock vehicles this is not true. There is a federal standard for bumper height (non-comercial class vehicles, and not motorcycles). Manufactures have to adhear to this to legally sell their vehicles. When you add lifts to the vehicle, you raise the bumper, there is a law against this, and like many gun laws, it is not enforced. For your information, my bumper on my truck is the same height as the one on my bosses Grand Marque(sp?).

sturm375

Jan 23, 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is reality.

you don't like SUV's get over it. You not liking something doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't buy it.

What about pursuit of happiness? What about individual freedom. You guys are all for individual freedom right!

Unfortunatly, this is not true. As we (most of us) drive our vehicles on public roads, the public does have a say in what we drive. If we had more private roads, we could drive whatever we wanted, however we wanted.

This is why we need to not ignore this issue, because if we do, we will have our vehicles effectively taken away from us.

Backtothemac

Jan 23, 2003, 10:43 AM

Yea, but we where clothes in public too right. Why not tell us what we can wear in public. This is just crazy. So what if people drive an SUV and they have no use for it. It is their right to own a vehicle if they choose to, and they should not be made to believe that they are sponsoring terrorism if they do.

Sun Baked

Jan 23, 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is reality.

you don't like SUV's get over it. You not liking something doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't buy it.

What about pursuit of happiness? What about individual freedom. You guys are all for individual freedom right! Individual freedom?

You're perfectly free to do whatever you want in your padded little room ...

Of course the doctors experimenting on you while you excercise your right to individual freedom may put a crimp in your rebellion.

:eek:

Remember, no matter where your body is locked up, your still free as long as you mind continues to soar - or until those drugs finally kick in and drag you screaming and kicking back to reality.

Or, did you mean something else?

MacBandit

Jan 23, 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is reality.

you don't like SUV's get over it. You not liking something doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't buy it.

What about pursuit of happiness? What about individual freedom. You guys are all for individual freedom right!

Oh and I can go use drugs to and kill myself if I want to and.....

Oh wait America isn't about that anymore. You can't use drugs because you might go out and hurt someone (in most cases very unlikely) so you can't buy an SUV because you might go out and kill someone.

I'm not for this critical line of outlawing them I'm just making a point. I just think they need to make a standardized bumper height so smaller cars don't get wedged under them.

Backtothemac

Jan 23, 2003, 10:56 AM

I don't have a problem with them regulating them, but outlawing them. Come on. That is just insane! Even if they are bad, they are no where near as bad as the vehicles from the 50's 60's and 70's, hell probably even some of the trash from the 80's!

People just need to learn to turn the other cheek, keep their nose on their own face, and the world will be a better place.

wdlove

Jan 23, 2003, 10:57 AM

According to the Boston Globe the State of Massachusettes is going to cut back on SUV's. They cost 50% morwe than a sedan and 50% more to run.

Taft

Jan 23, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, but we where clothes in public too right. Why not tell us what we can wear in public. This is just crazy. So what if people drive an SUV and they have no use for it. It is their right to own a vehicle if they choose to, and they should not be made to believe that they are sponsoring terrorism if they do.

While I agree we need to be allowed to keep our personal freedoms, we must have accountability.

If a small percentage of SUV drivers are emitting high levels of toxins into our (and by our, I mean everyone's) environment--if the few are negatively impacting the many--shouldn't they be held accountable?

Or take the example of playing music. I should be free to play my music anytime I want, right? But what if I have my stereo at max volume at 3am and my neighbors can't sleep. I have to be accountable for my actions.

How about recycling? We should be free to choose whether or not to recycle right? Well what if the worlds supply of aluminum or plastic (from oil, remember) is running out? Your actions directly impact the rest of the world. Shouldn't you be held accountable for your wastefullness?

My point is that some actions have large and long lasting effects on the community, nation or world as a whole. Personal freedom should only extend so far as it doesn't hurt others, violate their rights, or take away their freedoms.

I would like to say: waste as much as you want, drive whatever you want, blow your smoke in my face, etc., etc. But the reality is, those actions effect me and my future children. We have to be careful not to let our personal freedom now jeapordize or world's, and our children's, future.

Taft

jelloshotsrule

Jan 23, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
People just need to learn to turn the other cheek, keep their nose on their own face, and the world will be a better place.

it's hard to turn the other cheek when your face has just been mangled by an suv...

few people would call for the total doing away with suv's. there are a few uses for them (pulling boats or whatever)... however, their safety issues (both to the passengers in the suv's themselves and the passengers in other cars) have to be addressed. as well as the fuel efficiency restrictions.

you talk about not keeping people from buying suvs because they have the right to... and compare it to clothes.... well, me wearing ugly clothes has never KILLED someone else. people driving suv's has. me wearing ugly clothes has never contributed to global warming.... suv's have.

people who smoke pot should not be led to believe that their doing so supports terrorism.

and that's coming from someone who does no drugs, thinks they are dumb, etc... but can see the hypocrisy in saying one thing about drugs and ignoring the larger evil (effects OTHERS on a larger scale) that is suvs. or more accurately, the overuse of suvs by people who don't have any true need for them.

jefhatfield

Jan 23, 2003, 11:49 AM

i have seen that people in this thread, and in general, seem to lump volvo station wagons with the suv crowd

i have a 19 year old volvo station wagon and it is very safe and not as tall as suv's and i hope not as prone to rollover

i believe the volvo is the safest vehicle of any type because it is not like an old vw bug which can get squashed and it is not rigid like a 60s american v8 killing the passenger due to lack of give/crumple...in driver's ed, in the 70s, we were taught that there large american v8 cars, popular then, were literally coffins on wheels

the volvo does eat gas and it does not handle like a car, but more like a large truck and that could be dangerous for some drivers...but overall, due to safety and lacking the dangerous rollever aspects of an suv, i prefer my station wagon and i am a safe driver

i also worked in er at a hospital and i have seen many accidents and/or reports...there is nothing worse or more deadly than a rollover...the neck and head is the most vulnerable part of the body and even a low speed rollover, even with airbags and seatbelt, is usually a deadly or crippling injury

dswan34

Jan 23, 2003, 11:50 AM

I say SUVs are just dandy cause they are just increasing the push towards cleaner more fuel efficient vehicles. I hope in about 5 years I can trade in my current v8 grand cheroke for a fuel cell or hybrid version thats even more powerful, fun and cheaper to drive. Then Jesus will have a Jeep and all these people going nuts about these vehicles will find somethign else to bitch about for no good reason.

zarathustra

Jan 23, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Oh and I can go use drugs to and kill myself if I want to and.....

Oh wait America isn't about that anymore. You can't use drugs because you might go out and hurt someone (in most cases very unlikely) so you can't buy an SUV because you might go out and kill someone.

Drugs are illegal, SUVs are not (yet). :rolleyes:

jelloshotsrule

Jan 23, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by zarathustra

Drugs are illegal, SUVs are not (yet). :rolleyes:

if that's your only reason, then that's quite pathetic.

i believe that some drugs should be illegal, but not things like pot, etc... especially as alcohol is still legal.

while i do not think that suvs should be done away with completely, that does not mean that they are not bad, if overused.

alcohol is legal, but it clearly has its downsides.... similarly, some legal things can have bad effects if used improperly. and i would say that overuse of suvs by people who don't need them, and the ignoring of their gas guzzling nature, has a far greater social impact than some guy smoking a joint in his room.....

charboneau

Jan 23, 2003, 01:49 PM

Let's see 3777's first post:

He's a hippy, he can't help it. While I think the SUV bashing is a joke, (Especially WWJD and the Huffington crap) I certainly am looking forward to the hybrid electric Jeeps, Xterra's, Hummers, etc...... of the future. I would love to get 40-50mpg in my SC Frontier crew cab

Name calling

Second:
What these people fail to understand is that if they go after the vehicles and their owners, it's just going to backfire and make them look like the tree huggers that they are....... But if they do less bashing of the vehicles and their drivers, and instead push for faster development of the hybrid - electric engines, then no one will oppose them, because everyone wants a vehicle with good gas mileage

Generalization, name calling and outright ignorance. Specifically, with the lobbying of the auto industry bringing tax breaks to SUV buyers, etc. only public disapproval and AWARENESS of overconsumption can bring about change.

