Priority Parking for Hybrids?

[spaceboots06]

Article: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/priority-parking-for-hybrids/

My Thoughts: Why is this so controversial? People who spend a few more bucks and use better cars should get preferred parking. Can't afford a hybrid? Park further away. Don't want a hybrid? Park further away.

I hope more companies catch on to this.

[barkomatic]

If its a private company its their right to say who can park where so that's fine with me. It's up to that business as to weigh the risk of alienating customers vs. making a statement. I would be against it for any type of government office however.

[yg17]

So what about VW Jetta and Golf TDIs, they're at least as green, if not more, than hybrids; are they included in the special parking?

[steve2112]

This seems lame to me. It's another gimmick. The plug-in spots almost make sense for true electrics and plugin hybrids (assuming they actually make it to market). For regular hybrids? Take your smug pretensions elsewhere. If they really want to be "green", put spots for gas guzzlers closer to the store. Otherwise, they are going to burn more fuel circling around looking for a place to park. A hybrid like the Prius will use zero fuel at typical parking lot speeds, since it is running on electric power.

As far as expensive cars: So, the Porsche owner should be able to park closer because he paid more for his car? How about the Bugatti Veryon? (Then again, I don't think you'll see a Veryon in an Ikea parking lot.)

It is a private business, and they can do pretty much what they want with their parking lot, but it still seems asinine to me.

[paddy]

Article: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/priority-parking-for-hybrids/

My Thoughts: Why is this so controversial? People who spend a few more bucks and use better cars should get preferred parking. Can't afford a hybrid? Park further away. Don't want a hybrid? Park further away.

I hope more companies catch on to this.

What about small cars that cost a lot less than the Prius but are more efficient?

[abijnk]

Hybrids aren't that "green." :rolleyes:

[Ugg]

If they really want to be "green", put spots for gas guzzlers closer to the store. Otherwise, they are going to burn more fuel circling around looking for a place to park. A hybrid like the Prius will use zero fuel at typical parking lot speeds, since it is running on electric power.




If they really want to be green, why not segregate SUVs from smaller vehicles. I think SUVs should be as close to the street as possible. They're a huge hazard near the store where children are more likely to be present. Also, parking spaces near the store should only fit small cars and get progressively larger further from the store.

It's time to stop pretending that SUVs are the standard around which everything else must revolve.

[Zombie Acorn]

Ill just slap a "hybrid" sticker on my z28 and park up front. Who are they to say I didn't covert my hatch and engine for hybrid goodness?

[dukebound85]

Article: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/priority-parking-for-hybrids/

My Thoughts: Why is this so controversial? People who spend a few more bucks and use better cars should get preferred parking. Can't afford a hybrid? Park further away. Don't want a hybrid? Park further away.

I hope more companies catch on to this.

thats the dumbest policy ever

[WinterMute]

According to the Top Gear team (who might be a little biased) the manufacturing process for the battery for the Prius is more polluting in global terms than running a standard car for 10 years....!

Still, if I had to drive that overpriced piece of crap, I'd want some come-back too.

I'd be more interested in improvements to public transport and safety measures for cyclists.

[ucfgrad93]

This seems lame to me. It's another gimmick. For regular hybrids? Take your smug pretensions elsewhere.

It is a private business, and they can do pretty much what they want with their parking lot, but it still seems asinine to me.

Agreed, it is a stupid policy, but they are welcome to do it.

[spaceboots06]

thats the dumbest policy ever

Because...? I think it encourages using a vehicle other than an SUV or Hummer or whatever. Granted, I love the two- and used to own a Land Rover, but what's wrong with letting these people getting better parking?

They're driving "better", so they should have better parking.

[Nukemkb]

Sounds like a darn good idea to me! :D

[dukebound85]

Because...? I think it encourages using a vehicle other than an SUV or Hummer or whatever. Granted, I love the two- and used to own a Land Rover, but what's wrong with letting these people getting better parking?

They're driving "better", so they should have better parking.

i dont quite understnd how its logical to reward parking to those who have hybrids. some people need a truck plain and simple

a hybrid doesnt cut it for most people, me included

[jknight8907]

So a 19mpg 'hybrid' GMC Yukon XL (or whatever they're calling it these days), get's preferential parking over a 50 mpg 'normal' car? Yeah, that makes sense...:rolleyes:

[Rodimus Prime]

crap like those spots makes me want to get a hybrid sticker and slap it on my car.

It stupid because hybrids have turn into the uppy car. Thinking they are such great things for the environment. Put in the fact that batteries are bad and some of the compact cars out there get BETTER gas millage than a hybrid....

I would rather see compacts spots be put close and then saying non compacts will be towed. That would do a lot better

[spaceboots06]

i dont quite understnd how its logical to reward parking to those who have hybrids. some people need a truck plain and simple

a hybrid doesnt cut it for most people, me included

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. When they start doing this to Home Depot parking I'll be moderately confused.

[MacNut]

Yes lets kick out the handicapped parking and tell grandma to park in back because someone with a hybrid is gonna get the good spots.:rolleyes:

[.Andy]

Yes lets kick out the handicapped parking and tell grandma to park in back because someone with a hybrid is gonna get the good spots.:rolleyes:
The places in australia that have priority for hybrids don't do it at the expense of handicapped, elderly, or with infant spots.

[Badandy]

There's expectant mother parking at this shopping mall I go to sometimes. Since the spots aren't legally enforceable, I've parked there before. Walking is good for expectant mothers, I'm doing them a favor. They just don't know it.

[heehee]

Because...? I think it encourages using a vehicle other than an SUV or Hummer or whatever. Granted, I love the two- and used to own a Land Rover, but what's wrong with letting these people getting better parking?

They're driving "better", so they should have better parking.

You mean these...

[Zombie Acorn]

You mean these...

I bet my old crap car gets better mileage than those and it was made 14 years ago.

[spaceboots06]

You mean these...

Okay, I'll reiterate.

I think it encourages using a vehicle other than an non-hybrid SUV.