Third:

There is no worse driver in the world then a soccer mom in a volvo. She's usually driving the thing because she's already been in about 10 accidents, and since Volvo's are like tanks, she throws caution to the wind, plowing through stop signs, yield signs, red lights, etc.....

Relatively mild generalization

Fourth:

Wow you have issues don't you

It's funny how liberals will just bash and insult you after you disagree with them.....but they never really respond to the arguments in your posts. It's just "yhea well your ignorant and Bush is a crook and you piss me off" .........& why don't the Liberals respond? Because they have no argument. They are full of ***** and they know it, and they're just looking for a reason to put on gas masks and throw bricks through glass windows during G8 summits. Hippies

Follows generalization about those who disagree as generalizers and unsubstantiated argument with wildly hyperbolic generalization.

Verdict: A**hole 3777

3rdpath

Jan 23, 2003, 02:22 PM

as a g'dam american i have rights!

no tree-huggin commie liberal's gonna tell me what i can or can't do. hell, don't even suggest anything to me. in fact, don't even ask me to think about acting responsibly because i don't havta. being myopic about my global responsibilities is a god-given right. and god loves us americans the most.

if you do make me think, i'm gonna lash-out and call you names...because you're acting unamerican, g'dammit. i wish all you jane fonda sympathizing peaceniks would just move to russia.

if i can afford it, i can drive anything i want...because thats how things are decided here in the good ole U.S of A. ya know, walk softly and drive a big truck as truman used to say. hell, every country on this planet would just be a big pile of dirt if we hadn't saved 'em during the war...they're lucky we just don't take their oil since it should be ours anyway.

well, gotta go. time to drive my super-sized truck to mcdonald's and get me a couple of big macs...god i wish i could drink a beer on the way...h'mmm wonder why they passed that law..could it be that the majority of people couldn't act responsibly unless it was legislated? no, just some left-wing commie plot.

oh, have a nice day now, ya'hear...

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 23, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Taft

Christ! Here we go again. All liberals are touchy-feely tree-hugging hippies! You're a joke! A complete and utter joke! And you're hatred of people whose lifestyle or ideology is to the left borders on racism. He was responding to the fact that you nastily generalized a liberal soccer mom in her volvo. Get a clue.

I contributed to the anti-SUV campaign that Arianna Huffington recently started. And I'm proud of it. The anti-drug campaign the anti-SUV ads parody are a joke and deserve to be parodied. And SUV's are one of the most gluttonous pieces of machinery a person can own these days.

Explain to me why you think SUVs are either necessary or not evil. They consume a non-renewable natural resource at an alarming rate which contributes to pollution which constributes to global warming, not to mention increasing our counry's reliance on Mid-Eastern oil. The are also very dangerous when compared to a car. They much more likely to roll over than a car and their size makes them dangerous to other cars on the road.

For me, the environmetal threat that is embodied by America's love of these behemoths is quite alarming. Why does a person living in the Chicago need a vehicle that can cover terrain better than a small truck? I know so many people who own SUVs and then only use them for their commute every morning; probably the least efficient form of transportation available used every morning for a commute. Its a joke!

Whats the appeal of these things? Is it a status symbol? Is it to compensate for something small in the drawers? What can justify the environmental and political threat these things pose?

Taft What you said here is true and the sad fact is this is a direct result of our epa who made it cheaper&easier to build trucks that evolved into the SUV then cars, so now everyone is driving these monsters which guzzle more gas then automobiles! We need common sense in govt but it seems like that will never occur. But to your question NO I drive a MGB that I would like to replace with a Mini cooper S. Food for thought we need to conserve and searchfor and develope better energy surces but when that happens oil becomes cheap and we are back using guzzlers. Look at the comparison of the 70s and now. Govt should reward new technologies and thriftyness and tax/punish excessiveness and waiste but free markets dont allow for that so here we are. Hey look at this way - the oil is a finite source so when its all gone they will have to use those alternative technologies and fuels only it wont be in our lifetime!

3777

Jan 23, 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by charboneau
Let's see 3777's first post:

He's a hippy, he can't help it. While I think the SUV bashing is a joke, (Especially WWJD and the Huffington crap) I certainly am looking forward to the hybrid electric Jeeps, Xterra's, Hummers, etc...... of the future. I would love to get 40-50mpg in my SC Frontier crew cab

Name calling

Second:
What these people fail to understand is that if they go after the vehicles and their owners, it's just going to backfire and make them look like the tree huggers that they are....... But if they do less bashing of the vehicles and their drivers, and instead push for faster development of the hybrid - electric engines, then no one will oppose them, because everyone wants a vehicle with good gas mileage

Generalization, name calling and outright ignorance. Specifically, with the lobbying of the auto industry bringing tax breaks to SUV buyers, etc. only public disapproval and AWARENESS of overconsumption can bring about change.

Third:

There is no worse driver in the world then a soccer mom in a volvo. She's usually driving the thing because she's already been in about 10 accidents, and since Volvo's are like tanks, she throws caution to the wind, plowing through stop signs, yield signs, red lights, etc.....

Relatively mild generalization

Fourth:

Wow you have issues don't you

It's funny how liberals will just bash and insult you after you disagree with them.....but they never really respond to the arguments in your posts. It's just "yhea well your ignorant and Bush is a crook and you piss me off" .........& why don't the Liberals respond? Because they have no argument. They are full of ***** and they know it, and they're just looking for a reason to put on gas masks and throw bricks through glass windows during G8 summits. Hippies

Follows generalization about those who disagree as generalizers and unsubstantiated argument with wildly hyperbolic generalization.

Verdict: A**hole 3777

Ah, from the French, thanks:cool:

OutThere

Jan 23, 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by 3777

Ah, from the French, thanks:cool:

Sounds like a good plan-make an *** of yourself and then make sure that everyone knows it by making stupid comments.

I have two sides on the SUV debate-

I dont know where the hell people see justification driving a hummer or land rover getting 12 mpg around a city, and rarely ever out of it very far. If you are going to live just in the city ditch the beast and get a hybrid, they get 5-6 times the fuel mileage and can park almost anywhere. It doesn't make any sense to have a huge suv if you live in the city. They are just going to pollute whatever clean air is left, and in the big cities the roadcrews generally do a pretty good job of getting rid of the excess snow on the streets. If you rarely leave the city and dont carry ladders or heavy equipment around then there is little reason to drive a bumbling ungraceful SUV around the overfull streets.

If you live in an area that gets lots of snow, has very muddy roads, have a driveway that can't be well maintained in the winter, carry ladders, carry heavy equipment, or runa construction company, run a ranch or farm then it makes sense to have a large truck or SUV, otherwise they are a waste of space.

zarathustra

Jan 23, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

if that's your only reason, then that's quite pathetic.

i believe that some drugs should be illegal, but not things like pot, etc... especially as alcohol is still legal.

while i do not think that suvs should be done away with completely, that does not mean that they are not bad, if overused.

alcohol is legal, but it clearly has its downsides.... similarly, some legal things can have bad effects if used improperly. and i would say that overuse of suvs by people who don't need them, and the ignoring of their gas guzzling nature, has a far greater social impact than some guy smoking a joint in his room.....