[dukebound85]

I bet my old crap car gets better mileage than those and it was made 14 years ago.

my 90 celica gets like 27mpgs regularly

take that hybrids

[steve2112]

So a 19mpg 'hybrid' GMC Yukon XL (or whatever they're calling it these days), get's preferential parking over a 50 mpg 'normal' car? Yeah, that makes sense...:rolleyes:

You know, if I owned one of those, I would park it in a spot like this just to spite the people who put it up. It does say parking for hybrids, after all. A 19 MPG hybrid Tahoe actually represents a better value than something like a Prius. Going from 14 to 20 MPG is a much bigger improvement than going from 30 to 40.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/06/06/why_hybrid_suvs/index.html

[Tomorrow]

They're a huge hazard near the store where children are more likely to be present.

I'd like to see you substantiate this statement.

I drive an SUV and I can see out of it many, many times better than I can a car with smaller and fewer windows. My wife drives an Altima and this past week I rented a Camry, and I can barely see out of either of them relative to my Expedition.

You might not feel comfortable driving an SUV. Don't take your shortcomings out on everyone who is.

I think it encourages using a vehicle other than an non-hybrid SUV.

This quote makes no sense to me - how does this kind of attitude on the part of the retailer encourage what anybody is going to drive?

I can see it now - a couple is at the dealership debating on whether to get a new Yukon or a Prius, and they're going to let a friggin' parking space be the swing vote as to which they buy....wow.

[Zombie Acorn]

I drive an SUV and I can see out of it many, many times better than I can a car with smaller and fewer windows. My wife drives an Altima and this past week I rented a Camry, and I can barely see out of either of them relative to my Expedition.


I drove my friends SUV and you cannot see below the hood line which is much higher off the ground than in a regular car. You've probably already ran over 2 year olds running out of walmart and didn't even know. :eek:

The only SUVs I fear are the (allow me to be sexist) grocery getting moms talking on their cell phones and batting off 5 kids in the back seats. Ive almost been crushed at least 3 times.

[Tomorrow]

I drove my friends SUV and you cannot see below the hood line which is much higher off the ground than in a regular car.

Fixed.

I'm 6'-3", the top of my head comes to within 1" of the ceiling of my truck. I can see just fine in front of it - I would certainly see a child that's of walking age. Besides, what moron lets a kid that small cross the street alone?

In my wife's Altima, and especially in the Camry, the hood looks longer and I sit lower in the car relative to the hood - the angle of my vision is much shallower than it is in the truck. My rear-view mirrors are also at least twice as large, making it easier to see behind me.

The downside to having the much larger windows is that it gets hotter than the hinges of Hades on a sunny day.

You've probably already ran over 2 year olds running out of walmart and didn't even know. :eek:

Hopefully you're joking.

No, I've never even run over an animal - but then, I pay attention while I'm driving.

The only SUVs I fear are the (allow me to be sexist) grocery getting moms talking on their cell phones and batting off 5 kids in the back seats. Ive almost been crushed at least 3 times.

See, I don't fear SUV's, or any other vehicle; I fear drivers. There's a huge difference. My SUV has been hit by a Pontiac Grand Prix and a Mazda6 - both times I was stopped at a light, and was hit anyway. Even though the cars were smaller than mine, I still received body damage and had to get it repaired.

There's a huge fallacy at work here - even a small car can send another car to the shop or a person to the hospital. Don't fear the vehicle; fear the driver.

[yg17]

You know, if I owned one of those, I would park it in a spot like this just to spite the people who put it up. It does say parking for hybrids, after all. A 19 MPG hybrid Tahoe actually represents a better value than something like a Prius. Going from 14 to 20 MPG is a much bigger improvement than going from 30 to 40.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/06/06/why_hybrid_suvs/index.html

A 6 MPG improvement is better than a 10 MPG improvement? I'm no mathematician, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[jknight8907]

A 6 MPG improvement is better than a 10 MPG improvement? I'm no mathematician, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

It's a percentage thing. A 30% increase versus a 25% increase.

[yg17]

It's a percentage thing. A 30% increase versus a 25% increase.

But percentage doesn't matter, actual number of gallons consumed is what matters.

[sammich]

But percentage doesn't matter, actual number of gallons consumed is what matters.

You would rather save $2 off a $10 item, than $1 off a $2 item?

[Tomorrow]

But percentage doesn't matter, actual number of gallons consumed is what matters.

Then for that matter, these spots should be reserved for people who live within, say, two miles from the store.

After all, my SUV burns less fuel over a 2 mile drive than a Prius does over a 10 mile drive. By your logic, my vehicle is the better choice.

Please. :rolleyes:

[bruinsrme]

But percentage doesn't matter, actual number of gallons consumed is what matters.

Based on a 1000 miles and $2.50 a gallon
14 mpg would use 71 gallons of gas $177.50
20 mpg would use 50 gallons of gas $125.00

30 mpg would use 33.33 gallons of gas $82.50
40 mpg would use 25 gallons of gas $62.50

But here is my issues, how are some diesels cars in Europe getting 40+ mpgs?
As green as a hybrid is marketed how green is the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries.

I work at a solar panel plant, it aint so green....

[Tomorrow]

But here is my issues, how are some diesels cars in Europe getting 40+ mpgs?

Diesel engines run on a higher compression ratio and, other things being equal, are generally more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines. They're also, other things being equal, generally not as clean-burning as gasoline engines.

As green as a hybrid is marketed how green is the manufacturing and disposal of the batteries.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out. In the coming years there's going to be a wave of dead or dying hybrids headed to either the scrap heap or the salvage yard. I'm sure there's some type of plan somewhere to recycle the batteries, but I don't know what that will entail, how clean it will be, or how reliable it will be - remember, this technology is fairly new on a mass scale.

We already recycle many different kinds of batteries; I'm sure hybrid batteries won't be much different. My big question is, how much will it cost?

[Rodimus Prime]

I'd like to see you substantiate this statement.

I drive an SUV and I can see out of it many, many times better than I can a car with smaller and fewer windows. My wife drives an Altima and this past week I rented a Camry, and I can barely see out of either of them relative to my Expedition.

You might not feel comfortable driving an SUV. Don't take your shortcomings out on everyone who is.


I going to be blunt and cut to the point and it covers your other post on this topic as well.

Simple truth to the matter is you vision out of a SUV is poor than a car. Why you have trouble seeing out of a car compared to your SUV is the blind spots have moved and because of that you are thrown off. This happens to any one when they drive a different car is they have to adjust to new blind spots.

Same thing with the hood is because it is a different length the distances is thrown off. But SUV drivers tend to make more mistakes than cars because they are higher everything seems slower to them. so they do tend to under estimate speeds.