OK Buddy. Lay off. You have obviously not read the whole thread that lead me to say what I said. STOP TAKING WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!! So what: you like to smoke an occasional joint... Couldn't care less. But for him to compare SUVs to drugs as a freedom is ludicrous.

job

Jan 23, 2003, 07:19 PM

****** people...

does every damn thread have to be turned into liberal this, conservative that..?

FFS, if we can't even hold a decent thread over an article than wtf are we doing in a forum.

and that goes for everyone, "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

stuff this bs. i'm gone.

p.s. i drive a beetle and can't stand SUV's. also lexus plans on starting a new species of the SUV: the Luxury Utility Vehicle. I ****** you not.

wdlove

Jan 23, 2003, 08:28 PM

A super SUV!

SPG

Jan 23, 2003, 09:16 PM

Wow. I guess I should have waited to post this when I had time to actually participate.
There are definitely good uses for SUV's and there are plenty of people who can justify owning them. No debate there. But the reality is that most of the SUV's never leave pavement, what was the statistic 96% never, ever go off road even once. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of SUV owners spend the overwhelming majority of their time driving them where a small car would be much better suited.
A lot of people in the Bay Area and SF have these great big trucks that they go grocery shopping and commuting to work alone in, but maybe a quarter of them, once every other month drive up to Lake Tahoe to go skiing. Most of the time the weather's fine, but once a season one of these weekend warriors hits a snowstorm and goes "Thank God I bought an SUV!" Soooo, three trips to Tahoe, total less than a thousand miles. 20,000 a year at 8mpg is 2500 gallons. The Honda Civic that I drove everyday to and from my house on top of a mountain (7000' elevation right at Alpine Meadows, Wootwoot!) had a set of really good snow tires and got about 40mpg so that's 500 gallons of gas. And let's say you pay $1.75 a gallon since you need to use premium in your SUV, and you're not even filling up in Tahoe where it's usually $2.25 you spend another $3500 in gas alone for the privilege of having city tires and a high center of gravity in a snowstorm. Not to mention that SUV's cost way more than cars and your insurance is a lot higher since when you roll over you will be in the hospital longer (if you're lucky and don't die).
For $3500, you can charter a small plane and a chauffer for those three trips to Tahoe or even split rent on a house up there.
BTW, on all my trips up and down Alpine Meadows, the only vehicles I ever saw in the ditch were SUVs and Toyota Pickups, only once there was a car and it was hit by an SUV.
So why post this thing about SUV's? The way I see it and a few of the people on this forum were on to it, is that it's becoming far too typical of people in our society to forget that they are a member of this society. We're all in it together and if everyone acts like a pig and only looks out for themselves we'll be in big trouble real soon, whoops, wait we already are.

Getting dropped off in Moscow in January? Been there, done that. I've been to Eastern Europe plenty when communism was in full swing, and to be honest the feeling is not entirely unlike what you're hearing about now with pronouncements of justifications for extreme actions by an unpopular government. And for the record there were plenty of people who thought that what Stalin was doing was necessary for the good of the country.
I was also in South Korea when their economy crashed back in '98. That was pretty creepy too.

bombensington

Jan 23, 2003, 09:47 PM

i drive a geo metro.

SUVs = scary.

jelloshotsrule

Jan 23, 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by zarathustra
OK Buddy. Lay off. You have obviously not read the whole thread that lead me to say what I said. STOP TAKING WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!! So what: you like to smoke an occasional joint... Couldn't care less. But for him to compare SUVs to drugs as a freedom is ludicrous.

haha. ok... sure

actually i did read the whole thread, and i still don't see how i took your words out of context.

i took them to mean that because drugs are illegal, and suvs aren't, you can't compare the freedoms to have one or the other....

my point was that an object can be legal, and still be misused, or in this case overused.

as for "you like to smoke an occasional joint..." now you are the one who didn't read the thread. in my previous post (to the one you replied to), i had said:

people who smoke pot should not be led to believe that their doing so supports terrorism.

and that's coming from someone who does no drugs, thinks they are dumb, etc...

but i'd really love to hear how it's so "ludicrous" to compare suvs and drugs....

joe smokes pot.. he likes to toke up every night in fact... ok

john drives an suv... one day he gets in a little bit of an accident... well, it would have been, except that his tahoe's bumper was at the height of someone's windshield and took the top clear off their car...

my point is merely that both these things can be a. used properly and not dangerously... and b. used improperly and dangerously.

likewise. joe could drive after he smokes pot. his senses are a bit off, he gets into an accident... and john could drive his suv to haul his boat on the weekends, and his prius on the weekdays to and from work....

ahh

ChicagoMac

Jan 23, 2003, 10:51 PM

I drive a mid sized suv and I live in the city of Chicago. Some may say it's unnecessary for me, but for my profession and family it is the right vehicle. Also, I do use the off road abilities of my 4x4 when we go to my inlaw's farm. I could probably go with a minivan (and I may when I'm done with this vehicle), but they really don't get any better gas mileage, they just have bigger gas tanks. I think the key here is to get the conservation word out without attacking. People don't respond well when attacked and they only listen to people they respect. There is no quick answer to our environmental problems, but we can begin to make rational and realistic steps towards environmental change and education on the facts (not opinions). There are many things we need to value in life, this is just one area. How are you doing in the other areas?

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 08:31 AM

Look, do I like SUV's no. If my wife wanted one would I buy it for her, yes. Is the sky blue, yes. Will SUV's destory the earth, NO.

Don't try to save everything from harm, because harm will come to everything no matter what. When mother nature is tired of us she will whipe us off the face of the planet.

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Don't try to save everything from harm, because harm will come to everything no matter what. When mother nature is tired of us she will whipe us off the face of the planet.

you've got to be kidding me

i'm not saying that suv's are singlehandedly destroying the earth... but they are speeding things up

so if you had say the option between doing a few things extra and restricting some aspects of life so that the world would last 200 years, or living "freely" and having the world only live 50... you'd go with the latter? i'm sure your daughter would be thrilled to hear that.

now clearly, we don't know the time and realistic results of all these things 100%. however, surely you can see that if we use all our non-renewable resources, then many many things will change, some for the worse. how shortsighted can you possibly be??

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by ChicagoMac
I drive a mid sized suv and I live in the city of Chicago. Some may say it's unnecessary for me, but for my profession and family it is the right vehicle. Also, I do use the off road abilities of my 4x4 when we go to my inlaw's farm. I could probably go with a minivan (and I may when I'm done with this vehicle), but they really don't get any better gas mileage, they just have bigger gas tanks. I think the key here is to get the conservation word out without attacking. People don't respond well when attacked and they only listen to people they respect. There is no quick answer to our environmental problems, but we can begin to make rational and realistic steps towards environmental change and education on the facts (not opinions). There are many things we need to value in life, this is just one area. How are you doing in the other areas?

well said. i for one try to conserve in all aspects of life... not just the car i drive....

as for the vans... they do usually get about 5 or so miles per gallon better.. and they certainly are safer. but indeed, i don't see your use of your suv as "unnecessary" really. and here's the main thing... you're conscious of the issue... so many people don't even think about it. which is where the real problem is...

ChicagoMac

Jan 24, 2003, 09:06 AM

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

you've got to be kidding me

i'm not saying that suv's are singlehandedly destroying the earth... but they are speeding things up

so if you had say the option between doing a few things extra and restricting some aspects of life so that the world would last 200 years, or living "freely" and having the world only live 50... you'd go with the latter? i'm sure your daughter would be thrilled to hear that.

now clearly, we don't know the time and realistic results of all these things 100%. however, surely you can see that if we use all our non-renewable resources, then many many things will change, some for the worse. how shortsighted can you possibly be??