Now to the person bashing you on it. Well they are wrong to. Once you get use to driving and adjust to the change blind spots in a SUV and its raw size it is no different. It just takes some time to learn where everything is and adjust you distances to it.

I am saying all this as some one who normal car is a Sentra but often enough will drive a Truck or an SUV. General they are my parents SUV so I do know the corners to them and have adjusted to them. As for the blind spots when I drive either my brothers Accord or one of my parents accord (which are all very different accords oddly enough) I am thrown off for a little while adjusting to the new blind spots. I am used to my cars blind spots so when what I used to use as a window is now a piller so it feels like my vision is reduced but in reallity it is just the blind spots have been moved.

[jknight8907]

I going to be blunt and cut to the point and it covers your other post on this topic as well.

Simple truth to the matter is you vision out of a SUV is poor than a car.

Depending on the specific cars in question, I would very much disagree with that. I've driven a lot of cars and a lot of SUVs, and have found more than a few SUVs that are very easy to see out of. Cars, especially more 'sleek' cars, can have huge blind spots. Combine that with much smaller wing mirrors than you would get on an SUV, and your vision is drastically cut down.

[Badandy]

Simple truth to the matter is you vision out of a SUV is poor than a car.

I whole-heartedly disagree, and I have a car. In fact, I find it much safer in traffic driving an SUV. You can more easily see how the traffic looks past the couple cars in front of you so you know whether you should speed up or if you think it's about to come to a stop. SUV's provide a whole host of safety concerns but I really don't think visibility is one of them.

[spaceboots06]

Depending on the specific cars in question, I would very much disagree with that. I've driven a lot of cars and a lot of SUVs, and have found more than a few SUVs that are very easy to see out of. Cars, especially more 'sleek' cars, can have huge blind spots. Combine that with much smaller wing mirrors than you would get on an SUV, and your vision is drastically cut down.

Are you kidding? My leased Discovery Land Rover and then leased 2005 Land Rover had more visibility than my current BMW and Jaguar. The mirrors on the Land Rovers were gigantic. I miss those rides. :(

[Badandy]

Are you kidding? My leased Discovery Land Rover and then leased 2005 Land Rover had more visibility than my current BMW and Jaguar. The mirrors on the Land Rovers were gigantic. I miss those rides. :(

I think he's agreeing with you.

[spaceboots06]

I think he's agreeing with you.

:D Reread his post, hahaha.

[Rodimus Prime]

I whole-heartedly disagree, and I have a car. In fact, I find it much safer in traffic driving an SUV. You can more easily see how the traffic looks past the couple cars in front of you so you know whether you should speed up or if you think it's about to come to a stop. SUV's provide a whole host of safety concerns but I really don't think visibility is one of them.

But the SUV increases problems for everyone else on the road. It has been proven SUV increase traffic problems. On top of that if they are involved in a wreck their is more likely to be a death or major injury due to the larger size of it.

For traffic problems the SUV blocks the views of other drivers so they are force to lag farther behind. At stop likes an SUV takes on average longer to get threw the light and on top of that the lag time before the next car enters is even longer.

I want to say for car entering an interstice to the car after them clearing it is 2 second faster than when an SUV enters.


Over all the roads would be safer if all SUV were removed and traffic would flow better.

But we both know that is not going to happen.

[Badandy]

Over all the roads would be safer if all SUV were removed and traffic would flow better.

Believe it or not, some people actually do need an SUV. Sure, a lot don't, but some do.

But we both know that is not going to happen.

Nor should it. I like freedom of choice.

[Tomorrow]

Over all the roads would be safer if all SUV were removed and traffic would flow better.

By the same logic, roads would be safer if all vehicles were the same size, SUV or not.

As long as different size vehicles are available, the size discrepancies will mean that, in general, big car comes out better than little car in a collision between the two.

This applies on a much, much more massive scale with large trucks. I've never driven an 18-wheeler, but I imagine the visibility is quite poor compared with that of a car or SUV. I imagine they have the potential to do vastly more damage in a collision. Are you advocating that those be removed from roads as well?

[KingYaba]

We need the exercise. Don't buy the hybrids. :)

[Rodimus Prime]

By the same logic, roads would be safer if all vehicles were the same size, SUV or not.

As long as different size vehicles are available, the size discrepancies will mean that, in general, big car comes out better than little car in a collision between the two.

This applies on a much, much more massive scale with large trucks. I've never driven an 18-wheeler, but I imagine the visibility is quite poor compared with that of a car or SUV. I imagine they have the potential to do vastly more damage in a collision. Are you advocating that those be removed from roads as well?

Does matter SUV cause more traffic problem. Put more of them on the road even if they where all SUV traffic would be worse than it is now because SUV are slower and the following distance is farther appart.

Believe it or not, some people actually do need an SUV. Sure, a lot don't, but some do.
ce.

I think that is my point. We have to many SUV on the road. To many people drive them who do not need them.

I would have no problem with Business saying all SUV need to park in the back. Violators will be towed. Still lets everyone who needs them have them but at the same time encourages people to drive a smaller car.

I drive a Ram Pick up truck and in the coming months I see myself driving one at least once a week. Mostly because it is easier to throw my mountain bike in the back of a truck than it is to load it up on my car to drive to the trails but then again I am using it like a truck (for its bed)

But there is no getting around the fact to many people drive SUV who do not need them even 1% of the time. If they had a family of 4 teenage kids or more I could buy it. but other wise no.

[yg17]

You would rather save $2 off a $10 item, than $1 off a $2 item?

Apples and oranges comparison you're making....in terms of number of gallons saved by going hybrid, which seems to be the point of encouraging people to buy them, the smaller hybrid wins.

[Tomorrow]

Does matter SUV cause more traffic problem. Put more of them on the road even if they where all SUV traffic would be worse than it is now because SUV are slower and the following distance is farther appart.

Do you actually believe what you're saying? You honestly think that SUV's can't move at 65 mph in a 65 mph zone? You honestly think that the distance between vehicles on the street has only to do with the type of vehicles and nothing to do with the drivers?

Statements like this make me wonder if you're familiar with what an SUV is. It can do everything a car can do in terms of maintaining a safe, legal speed or following distance.