Jello, that is fine, and I love ya and all brother right. Please find me any real evidence, proof, or studies from accredited institutions that show that SUV's are bad for the environment. They are better than the cars from the 50's, 60's, and 70's and 80's in emmissions. Plus, please prove that emmisioins are harmful. We know there is a hole in the ozone, but there is more evidence that it is natural than unnatural. In fact in recent years it is getting smaller.

Personally my next car will be a hybrid, or methane car because I don't want to support the middle east anymore. But when we stop buying oil one day, that is when the real terror will start. They hate us now because we make their goverments super rich, imagine when they become super poor!

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac Jello, that is fine, and I love ya and all brother right. Please find me any real evidence, proof, or studies from accredited institutions that show that SUV's are bad for the environment. They are better than the cars from the 50's, 60's, and 70's and 80's in emmissions. Plus, please prove that emmisioins are harmful. We know there is a hole in the ozone, but there is more evidence that it is natural than unnatural. In fact in recent years it is getting smaller.

Personally my next car will be a hybrid, or methane car because I don't want to support the middle east anymore. But when we stop buying oil one day, that is when the real terror will start. They hate us now because we make their goverments super rich, imagine when they become super poor!

bah. i'm the worst person when it comes to finding a particular research online. so i'm gonna hope that someone else comes along and finds a link... but i can say from my own experiences...

1. these things use MORE fuel than cars, vans, etc... and that alone is BAD. they may not burn any less cleanly (though i doubt it), but the sheer consumption is bad.

2. i've got a chemical engineer brother who is constantly talking about the efficiency of cars... and i tend to believe him, given his knowledge and research of chemical engineering and such. as well as a friend working for bp solar (another chem eng) who talks the same way... and he is strongly for more efficient engines, ie, burning closer to 100% efficiency, rather than just upping gas mileage, as the engines might still not burn as efficiently.

you asking for all this proof reminds me of something... oh yeah, other folks asking for proof about saddam... haha :)

the ozone layer is not the only result of emissions... how about cancer rates? how about asthma rates? that same brother of mine worked for a pharmaceutical company for about 6 years before getting so frustrated with them that he left... he is currently at law school and has researched the asthma rates and cancer rates in various places where there are more cars (ie, urban) areas... now granted, not all of these things are only suvs... but also factories and such... but emissions in general...

as for which car you will buy next... sounds good. and my real issue is, like i've said, that people in general don't stop and think. they just spend the cash on whatever makes them feel good at the tiem, without thinking of consequences.... and i'm sorry, but i believe that the consequences of these things are far enough reaching in impact that they need to be restricted and regulated.

3777

Jan 24, 2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

bah. i'm the worst person when it comes to finding a particular research online. so i'm gonna hope that someone else comes along and finds a link... but i can say from my own experiences...

1. these things use MORE fuel than cars, vans, etc... and that alone is BAD. they may not burn any less cleanly (though i doubt it), but the sheer consumption is bad.

2. i've got a chemical engineer brother who is constantly talking about the efficiency of cars... and i tend to believe him, given his knowledge and research of chemical engineering and such. as well as a friend working for bp solar (another chem eng) who talks the same way... and he is strongly for more efficient engines, ie, burning closer to 100% efficiency, rather than just upping gas mileage, as the engines might still not burn as efficiently.

you asking for all this proof reminds me of something... oh yeah, other folks asking for proof about saddam... haha :)

the ozone layer is not the only result of emissions... how about cancer rates? how about asthma rates? that same brother of mine worked for a pharmaceutical company for about 6 years before getting so frustrated with them that he left... he is currently at law school and has researched the asthma rates and cancer rates in various places where there are more cars (ie, urban) areas... now granted, not all of these things are only suvs... but also factories and such... but emissions in general...

as for which car you will buy next... sounds good. and my real issue is, like i've said, that people in general don't stop and think. they just spend the cash on whatever makes them feel good at the tiem, without thinking of consequences.... and i'm sorry, but i believe that the consequences of these things are far enough reaching in impact that they need to be restricted and regulated.

What happened to your hippy Jesus avatar? :( :confused: :(

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by 3777
What happened to your hippy Jesus avatar? :( :confused: :(

what are you even talking about?

if you mean my old avatar, it's luke wilson from the royal tenenbaums..

not a hippie. or jesus.

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

you asking for all this proof reminds me of something... oh yeah, other folks asking for proof about saddam... haha :)

I put up a pdf for everyone in the bush is evil thread. Go read it. It may make you support the war effort.

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

what are you even talking about?

I think he is thinking of Krossfyters buddy Jesus avatar.

3777

Jan 24, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

what are you even talking about?

if you mean my old avatar, it's luke wilson from the royal tenenbaums..

not a hippie. or jesus.

Whatever he is I liked him:D It was definitely one of your avatars i'm thinking of:D

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 09:47 AM

i'd suggest seeing the movie then

"the royal tenenbaums"

jefhatfield

Jan 24, 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

They are better than the cars from the 50's, 60's, and 70's and 80's in emmissions. Plus, please prove that emmisioins are harmful.

first sentence...good point...you have been doing your homework

second sentence...emissions are not harmful...heck i sprinkle ebola on my cereal everyday:p :p :p :p :p :p

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

first sentence...good point...you have been doing your homework

second sentence...emissions are not harmful...heck i sprinkle ebola on my cereal everyday:p :p :p :p :p :p

HA! That was the first time that I have laughed in a while. Sure, the SUV consumption wise is a pig, but in reallity it is a great leap in safety and emissions as compaired to say a 78 nova with a 350 and 4 barrel carb. :)

Not to mention that every redneck in the world always put straight pipes on their cars. Just get a state vehicle inspection in Alabama and you will reduce emmissions in the US by 25% ;)

mcrain

Jan 24, 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by 3rdpath
as a g'dam american i have rights!

no tree-huggin commie liberal's gonna tell me what i can or can't do. hell, don't even suggest anything to me. in fact, don't even ask me to think about acting responsibly because i don't havta. being myopic about my global responsibilities is a god-given right. and god loves us americans the most.

if you do make me think, i'm gonna lash-out and call you names...because you're acting unamerican, g'dammit. i wish all you jane fonda sympathizing peaceniks would just move to russia.

if i can afford it, i can drive anything i want...because thats how things are decided here in the good ole U.S of A. ya know, walk softly and drive a big truck as truman used to say. hell, every country on this planet would just be a big pile of dirt if we hadn't saved 'em during the war...they're lucky we just don't take their oil since it should be ours anyway.

well, gotta go. time to drive my super-sized truck to mcdonald's and get me a couple of big macs...god i wish i could drink a beer on the way...h'mmm wonder why they passed that law..could it be that the majority of people couldn't act responsibly unless it was legislated? no, just some left-wing commie plot.

oh, have a nice day now, ya'hear...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha --- OH MY, someone else with a sense of humor like mine! Ha ha ha ha ha

jefhatfield

Jan 24, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

HA! That was the first time that I have laughed in a while. Sure, the SUV consumption wise is a pig, but in reallity it is a great leap in safety and emissions as compaired to say a 78 nova with a 350 and 4 barrel carb. :)

Not to mention that every redneck in the world always put straight pipes on their cars. Just get a state vehicle inspection in Alabama and you will reduce emmissions in the US by 25% ;)

i am an asian american who drives a very clean volvo and i live in a nice house, i like small dogs, and i have several degrees and credentials

but any way i slice it, i am from the backwoods county of monterey county california...largest building being 12, yes count them 12 stories, and most of us here, regardless of race, are pretty much rednecks or people who pretend not to be and call everybody else rednecks

it is kind of like the yuppies a couple counties north 35 minutes away where they are all yuppies but accuse the other person of being a yuppie as if the term carries leprosy with it

but as a centeral northern california backwoods redneck, i don't know what a straight pipe can do for a car and if that is bad for the emmissions or not;)

OutThere

Jan 24, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Plus, please prove that emmisioins are harmful. We know there is a hole in the ozone, but there is more evidence that it is natural than unnatural.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/05-autos.htm

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by OutThere761

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/05-autos.htm

and there it is... thanks!

jefhatfield

Jan 24, 2003, 12:05 PM

dr bill wattenburg, former nuclear weapons scientist, and ultra hawk, believes there is no ozone layer and there is no proof of such an entity

he also believes it is physically impossible to get more miles per gallon from a car than we currently get...he said that many years ago and was proven wrong...as a radio talk show host he swears up a storm if someone brings it up and insults them before going into an anti environmentalist speech...same speech every week...every month...every year ;)

and he thinks environmentalists are hurting the environment

Taft

Jan 24, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Look, do I like SUV's no. If my wife wanted one would I buy it for her, yes. Is the sky blue, yes. Will SUV's destory the earth, NO.

Don't try to save everything from harm, because harm will come to everything no matter what. When mother nature is tired of us she will whipe us off the face of the planet.

I'm sorry, dude, but this attitude really sucks.

So are you for destroying the EPA? Or repealing all of our current clean air and water act? Or getting rid of all the needless recycling programs cities institute?

I mean, the earth's going to be detroyed eventually, anyway. Why even TRY?

For a man so focused on protecting his daughter from the potential evils of terrorism and the Iraqi regime, this attitude seems incredibly short-sighted and unwise.

The truth is with more awareness, care, and technological solutions, we can live in harmony with the ecosystem of this planet. That kind of statement is part of the polution problem facing the earth. When people hear a voice saying "We don't need to worry about it. Everything is fine!" they may start thinking they don't need to conserve or recycle or be eco-friendly. That is a very dangerous situation.

We still have a long way to go as a nation and a world if we are to beat the problems of pollution and excessive waste. Try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Taft

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 12:12 PM

Taft, you miss my point. No, I am an environmentalist, but the point I am making is that people act like we are destroying earth. Do you know what does 10 times more damage to the ozone than our cars? Cow Farts! There is more methaine in a cow fart than if you ran your car for hours.

Fact is we are getting better, but trying to outlaw suvs is not the answer, alternative fuel are.

3777

Jan 24, 2003, 12:12 PM

Rower_CPU

Jan 24, 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by 3777
Erm...... you may want to have a nice chat with the Chinese first, as they are the number 1 polluter in the world. You can bring yourself to criticize a communist regime right? :D

Erm...you have a link to back that up?

jefhatfield

Jan 24, 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Taft

I'm sorry, dude, but this attitude really sucks.

So are you for destroying the EPA? Or repealing all of our current clean air and water act? Or getting rid of all the needless recycling programs cities institute?

I mean, the earth's going to be detroyed eventually, anyway. Why even TRY?

For a man so focused on protecting his daughter from the potential evils of terrorism and the Iraqi regime, this attitude seems incredibly short-sighted and unwise.

The truth is with more awareness, care, and technological solutions, we can live in harmony with the ecosystem of this planet. That kind of statement is part of the polution problem facing the earth. When people hear a voice saying "We don't need to worry about it. Everything is fine!" they may start thinking they don't need to conserve or recycle or be eco-friendly. That is a very dangerous situation.

We still have a long way to go as a nation and a world if we are to beat the problems of pollution and excessive waste. Try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Taft

it is politically incorrect for the gop to care for the environment...that would make them sound like a liberal and against the better interest of commerce

i have a couple of friends who are pro environmentalists who are republicans...one is so ashamed to view his beliefs in public but he is still a staunch supporter of greenpeace and the sierra club

my other republican friend who is an environmentalist has been involved in environmentalist causes and has corresponded with gov davis on related issues...my friend is the only republican willing to work bipartisan and work towards helping the planet

the gop is just not prioritizing these things at this time...but they are working on other worthy causes like an eventual tax cut both parties can agree with...and they are fighting terrorism...maybe not by the terms i would like, but they are going after the culprits one by one and this needs to be done...no matter who is in the oval office

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 12:24 PM

Jef,
I am an environmentalist, and a Republican. I think that people label each party with the hardline view of that party. I do understand where you are coming from, and commend your view of things.

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Taft, you miss my point. No, I am an environmentalist, but the point I am making is that people act like we are destroying earth. Do you know what does 10 times more damage to the ozone than our cars? Cow Farts! There is more methaine in a cow fart than if you ran your car for hours.

Fact is we are getting better, but trying to outlaw suvs is not the answer, alternative fuel are.

yeah... but you still eat steak, now don't you??? so should we get rid of cows before we get rid of suvs? personally, i think america (and probably everywhere) eats way too much meat.. to the point that it's "necessary" to have a factory farm system that not only abuses animals, but does a great deal of harm (as you said) to the environment... these factory farms are "necessary" to provide enough meat to people, because they eat too much of it....

also, i would like you to find the quote from this thread where anyone said we should outlaw suvs. i don't think you can. ;)

no one is saying to outlaw them (certainly i am not), but rather, to limit the use of them (not so much through laws as through people's awareness in my opinion) as well as make them safer and more fuel efficient.... so why is this such a bad thing?

jefhatfield

Jan 24, 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Jef,
I am an environmentalist, and a Republican. I think that people label each party with the hardline view of that party. I do understand where you are coming from, and commend your view of things.

as far as hardline, the last party to have a hardliner was truman and fdr with their social programs in a move to totally change america

every president since then has been a moderate

ike was moderate and not too keen on the defense establisment knowing what war can do to people

jkf, while a democrat, knew the need to explore space and invent the delta force special forces

lbj, while democrat, seemed to believe in the vietnam war enough to keep us there and escalate

nixon, while republican, and ford, brought us out of the war for good

carter had some liberal leanings but still had to cater to the more conservative south which helped put him in the white house

reagan got in on the strength of democrats who crossed the line and beat out the traditional conservative bob dole for the gop nomination

bush instituted the americans with disabilities act

clinton was a business minded democrat and worked with wall street to give us a solid time in our economy

bush reached out to minorities and elected minorities and women to hold key positions in his administration

so we have not seen a hardliner since january of 1953...fifty years ago

jelloshotsrule

Jan 24, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
so we have not seen a hardliner since january of 1953...fifty years ago

it's all about pandering.... the two parties have essentially become one in the same.

let's get a few more parties in there....

jefhatfield

Jan 24, 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

let's get a few more parties in there....

i am with you on that:D

cr2sh

Jan 24, 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i'd suggest seeing the movie then
"the royal tenenbaums"

This movie comes up in our topics of dicsussion, more frequently than any other movie, EVER! :) It is so good.. you do need to watch it if you haven't already!

Taft

Jan 24, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Do you know what does 10 times more damage to the ozone than our cars? Cow Farts! There is more methaine in a cow fart than if you ran your car for hours.

It is absolutely not true that car farts are more contaminating than cars. They may produce more methane, but that isn't saying much. Methane accounts for less than 20% of green house gases (I've seen 15-18%). Carbon dioxide accounts for a bit over 50%. While methane is a "better" greenhouse gas (it bends and traps UV rays better), it actually accounts for less of the greenhouse effect because of the small amount produced and existing in earth's air. Methane is produced by all animals (even your farts), but is most highly concentrated as a result of agriculteral fertilizers.

Carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles have actually increased in cars over the last 20 years (the paper from the EPA linked to in this thread suggests this). This is actually good, because the CO2 is being produced instead of more harmful gases. But nonetheless, more of it is being produced by cars.

While I don't have a link showing all of these facts on hand, the information is readily available on the internet. I'll check out the EPA's site when I get a chance.

Taft

Taft

Jan 24, 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by cr2sh

This movie comes up in our topics of dicsussion, more frequently than any other movie, EVER! :) It is so good.. you do need to watch it if you haven't already!