I think that is my point. We have to many SUV on the road. To many people drive them who do not need them.

Who gets to decide who needs a vehicle - you? Do you also get to decide what kind of house someone gets to buy, or what kind of clothes they get to wear? Geez, while we're at it, why don't you start dictating what we need to name our kids?

People buy vehicles based on what they feel their needs are. You don't get to decide that for others.

I would have no problem with Business saying all SUV need to park in the back. Violators will be towed. Still lets everyone who needs them have them but at the same time encourages people to drive a smaller car.

No, it doesn't. I'll grant you that Whole Foods does, and should, have the right to designate parking as they legally see fit - but it isn't going to sway anyone's choice when they're shopping for a vehicle. Anyone who buys a vehicle based on whether Whole Foods lets them park it in front or elsewhere has a screw loose.

But there is no getting around the fact to many people drive SUV who do not need them even 1% of the time. If they had a family of 4 teenage kids or more I could buy it. but other wise no.

Even if you do only "need" it 1% of the time, as defined in your little world where you get to decide who drives what, does that mean someone should buy both an SUV and a smaller car? Would you dictate that as well?

I bought an SUV when my son was born because of all the crap I had to haul back and forth on road trips when he was a baby. Yes, that may have only been 1-2% of my total miles, and yes, it might have fit into a smaller SUV if I packed it to the point where I couldn't see out the back windows - but I bought the vehicle I wanted, and I'm happy with it.

[Unspoken Demise]

If its a privately owned business, I don't care. I think I can muster the strength to walk a couple hundred more feet at worst case senario. I dont get all upset because I can't park in a handicapped spot or an expectant mother's spot: Why should I care that there are 10 less spaces in a parking lot?

[opinioncircle]

If its a privately owned business, I don't care. I think I can muster the strength to walk a couple hundred more feet at worst case senario. I dont get all upset because I can't park in a handicapped spot or an expectant mother's spot: Why should I care that there are 10 less spaces in a parking lot?

Yeah if it's private, it's all right. But I hope this doesn't go crazy (as it usually goes) and we have parking for hybrids only...That's just plain dumb...
The things that bugs me is that I don't park in handicapped spaces and I honestly believe they're useful, but I don't really see the point of hybrids preferred parking spot...It's not like they have an actual NEED to be closer. If you're worried about your charge and how long it will lasts, then don't buy an hybrid...

[Unspoken Demise]

Yeah if it's private, it's all right. But I hope this doesn't go crazy (as it usually goes) and we have parking for hybrids only...That's just plain dumb...
The things that bugs me is that I don't park in handicapped spaces and I honestly believe they're useful, but I don't really see the point of hybrids preferred parking spot...It's not like they have an actual NEED to be closer. If you're worried about your charge and how long it will lasts, then don't buy an hybrid...

Well, yeah, if this gets crazy, I'll be mildly perturbed, but I'm not going to lose sleep. Even if every establishment ever had spots for hybrids, as long as there is enough parking for us 'lowly folk' without a hybrid, again, I'll live. It seems like a silly statement to establish with a company, seeing as hybrids arent that great, and it just adds to the douchebaggery image hybrid drivers already have. See: South Park.

[Prof.]

I support this 100% The Whole Foods in Naperville has preferred parking for their hybrid-driving/ULEV customers. I think it's a great idea.
my 90 celica gets like 27mpgs regularly

take that hybrids
The new Honda Insight gets 45+MPG* for $18,000. Take that!:D

The new 3rd Gen. Toyota Prius gets an EPA estimated 50MPG. Starting at $22,000. Which, IMO, is very affordable.


*EPA rated MPG is 40city/43highway, but actual real-world tested scenarios are averaging 45+MPG.

[Rodimus Prime]

Do you actually believe what you're saying? You honestly think that SUV's can't move at 65 mph in a 65 mph zone? You honestly think that the distance between vehicles on the street has only to do with the type of vehicles and nothing to do with the drivers?


I bought an SUV when my son was born because of all the crap I had to haul back and forth on road trips when he was a baby. Yes, that may have only been 1-2% of my total miles, and yes, it might have fit into a smaller SUV if I packed it to the point where I couldn't see out the back windows - but I bought the vehicle I wanted, and I'm happy with it.

Yes I do. It was a study done my a university I read a few years ago at multiple intersection.
The study showed that SUV where both slower getting threw the intersection and the lag time until the next car entered it was longer. So it made traffic worked.

They also noted on high ways that the following distances between car to car was closer than between SUV and Car. So yes More SUV does = increased traffic problems. It means few verticals on the road. Hell if you want some clear poof of that. Lets look at how much farther people lag behind 18 wheelers compared to cars. reason being is they lag farther behind to see farther down the road. no different with SUVs

As for point 2. Low and behold you fit into the argument. 1-2% of the time you needed an SUV. But some people I have noticed NEVER use the SUV for anything an SUV was designed for. Those being hauling/towing stuff. They use it to get from point A to point B and that is it. Or they use the argument that they are bigger.

SUV are more dangerous than cars. In wrecks with SUV involves it is a greater chance some one will be injured or kill than one involving cars.

You attack me pointing out that there are to many SUV on the road and WAY to many people have them that do not need them. There is no arguing that to many people have SUV who do not need them. I am not judging people but we know people who drive them who use the SUV for hauling, or extra room once or twice the entire time the own them.

[Eanair]

my 90 celica gets like 27mpgs regularly

take that hybrids

My Prius gets ~52 MPG - highway/city combined.

EDIT: Regarding priority parking spots for hybrids...I honestly don't care. I generally park far away from other cars to begin with because I've already had 3 incidents of people hitting my car when they back up.

[pelicanflip]

Priority parking for hybrids? Whatever. Doesn't stop hybrid cars like the Prius from looking like giant eggs on wheels, and it doesn't give me enough incentive to actually want to buy one.

[Desertrat]

Good to know that folks think janitors and clericals gotta park farther away, driving those old second-hand cars.

"I get to park closer, 'cause I can buy a fancier car than you can!"

Odds are, people being people, giving preferential treatment to Greenies is gonna wind up with keying and flat tires. Folks generally don't like having their noses rubbed in the dirt of "He's better than you are."

[Eanair]

What's the point of it?

Incentive? There must be better incentives to get people to buy hybrids than a parking space close to the building.

Some kind of status? Lookie, I've got a hybrid. I'm special.