I think I've seen that movie thirty times. Its the best. How did we get on this topic again? :D

Taft

Xero

Jan 24, 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by 3777

Om my god your so full of crap it's not even funny. Your a complete hypocrite...... besides I thought you were done with me? Can't even live up to your own promises:rolleyes:

P.S. Please all Macrumors members, read all recent post by Taft, Spg, and myself ....and feel free to draw your own conclusions as to which of us are the @$$holes. :p

hmm, looks like youre far in the lead as being head "asshole" on this thread.

you are an ignorant fool. period. dont even try to respond to what im saying because ive made my point and will not respond or care for that matter.

my opinion on SUV's? i cant stand the fact that these things are even on the road. theres NO upside to these things BESIDES people who actually use them for what they are made for [or what they were originaly made for, for that matter]. another self-infilicted slap in the face by corperate america, yipee.

EDIT: i wrote this before reading through the whole thread, sorry if that bothers anyone.

Backtothemac

Jan 24, 2003, 02:39 PM

Taft, the only problem with the green house effect, is that it is theory. It is not fact. There is no proof, that shows that it is happening. We still don't even know enough about this planet to figure everything out yet.

I just think that some people have a knee jerk reation with the environment, just like some like my have one in foriegn policy.

sturm375

Jan 24, 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Taft, the only problem with the green house effect, is that it is theory. It is not fact. There is no proof, that shows that it is happening. We still don't even know enough about this planet to figure everything out yet.

I just think that some people have a knee jerk reation with the environment, just like some like my have one in foriegn policy.

Tough thing about science, there is no hard and fast proof. Nothing, NOTHING is ever proven true in science. That is the nature of science. Even the "Laws" of science have to be adjusted because of new observations. Case in point, if we were to use Newton's laws of gravitation, we would have missed the Moon by several miles.

So, the fact that it is a theory means that it started with an observation (probably more than one), then an hypothesis was formed. Expirments were preformed to DISPROVE the hypothesis. When that didn't happen, after many experiments, it became a Theory. At least that is how I remember the Scientific Method.

Don't let this discourage you though, I also think there is more to know about the Ozone interaction, and these pollutants. I doubt that the combustion in a modern vehicle causes much pollution, compaired to the refining process to make the gas, or producing the plastics necessary for our lives.

Taft

Jan 24, 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Taft, the only problem with the green house effect, is that it is theory. It is not fact. There is no proof, that shows that it is happening. We still don't even know enough about this planet to figure everything out yet.

I just think that some people have a knee jerk reation with the environment, just like some like my have one in foriegn policy.

You're right. There is no proof, only a lot of evidence. And also about that bit that cars are way better now than they have ever been. They are, but they still pollute. Maybe just a little compared to a huge factory, but when 75% of Americans drive a car every day, that little bit of pollution adds up.

But there are environmental facts that are undeniable.

1) The world temperature has risen over the last few years.

2) The polar ice caps are receding.

3) Oil is a non-renewable resource and high consumption will lead to faster depletion of a resource we will NEVER GET BACK.

While we don't have ALL the answers about why. We have some sound theories based off the evidence at hand.

While I don't argue we should get rid of cars or SUVs, erring on the sid eof informed caution is never a bad thing. As we examine the facts, we find evidence that leads to the formation of theories. We should adjust our behavior as the veracity of the theories is determined more absolutely.

While I don't think we should cut out all pollution (and therefore all progress) right now, we can do things to reduce our waste and pollution that don't impede progress, but rather take only small changes in lifestyle. These small changes will ENSURE that we, as a race, can continue to survive on this earth.

Or we can roll the dice, ignore the evidence and spit in the face of the theories most people support.

Taft

Kashchei

Jan 24, 2003, 04:18 PM

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030120&s=easterbrook012003&c=1

funkywhat2

Jan 24, 2003, 04:33 PM

Remember people, 10% of the cars make 90% of the "bad stuff."

krossfyter

Jan 24, 2003, 04:37 PM

80 percent of suv owners dont drink hard cider

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid46/pb18097897509500a935ab105065f8c35/fcd1b001.jpg

Rower_CPU

Jan 24, 2003, 04:43 PM

95% of statistics are false ;)

krossfyter

Jan 24, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
95% of statistics are false ;)

this is true.

este vato!

Rower Power!

Rower_CPU

Jan 24, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by krossfyter
this is true.

este vato!

Rower Power!

More like cider power, amigo...

ejb190

Jan 24, 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
95% of statistics are false ;)

Reminds me of one of my favorites:

First gather your facts, then contort them at your leasure. - Mark Twain

Concerning SUV's and weather conditions, I was on my way back from Orlando in January 1996 when that ice storm came through. Everyone (including the big rigs) were running 20-30 MPH on the interstates. Just north of Atlanta a few hours a Blazer goes flying by everyone on the left. Over my CB I hear a truck driver come on with a slow southern dral, "That my friends is a false sense of security." About 5 miles later that Blazer sat in the ditch. Over my radio came that same trucker. "See. Told you so."

I have driven everything from farm tractors and 30 ton grain trucks to ATVs and motorcycles. No matter what you are driving, there is a limit to what you can do and the weather is a huge part of it. So take a hint from what us Mid-Westerners have known for years. Slow down, pay attention, don't follow so close, and give yourself plenty of extra time... And that includes us SUV drivers.

3777

Jan 24, 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Erm...you have a link to back that up?

Here's something I found anyway:

http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/east/9909/26/china.pollution/

Rower_CPU

Jan 24, 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by 3777
Here's something I found anyway:

http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/east/9909/26/china.pollution/

An article from 1999? Surely you can do better than that...

alex_ant

Jan 24, 2003, 07:26 PM

3777

Jan 24, 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

An article from 1999? Surely you can do better than that...

OMG this is what I mean about people like you, you just can't admit to anything. Yhea It's from 1999, so i'm sure the problem is much better 3 YEARS LATER? With even more industrial development???:rolleyes:

law guy

Jan 24, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

it's all about pandering.... the two parties have essentially become one in the same.

let's get a few more parties in there....

I think that's a joke (meaning, I think you're kidding there, but I'm not sure). Now, one party is trying to repeal NEPA protections for all sorts of things - including the reviews needed for forestry management - another party isn't; One party introduced the homeland security bill while another party spent a good deal of time opposing it and then turning it around like it was a GOP bill... then stripped out civil service protections forgetting that when you have to agree with the boss to have job security / not get fired you can end up with an executive with more power than it should have; you have one party that says "Farmers need help" and another that actually votes for it. One party that says "no child should be left behind" and passes less money for education (but says in press releases that the amount is greater) and another party bending over backwards to get better tax treatment for higher ed., more money to states for ed. programs, more money to headstart, more money for lunches so kids can learn, etc.; One party that says "Make no mistake about it, our air is clean and important" - ?? whilst dropping lawsuits against the worst of the coal-fired plants violating Clean Air Act regs. right before the case is settled and invents the catch phrase for global warming: greening and another party that - well just saw a lot of work to keep air clean in the face of ever rising respitory disease rates got out the window; you've ot one party that says - you shouldn't be able to force computer manufacturers to carry your browser and another who instructs the justice dept. to go easy and come to a settlement that Microsoft will be happy with; Oh, it goes on and on and ...

Anyway - I've just purchased a civic Hybrid - taking a real loss on a 2003 Subaru Wagon trade-in to do so - and I highly recommend it. With the $2000 tax credit and getting between 40 to 50 MPG, it's making up that loss quickly. Plus - In VA and MD, one can drive solo in the HOV-2 lanes in a hybrid... priceless.

asparagui

Jan 24, 2003, 11:24 PM

I've lived in LA for three years now without a car.