Maybe they just don't want hybrids silently driving around the parking lot, surprising people who aren't paying attention. Hehe.

[juanm]

But here is my issues, how are some diesels cars in Europe getting 40+ mpgs?

That's true... Three summers ago, I drove my mother's Opel Astra Diesel 1.7 CDTI (aka Vauxhall/Saturn/Holden Astra) on the highway for 907km (563 miles) before hitting the red zone (that's 44 Liters/11.6 Gallons) which means 4.9L/100km or 48 MPG. And it's not the most efficient car out there.
I'd say it's very easy: get a car with a small engine. It won't accelerate as fast, but it's still capable of cruising way faster than the speed limit (which, around here is 75-80 Mph). Plus, it's easier to drive and park (I just travelled around Australia for a year with a Pajero 4WD and a Trailer and it's great to drive a small car). Working vans around here have 2.0-2.5 Engines (at most) and can still carry more stuff than a SUV/pickup.

As for the parking issue, I'd make gas guzzlers park further away, but not make closer spots "Hybrid" because doesn't make any sense. The idea is good, it's just its implementation that's poorly thought.

[Nukemkb]

Look out folks! Here comes an opinion!!! :D

NOT driving a vehicle that gets good mileage is becoming very "old school". :eek::p

[InvalidUserID]

Blah.

If SUVs can park in "compact" parking spots, what is stopping non-hybrid vehicles from parking in those spots?

Unless it is disabled parking, it's fair game as far as I'm concerned.

On a side-note, one of the guys that I work with got so fed up with seeing stickers/plates that read "50 MPG" or "eat my voltage" that he made one that reads "My car negates your hybrid". Amusing to me since those hybrid stickers are snobbish.

[Tomorrow]

Yes I do. It was a study done my a university I read a few years ago at multiple intersection.
The study showed that SUV where both slower getting threw the intersection and the lag time until the next car entered it was longer. So it made traffic worked.

Okay, so people at your university don't know how to drive. :rolleyes: Even if that's the case, how is this bad? See more below:

They also noted on high ways that the following distances between car to car was closer than between SUV and Car. So yes More SUV does = increased traffic problems. It means few verticals on the road.

What it means is that people aren't tailgating each other. That's a Good Thing, if it's anything at all.

As for point 2. Low and behold you fit into the argument. 1-2% of the time you needed an SUV. But some people I have noticed NEVER use the SUV for anything an SUV was designed for. Those being hauling/towing stuff. They use it to get from point A to point B and that is it. Or they use the argument that they are bigger.

So SUV's are not designed to get from point A to point B? Or that they're not bigger? Both are good reasons for choosing a car, in my opinion; where you get to park at Whole Foods is not.

SUV's are not only made for hauling or towing. They're for driving. They're for riding in. They're for going to school, picking up groceries, or going to a doctor's appointment.

My entire point is that neither you, nor anyone else, gets to decide what someone else needs to drive.

You attack me pointing out that there are to many SUV on the road and WAY to many people have them that do not need them.

I attack your claim that one person needs a particular vehicle while another does not. Each buyer gets to decide that; you don't.

There is no arguing that to many people have SUV who do not need them.

And yet, here you are doing it.

I am not judging people but we know people who drive them who use the SUV for hauling, or extra room once or twice the entire time the own them.

And in your esteemed opinion, they aren't allowed to do that? Should they be jailed? Should they have their vehicle confiscated? Tell me; who made you God and granted you Divine Authority to decide whether someone is or isn't properly using their vehicle?

Your logic could be applied to just about anything - someone who buys a meal and doesn't eat all of it isn't using the meal for its designed purpose; someone who buys a textbook and only reads part of it isn't using the book for its designed purpose; someone who buys a shirt and wears it unbuttoned isn't using the shirt for its designed purpose - just because something is, in your opinion, designed for one specific task and one specific task alone, doesn't mean someone is wrong for using it for something more mundane, like driving to work in the morning.

Come down from your moral high horse and join us here in the real world - we buy products we feel suit our needs and use them in the manner in which we feel our needs are met. If you don't want - or feel you need - an SUV, then don't buy one; I don't care. Either way, get off my back for owning one.

(And by the way, yes, you are judging people.)

[rhsgolfer33]

Hell if you want some clear poof of that. Lets look at how much farther people lag behind 18 wheelers compared to cars. reason being is they lag farther behind to see farther down the road. no different with SUVs.

Yeah, lagging behind really isn't the problem here in California. The way people drive here more SUVs would probably decrease rear-enders. You're supposed to leave quite a large distance in front of you and the car in front of you, if you leave what the DMV recommends you won't have any problem seeing in front of an SUV, but most people don't follow those recommendations.

[Dmac77]

If they really want to be green, why not segregate SUVs from smaller vehicles. I think SUVs should be as close to the street as possible. They're a huge hazard near the store where children are more likely to be present. Also, parking spaces near the store should only fit small cars and get progressively larger further from the store.

It's time to stop pretending that SUVs are the standard around which everything else must revolve.

But it's not your right or anyone else's right to punish someone for driving an SUV, or a car that you deem unacceptable because it doesn't get 30 MPG, or whatever is acceptable to you.

Americans like SUVs, not little compacts and hybrids. Deal with it.

Yes I do. It was a study done my a university I read a few years ago at multiple intersection.
The study showed that SUV where both slower getting threw the intersection and the lag time until the next car entered it was longer. So it made traffic worked.

They also noted on high ways that the following distances between car to car was closer than between SUV and Car. So yes More SUV does = increased traffic problems. It means few verticals on the road. Hell if you want some clear poof of that. Lets look at how much farther people lag behind 18 wheelers compared to cars. reason being is they lag farther behind to see farther down the road. no different with SUVs

As for point 2. Low and behold you fit into the argument. 1-2% of the time you needed an SUV. But some people I have noticed NEVER use the SUV for anything an SUV was designed for. Those being hauling/towing stuff. They use it to get from point A to point B and that is it. Or they use the argument that they are bigger.

SUV are more dangerous than cars. In wrecks with SUV involves it is a greater chance some one will be injured or kill than one involving cars.

You attack me pointing out that there are to many SUV on the road and WAY to many people have them that do not need them. There is no arguing that to many people have SUV who do not need them. I am not judging people but we know people who drive them who use the SUV for hauling, or extra room once or twice the entire time the own them.