Enviromentalists who make fun of SUV owners are merely trying to self-rationalize owning a gas-burning vehicle of their own.

My family owns a SUV back home. It comes in handy during the fall when we need to move hay bales.

-Brett
(at home on friday night because of said lack of vehicle...sigh)
universe42.com

Rower_CPU

Jan 25, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by 3777
OMG this is what I mean about people like you, you just can't admit to anything. Yhea It's from 1999, so i'm sure the problem is much better 3 YEARS LATER? With even more industrial development???:rolleyes:

Funny thing is that the whole point of the article you posted is that China was realizing what it needed to do back in '99. A logical person would figure that they have since made steps to improve the situation.

PS. Let's not forget where much of America's computer waste ends up: Asia.

MacFan25

Jan 25, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

There was a Republican political campaign ad on TV a few years ago (don't remember how many) ridiculing his Democrat opponent for voting yes to a bill that would have provided federal funding to the study of this cow fart phenomenon. More proof that REPUBLICANS ARE ANTI COW FART!!

lol :D

3777

Jan 25, 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Funny thing is that the whole point of the article you posted is that China was realizing what it needed to do back in '99. A logical person would figure that they have since made steps to improve the situation.

:rolleyes: And you can really say that with a straight face....

Anyway nice to see the forums back up. That attack took a lot of sites down last night.

Rower_CPU

Jan 25, 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by 3777
:rolleyes: And you can really say that with a straight face....

Yes, I can. Is that all you have to say in response, or is it just that you can't find anything current to back up your original claim?

3777

Jan 25, 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Yes, I can. Is that all you have to say in response, or is it just that you can't find anything current to back up your original claim?

How about you find something to back up your statement that anythings been done by China since '99 there Lenny :o

jelloshotsrule

Jan 25, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by asparagui
Enviromentalists who make fun of SUV owners are merely trying to self-rationalize owning a gas-burning vehicle of their own.

how do you figure?

that statement implies that ALL (ie, 100%) of people who attack suvs and their negative aspects are driving gas guzzling cars of their own... or at least "gas burning"... sure, most people drive a gas burning car... and SOME certainly drive electric cars (very few at this point, but only because of the difficulty, nearly impossible, in getting such a car)... however, to imply that driving a hybrid, or very fuel efficient gas car is not better than driving a gas guzzling suv, just because they both use gas is:

1. ignoring the huge discrepancy in the amount of gas they use.

2. implying that an analogy like.... joe recycles newspaper and plastics at his house... when he attacks his friend tom for not recycling anything, though the opportunity is the same to do so for both, he is merely trying to self rationalize the fact that he does not recycle glass as well....

and thus implies that doing nothing is the same as doing something. which clearly doesn't fit.

doing anything to help someone else, or in this case, the environment, is a big step. and a good deal better than doing nothing...

law guy:... i actually wasn't kidding... don't get me wrong, i would agree with more of a particular party's partyline views than the other, but my point is that even someone like gore, the "environmentalist" that he is when compared to g.w. bush, had a terrible track record with the environment. i apologize in advance because i don't have the data on that, though i specifically remember before the election getting email from my friend who had found several articles about how gore had done this or that to turn his back on environmental concerns. again... perhaps i agree that he'd have been better. but to me, the lesser of two evils is still evil. and regardless of whether i might like candidate x or y from party a or b.... i still want there to be more choice in each election, and that can only be brought about through political reform and more REAL candidates, not ones that are bought by corporations.... word

asparagui

Jan 25, 2003, 06:01 PM

Jello:

1) Unless I'm ganking a ride from somebody, I don't use any gas. I'm not saying that walking is for everybody, but the millions of bicycles I saw in China seem to be doing more for the world than any enviromentalist in a car.

2) That's exactly what I'm driving at. Stuff like this is silly (http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php/983.htm) . If you're going to pick an enemy, be consistent.

Ultimately, though, I think debates on this matter are ignoring the issue.

Gas will be with us until it is replaced by something *better*.

This can be an economic supply/demand problem: increasing taxes on gas or when oil stocks start to run low. Where do you calculate Hubbard's peak?

Alternatively, a new source of fuel/power trains could come onto the scene. Hydrogen research is cool, but has a ways to go: same thing for fuel cells.

Either way, debating these issues won't get much accomplished except for putting more hot air out there.

My family recycles everything under the sun. My dad even made me gather junk metal from the old dump behind our place. However, I'm not sure this does much: most anything other than aluminum (from a energy standpoint) is pointless to recycle, unless you have extremely large quantities.

-Brett

P.S. Is that a zappa avatar?

job

Jan 25, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Taft

But there are environmental facts that are undeniable.

1) The world temperature has risen over the last few years.

2) The polar ice caps are receding.

I've actually researched this topic extensively with the help of my father.

He is a geologist (almost 25 years) and he and I both agree that what the planet is currently undergoing is a cycle, that humanity is simply accelerating.

jelloshotsrule

Jan 25, 2003, 06:43 PM

brett

1. oh, i'll agree with you there. living in nyc, i know the deal with walking mostly. and i do that. and i love going to places like holland where i see small towns in which people bike everywhere. that rules. unfortunately, a good many people can't do that here in this country, in the way our communities are set up...

2. it doesn't say how many people they were hauling, though it does say they had a lot of gear... so their actual use of a van, i have no problem with, it's the fact that they say that all suvs should be burned... ignoring the fact that surely there are SOME uses for them.

yes, gas will be with us until it is replaced. and ultimately, that is the desire of most environmentalists... but being that i'm no scientist, and i can't come up with a new form of power, i will LIMIT my use of energy when i do not need to use it to excess. and i certainly feel that doing something is better than nothing.

as for debating, i disagree. certainly some well thought out discussion can inform and influence younger folks, as well as older folks who either didn't know something or never thought of it that way, or whatever else. i do not find it totally worthless..

my avatar is daniel day lewis from gangs of new york.. he was awesome (per usual) in that...

Rower_CPU

Jan 25, 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by 3777
How about you find something to back up your statement that anythings been done by China since '99 there Lenny :o

I never made any such statement, Barbie. I said that one would figure that they had.

You however, made a statement that China was the number 1 polluter in the world - a claim you have yet to substantiate.

funkywhat2

Jan 25, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

I never made any such statement, Barbie. I said that one would figure that they had.

You however, made a statement that China was the number 1 polluter in the world - a claim you have yet to substantiate.

Well, as I am to gather from this, (Dated April 2001) Australia is the worst greenhouse polluter. And that China has dropped from '98 to '99.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/04/11/FFXZX9BJCLC.html

wwworry

Jan 25, 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i have seen that people in this thread, and in general, seem to lump volvo station wagons with the suv crowd

i have a 19 year old volvo station wagon and it is very safe and not as tall as suv's and i hope not as prone to rollover

Yes, you can not blame the Volvo! More cargo room than an explorer and much better milage. You can even fit a piece of 4 x 8 plywood in one and carry 10 sheets on the top! The engines commonly run for 350,000 miles and the rest (besides the 740) is very reliable, though expensive to fix. the late 80's volvo station wagon is now the hip car to have in Philadelphia and NYC.

for what it's worth..

jefhatfield

Jan 25, 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by wwworry

Yes, you can not blame the Volvo! More cargo room than an explorer and much better milage. You can even fit a piece of 4 x 8 plywood in one and carry 10 sheets on the top! The engines commonly run for 350,000 miles and the rest (besides the 740) is very reliable, though expensive to fix. the late 80's volvo station wagon is now the hip car to have in Philadelphia and NYC.

for what it's worth..

mine is a 1984 model built in 1983 and has 159,000 miles on it in its 19 years of being driven

the age has cut down on its ability to get good mpg, and the rust and wear and tear will give me 30 years total, but not 350,000 miles unless i somehow plan to get 41 to 42 years out of this puppie...which would be cool and keep me on the road until i could collect social security

but i have seen volvos 40-45 years old on the road, rust, dents, holes, and all, running better than some 15 year old american cars

volvos outlast anything, but models from before 1990 will not win any "sexy car" awards...that's for sure

remember the movie "the rock" where nicholas cage played this nerdy scientist with a toatally uncool volvo station wagon...and tan to boot? well, that's my car:eek: :p

wwworry

Jan 25, 2003, 08:22 PM

I am surprised none of you noticed the new tax breaks for owning a completly decked out SUV. Typical of our oil centric administration

Bush Proposal May Cut Tax on S.U.V.'s for Business (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/business/21AUTO.html)

Tax break fuels SUV purchases (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/134602924_trucktaxbreak26.html)

A more efficient car is a better car. Responding to the Japanese imports and the oil crisis and new CAFE standards led to much better American made cars.