Do you even realize what you're typing? I guarantee that my Mom's big gas guzzling Jeep, can beat any hybrid or compact. Even me (a new driver), can beat a hybrid or a compact at an intersection, and I have done so multiple times in the month that I have been driving. So you are wrong. A V8 beats a V4 or hybrid any day, as long as an idiot isn't driving.

Also, show me proof that competent drivers hang farther back when they're behind an SUV, because that's not the case when I'm driving the Jeep, in fact I get tailgated a lot, so there is absolutely no truth to what you're saying, unless you studied the driving habits of 90 year olds.

Finally, it's your choice to drive whatever you drive, and it's my Mom's choice to drive her big SUV. Do we need an SUV? No, we don't. Do we like the way our SUV handles and rides better then the way that a sedan or a compact handles? Yes, we like it a lot more. So it's our choice, not yours, and it's not anyones' right to punish us for having our big SUV.

Don

[Eanair]

Americans like SUVs, not little compacts and hybrids. Deal with it.



This American likes little compacts and hybrids. :)

[Dmac77]

This American likes little compacts and hybrids. :)

And that's your right to have your compact or hybrid, and enjoy it. But it's my right (more specifically, my Mom's right) to have a big SUV and enjoy it. No one should be punished for driving a car that's not "green." I personally think that it is completely asinine for Whole Foods to do this.

Don

[Eanair]

No one should be punished for driving a car that's not "green." I personally think that it is completely asinine for Whole Foods to do this.

I feel the same way about spaces reserved for mothers with children, actually.

[Dmac77]

I feel the same way about spaces reserved for mothers with children, actually.

I've never seen a spot for mothers, but I have seen them for pregnant women. I have no problems with reserved parking for pregnant women, but spots for mothers who aren't pregnant are completely stupid.

Don

[dukebound85]

are parking lots under city governance or considered private property and any policy the company wants can be enforced?

[Eanair]

I've never seen a spot for mothers, but I have seen them for pregnant women. I have no problems with reserved parking for pregnant women, but spots for mothers who aren't pregnant are completely stupid.

I can understand the reasoning behind reserving spaces for pregnant women (presumably, women who are far along in their pregnancy and have difficulty walking), but yeah - I don't get the spaces reserved for "Mothers with Young Children."

[Eanair]

a parking lots under city governance or considered private property and any policy the company wants can be enforced?

Well, privately owned lots - the owner can put up whatever restrictions (blue cars here, red cars there) s/he feels like I believe.

I was just commenting that I disagree/don't get it.

[Dmac77]

I can understand the reasoning behind reserving spaces for pregnant women (presumably, women who are far along in their pregnancy and have difficulty walking), but yeah - I don't get the spaces reserved for "Mothers with Young Children."

You know what, I saw one of those at a McDonald's a few days ago. I almost hit a kid when he darted from the car, and his Mom laughed about it. Stupid idiot.

Don

[dukebound85]

Well, privately owned lots - the owner can put up whatever restrictions (blue cars here, red cars there) s/he feels like I believe.

I was just commenting that I disagree/don't get it.

you cant have colorism among cars haha

[Rodimus Prime]

Do you even realize what you're typing? I guarantee that my Mom's big gas guzzling Jeep, can beat any hybrid or compact. Even me (a new driver), can beat a hybrid or a compact at an intersection, and I have done so multiple times in the month that I have been driving. So you are wrong. A V8 beats a V4 or hybrid any day, as long as an idiot isn't driving.

Also, show me proof that competent drivers hang farther back when they're behind an SUV, because that's not the case when I'm driving the Jeep, in fact I get tailgated a lot, so there is absolutely no truth to what you're saying, unless you studied the driving habits of 90 year olds.

Finally, it's your choice to drive whatever you drive, and it's my Mom's choice to drive her big SUV. Do we need an SUV? No, we don't. Do we like the way our SUV handles and rides better then the way that a sedan or a compact handles? Yes, we like it a lot more. So it's our choice, not yours, and it's not anyones' right to punish us for having our big SUV.

Don


Yes I do know what I am typing. You may be able to beat the hybrid off the line but it is a statical average. Also the study includes the lag time for the car after you to clear the same interstion. It includes a 2 car time. SUV + next car is longer than lets say hybrid + next car.

You just went on a rant because I showed some stuff that really hurts SUVs.

The last part you proved what is wrong with americans. They love their big cars and do not car that it hurts everyone in the long run.

My problem is to many people want the big car. I would laugh if they started putting up sighs at places say SUV must park in the back Violators will be towed. Personally I would support those actions more than the current one. That why it does not reward uppies who have the money for a hybrid. But does handle the green aspect better. Reward those who do not drive gas guzzlers by giving more close parking spots for them. SUV drivers now suffer and are not allowed to take the good spots.

I get annoyed when I see SUV try to park in compact only spaces. SORRY you car does not fit do not put in a compact spot. It is a price they pay for driving a larger car. Hell my sentra hardly fits in compact spots but it fits a hell of a lot better than an SUV does.

[spaceboots06]

Well, privately owned lots - the owner can put up whatever restrictions (blue cars here, red cars there) s/he feels like I believe.

I was just commenting that I disagree/don't get it.

White people here, black people here? That doesn't seem to good for a privately owned business to do.

[Iscariot]

Does this mean the streetcar will deliver me straight into my home, taking me up all eight flights and tucking me into my bed?

[OutThere]

Americans like SUVs, not little compacts and hybrids. Deal with it.


Speak for yourself, not 'Americans' in general, kthx.

I won't bother with the rest of your post, other than to say that my 30mpg I4 would bitchslap your lardass V8, in mpg and performance. :eek:

[Ugg]

But it's not your right or anyone else's right to punish someone for driving an SUV, or a car that you deem unacceptable because it doesn't get 30 MPG, or whatever is acceptable to you.

Americans like SUVs, not little compacts and hybrids. Deal with it.
..


Aren't you always going on and on and on about how people need to carry their own weight? Well, when it comes to SUVs, they need to start carrying their own weight as well. Short people driving SUVs in parking lots are hazards to childrens' health. I'd like to see SUVs banned from school loading zones as well. Why make the little ones suffer just to assuage the oversized ego of an an inadequate adult?

SUVs have no purpose in urban areas.

[opinioncircle]

..


Aren't you always going on and on and on about how people need to carry their own weight? Well, when it comes to SUVs, they need to start carrying their own weight as well. Short people driving SUVs in parking lots are hazards to childrens' health. I'd like to see SUVs banned from school loading zones as well. Why make the little ones suffer just to assuage the oversized ego of an an inadequate adult?

SUVs have no purpose in urban areas.

You have a point but I think that banning SUV isn't really the solution here. When you see car ads, it's all about strength and power and american pride, car makers need to change their ads so that their customers will maybe switch to better, more adequate cars.

[dontwalkhand]

http://www.bansuvs.com/

As a driver of a small car, I really really really really am biased against SUVs. And about blaming the driver of them...I do, they all drive like crap, and most can't ever seem to stay in their lane when the road curves....what are they afraid it might tip over? ;-)

[benthewraith]

Article: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/priority-parking-for-hybrids/

My Thoughts: Why is this so controversial? People who spend a few more bucks and use better cars should get preferred parking. Can't afford a hybrid? Park further away. Don't want a hybrid? Park further away.

I hope more companies catch on to this.

Its discriminating against those who have large vehicles. Some people use them to pull boats, do work, or have more than 2.4 kids.

[Shivetya]

Article: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/priority-parking-for-hybrids/

My Thoughts: Why is this so controversial? People who spend a few more bucks and use better cars should get preferred parking. Can't afford a hybrid? Park further away. Don't want a hybrid? Park further away.

I hope more companies catch on to this.

I want priority for my motorcycle then, i get better mileage at all times than hybrids.

I do think its fun to use HOV lanes, seems some people get bent when a motorcycle blows by them in those lanes with just a single rider. (legal btw)

[Don't panic]

I whole-heartedly disagree, and I have a car. In fact, I find it much safer in traffic driving an SUV. You can more easily see how the traffic looks past the couple cars in front of you so you know whether you should speed up or if you think it's about to come to a stop. SUV's provide a whole host of safety concerns but I really don't think visibility is one of them.

you are right and you are not.
it might be safer for you, but it is much less safer for everyone else, for the very same reasons you mention.

the overall net is that they make the roads less safe, not more safe.

[imac/cheese]

What about carpool spots at the retailer? Three families carpooling in an Expedition to the grocery store would use less gas than each of them driving to the store on their own in a Prius. What about those that live closer to the store? As someone else menentioned earlier, two miles in an SUV uses less gas than 10 in a hybrid.

I get tired of people focusing on SUVs and thinking of them as evil. We should really not focus on what someone drives but on how much gas they use in general. I drive an Explorer. It is my communter vehicle and I drive it back and forth to work. I end up using about 150 gallons of gas each year. I imagine that a lot of other people driving hybrids and compacts use a lot more gas in their daily commute than my explorer does. I could go out an buy a prius and get 45 mpg which would mean I end up using about 83 gallons less each year saving me a whopping $200. It would take a long time to pay back my investment.

[Don't panic]

I want priority for my motorcycle then, i get better mileage at all times than hybrids.

I do think its fun to use HOV lanes, seems some people get bent when a motorcycle blows by them in those lanes with just a single rider. (legal btw)

that is the best idea in the entire thread.
you should actually get dedicated parking, with parking slots sized to motorcycles.

this should apply also to city streets, where morons in cars knock down legally parked motorcycles all the time, because the only way they know how to park is 'by feeling'. no need to underline that SUV and trucks are way worse at tis than normal cars.

[MacNut]

http://www.bansuvs.com/

As a driver of a small car, I really really really really am biased against SUVs. And about blaming the driver of them...I do, they all drive like crap, and most can't ever seem to stay in their lane when the road curves....what are they afraid it might tip over? ;-)I would disagree with that, I have seen a lot more ricers speeding down the highway cutting in and out of lanes.

[Tomorrow]

I feel the same way about spaces reserved for mothers with children, actually.

+1 - mostly because there are no spaces for fathers with children.

... the study includes the lag time for the car after you to clear the same interstion. It includes a 2 car time. SUV + next car is longer than lets say hybrid + next car.

You just went on a rant because I showed some stuff that really hurts SUVs.

Again, your logic is flawed - your study documents drivers' habits, not the capabilities of the cars they drive. If anything, your study shows that SUV drivers drive more safely than car drivers.

I get annoyed when I see SUV try to park in compact only spaces. SORRY you car does not fit do not put in a compact spot....Hell my sentra hardly fits in compact spots but it fits a hell of a lot better than an SUV does.

I get annoyed when property developers designate spots for "compact cars only." That mostly stopped happening around the early 90's - it was a way for a developer to squeeze the code-mandated number of spots into a smaller plot of land. Most cars can't fit into one of those spots with room to open the doors.

Why make the little ones suffer just to assuage the oversized ego of an an inadequate adult?

So now "little ones suffer" when SUV's drive into school zones...this thread is really going off the deep end.

SUVs have no purpose in urban areas.

Again, I have to disagree - mine has plenty of purposes - I can drive to work, I can drop my kid off at school, I can pick up some groceries, etc.

You seem to believe that you don't have a need for an SUV, either in an urban area or otherwise, and that's fine with me. But like I've been telling Rodimus, you don't get to decide what kind of car works best for someone else.

[OutThere]

Would a proud SUV owner please explain to me what is different about American urban/suburban areas that make SUVs necessary when Europe gets along perfectly well with far fewer of them, instead driving small cars that get incredibly good gas mileage?

As for towing, a recent Motor Trend article mentioned the fact that Ford continues to insist that their low-end trucks have a good towing capacity. Research shows that of all the people with towing-rated trucks, very few people actually use any of their towing capacity, and those who do use only a fraction of it. Without this capacity the trucks could be built lighter and more efficient.

A friend recently justified his family's gargantuan Suburban by saying that they needed it to tow their boat to their summer house in the spring and bring it back in the fall. For the rest of the year it was a daily driver and usually only carried one person. Am I the only one who thinks that's ridiculous?

[InvalidUserID]

Freedom of choice. If a person wants to drive an SUV, who is anyone else to tell them otherwise?

I, personally, don't drive an SUV but I don't understand all the flak that they get over it.