The Auto industry loves SUVs as there is much more profit in them (suckers).

Even if there is only a 10% chance that auto emissions will cause global warming, isn't that enough reason to curb auto emissions? A 10% chance of huge malaria outbreaks, mass starvation, rising ocean levels (goodby Venice, goodby Charleston) etc. is a BIG chance. Even a 1% chance is a big chance. Would you want to live next to a nuclear power reactor with a 1% chance of having a melt-down? I think not!

We took lead out of gasoline. That was good.

The way I see it is that the US auto industry will continue to provide us with these stupid SUVs until challenged because they make so much money off them. There is no reason why they can not make a "tough" strong 4WD car which is why most people want in a SUV. Station wagons can have as much cargo capacity as an SUV. Why are there no US made hybrids? Stupidity.

jefhatfield

Jan 25, 2003, 08:32 PM

i am not willing to get most models of suv cars until they get safer

but not all suvs are rollover coffins or gas guzzlers and i kind of like the rav because it does not seem too big

wwworry

Jan 25, 2003, 08:32 PM

also this
I'm Changing the Climate. Ask me how. (http://changingtheclimate.com)

funkywhat2

Jan 26, 2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
also this
I'm Changing the Climate. Ask me how. (http://changingtheclimate.com)

Wow, it might not be ilegal to put bumber stickers on other people's cars.

:rolleyes:

3777

Jan 26, 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

I never made any such statement, Barbie. I said that one would figure that they had.

You however, made a statement that China was the number 1 polluter in the world - a claim you have yet to substantiate.

I think I supplied you with the link, and I think your response was incredibly weak:o

7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world, sounds like the number 1 polluter to me:o

Rower_CPU

Jan 26, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by 3777
I think I supplied you with the link, and I think your response was incredibly weak:o

7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world, sounds like the number 1 polluter to me:o

Hmmm...7/10 in 1999...your point?

In some digging I found more recent articles pointing to (shockingly enough) the US as chief global polluter:

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Kyoto.asp?Print=True
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/08/1034061204845.html
http://www.dawn.com/2001/06/27/int5.htm

Care to try again? :rolleyes:

3777

Jan 26, 2003, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Hmmm...7/10 in 1999...your point?

In some digging I found more recent articles pointing to (shockingly enough) the US as chief global polluter:

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Kyoto.asp?Print=True
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/08/1034061204845.html
http://www.dawn.com/2001/06/27/int5.htm

Care to try again? :rolleyes:

All I see here is propaganda written by liberals with an agenda.:rolleyes: At least my link was from an independent source. :o

SPG

Jan 27, 2003, 11:46 PM

Both of you guys at least can agree that pollution is not good for this planet.

And so if you both agree on that, then how can you justify a vehicle, when driven on paved road to carry a single occupant, that produces way more pollution than a more suitable car?
Not to mention way more dangerous to the ocupant and to anyone it may collide with?
I guess that's the question...how do we as a society survive when everyone only looks out to satisfy their own greed or vanity with little or no concern for how these choices impact the rest of the world?

voicegy

Jan 28, 2003, 12:14 AM

Foolish Earthlings, so passionate about metal, rubber and dead dinosaurs.

To the Passionate Defenders and Owners of SUV'S:

It's a fad. Like fashion, this too shall pass.

To the Passionate Haters of SUV's:

Keep it up. It fans the flames and makes the SUV owners even more cocky. But don't worry...like I said, within 10 years, we'll wonder why the hell we ever drove the things.

Marking my words, 10 years hence, from January 2003.

What a waste of time.

Now....let's talk about how fabulous Apple computers are!! :D

cwieg

Jun 1, 2003, 11:32 AM

It is interesting to see the symbolic associations that we have for
SUVs. For some of us they represent freedom of choice, macho image, convenience, safety(?!). Others see gas wasting, lack of safety, style over substance, and anti-environmental attitude.

In a book i recently read entitled "High and Mighty", I learned that most SUVs are less safe for their drivers than the average car. If you doubt this, read the book. Rollovers claim many lives, and drivers do not realize that four wheel drive does not help when you hit the brakes. So much for safety. The gas wasting issue is troublesome. Even if you hate environmentalists, you should still care about the waste represented by ten miles per gallon vehicles.

But we should not despise SUV drivers on sight. Those who use one to haul a boat uphill have a case. Those who want to feel safer because they will inflict more damage in a collision than they will receive are exhibiting un-Christian attitudes. Those who seek a macho image or wish to show off their wealth need to understand that life is too short to fill with selfish issues. Okay, I preached a little, but I did not resort to name calling.

MacFan25

Jun 1, 2003, 01:12 PM

I think that some people are starting to realize that SUVs maybe arent so safe. I think they are realizing that maybe a car is safer...even though it may not be as big and mighty as an SUV.

tpjunkie

Jun 1, 2003, 02:52 PM

Does anyone remember the early 90s, when SUV owners still were actually using their vehicles for the purpose that they were built for? I'm talking about driving off-road, towing boats and trailers, that sort of thing. The funny thing is, those SUV's were smaller and more fuel efficient than the current SUVs driven by soccer moms today. I drive a '93 Chevy Blazer, which I used for towing a boat (until we had to sell it-more trouble than it was worth...) driving off-road, and it gets about 20 miles to a gallon in the city, 24 on the highway (after the fuel injectors were replaced about 4 years ago) and yet when I pull up to a 2003 blazer, i feel like I'm sitting in a volkswagon beetle. The newer models are about 3 feet higher, 4 feet longer and at least a foot and a half wider than my car. And yet I'd estimate 90% of the consumers buying these cars have no use for them. The cause of these changes? I blame the automakers, for trying to cater to the desires of the booming economy of the mid to late 90s. Now that the US has gone into somewhat of a recession, I expect that this trend will reverse, since no one without a real need for a car that can only manage 15 miles a gallon will be buying one

tazo

Jun 1, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by cwieg
It is interesting to see the symbolic associations that we have for
SUVs. For some of us they represent freedom of choice, macho image, convenience, safety(?!). Others see gas wasting, lack of safety, style over substance, and anti-environmental attitude.

In a book i recently read entitled "High and Mighty", I learned that most SUVs are less safe for their drivers than the average car. If you doubt this, read the book. Rollovers claim many lives, and drivers do not realize that four wheel drive does not help when you hit the brakes. So much for safety. The gas wasting issue is troublesome. Even if you hate environmentalists, you should still care about the waste represented by ten miles per gallon vehicles.

But we should not despise SUV drivers on sight. Those who use one to haul a boat uphill have a case. Those who want to feel safer because they will inflict more damage in a collision than they will receive are exhibiting un-Christian attitudes. Those who seek a macho image or wish to show off their wealth need to understand that life is too short to fill with selfish issues. Okay, I preached a little, but I did not resort to name calling.

way to dig up a 5 mo. old thread :rolleyes: ;)