[alphaod]

So if I park my 12 MPG car in that spot what would they do? Tow me? Key my car? :rolleyes:

[InvalidUserID]

So if I park my 12 MPG car in that spot what would they do? Tow me? Key my car? :rolleyes:

I've seen Hummers that have been keyed in downtown Palo Alto before...one more than one occasion. I've seen two Hummers vandalized (one keyed, another with stuff written on the windows in shoe polish) and Suburbans with food thrown at them.

The sad part is that these SUVs weren't even double parked, over the line or anything out of the ordinary. They were just there.

[killerrobot]

Fresh and Easy is doing this out here in LA. I've got no problem with it.
I see people park in the spaces that don't have a hybrid and I rarely care.
If you feel you're so important that you have to park by the front door while ignoring the sign so be it.

(rant)
I'm more pissed about SUV drivers double parking trying to squeeze into a compact car spot and thus screwing over the people with actual compact cars.
Don't mean to hate on the SUVers, because Truck drivers do it a lot. Also, just because mini is the first word in MiniVan, does not make it a compact car.
(/rant)

[Badandy]

Would a proud SUV owner please explain to me what is different about American urban/suburban areas that make SUVs necessary when Europe gets along perfectly well with far fewer of them, instead driving small cars that get incredibly good gas mileage?

As for towing, a recent Motor Trend article mentioned the fact that Ford continues to insist that their low-end trucks have a good towing capacity. Research shows that of all the people with towing-rated trucks, very few people actually use any of their towing capacity, and those who do use only a fraction of it. Without this capacity the trucks could be built lighter and more efficient.

A friend recently justified his family's gargantuan Suburban by saying that they needed it to tow their boat to their summer house in the spring and bring it back in the fall. For the rest of the year it was a daily driver and usually only carried one person. Am I the only one who thinks that's ridiculous?

No one has to justify it to you, we have freedom of choice. They could like the shape of SUV headlights more, it doesn't matter. If people want a light and efficient car, they'll buy one. If they don't want one for whatever reason, they'll waste their money on an SUV.

[Gelfin]

No one has to justify it to you, we have freedom of choice.

I am positively disposed to the freedom of choice argument. I like freedom of choice. Who doesn't?

However, it has always seemed suspect to me that the surge in popularity of SUVs coincided so closely with legal loopholes that permitted those specific vehicles to be subjected to lower safety and fuel economy standards. As the GVWR limits for CAFE standards increased, so increased the weight of "popular" SUVs, and the automakers got to shrug at the government and say, "The market has spoken. We can't help that the American people don't want fuel efficient cars."

I strongly suspect that every time you make that "freedom of choice" argument, some auto industry marketing goon feels the urge to smile knowingly and ruffle your hair. Yep, it was totally a free choice, America. Relish that choice you totally made all by yourself. You're so ruggedly independent, you. You don't let anybody tell you what you like and what's right for you. That's what's so adorable about you.

[Ugg]

I drive an Explorer. It is my communter vehicle and I drive it back and forth to work. I end up using about 150 gallons of gas each year. I imagine that a lot of other people driving hybrids and compacts use a lot more gas in their daily commute than my explorer does. I could go out an buy a prius and get 45 mpg which would mean I end up using about 83 gallons less each year saving me a whopping $200. It would take a long time to pay back my investment.

You drive ~60 miles a week and you use an Explorer? If you're working 5 days a week, that means you're only 6 miles from work. Do you live where you can't bicycle? Seems like a total waste of money to have such an expensive vehicle and use it so little.

[Signal-11]

Freedom of choice. If a person wants to drive an SUV, who is anyone else to tell them otherwise?

I, personally, don't drive an SUV but I don't understand all the flak that they get over it.

You ever spend much time in a culture in which it's okay to litter? It's one of the things I simply can't get used to because I think littering is wrong. In my societies, this is rational. Otherwise, things would become an utter effing mess in short order.

On the other hand, this can quickly become irrational. For example, there's nothing inherently wrong about tossing a banana peel into the jungle in the middle of the Congo. I just can't do it without feeling wrong, because that's how I've been conditioned.

So I can understand why some people believe that polluting the air, a common good, is wrong. I'm not one of these people, but I can understand why some of them become less than completely rational in believing that an SUV driver is contributing more than his fair share to degrading the environment.

Some societies have decided as a population that this littering the air thing is so unacceptable that they'll discourage it by heavily taxing the vehicle and the fuel. It's not altogether unreasonable if that's where your values lie.

[rhsgolfer33]

You drive ~60 miles a week and you use an Explorer? If you're working 5 days a week, that means you're only 6 miles from work. Do you live where you can't bicycle? Seems like a total waste of money to have such an expensive vehicle and use it so little.


Not many people are going to bicycle 6 miles to work and 6 miles back everyday. I wouldn't do it. I'd look like a slob if I showed up at work after bicycling 6 miles. I'd be sweaty, my armpits would have great sweat stains, and I'd smell. Its absolutely not practical if you work in a professional environment and riding a bike might be impossible if your job involves visiting clients. Not to mention in many cases it would take significantly longer to bike to work than to drive. I can drive to my work in 10 minutes, it would probably take closer to an hour for me bike there; I'm not willing to wake up an extra hour early to ride a bike to work, I'll save the bike for fun on the weekend.

[Tomorrow]

Would a proud SUV owner please explain to me what is different about American urban/suburban areas that make SUVs necessary when Europe gets along perfectly well with far fewer of them, instead driving small cars that get incredibly good gas mileage?

Here's another one hung up on whether an SUV is "necessary." Okay, I'll bite.

I bought an SUV because I wanted it. I like the roominess, the headroom, sitting higher, being able to carry a crowd of people if I feel like it, the cargo capacity, and the fact that the center section of the middle row seat slides forward, so that my son's car seat can slide closer to me and my wife.

Do any of those translate to "necessary" to you? I don't really care one way or another, but those are my reasons for buying it. If you're looking for some other magic formula as to why I "need" an SUV - some reason that's going to make you happy - you're probably out of luck, and quite frankly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

I've never been to Europe, but my understanding is that there's more urban sprawl, more public transportation, smaller/narrower roads, and more expensive gasoline. We're built on a completely different infrastructure and support economy here. One size does not fit all.

Research shows that of all the people with towing-rated trucks, very few people actually use any of their towing capacity, and those who do use only a fraction of it. Without this capacity the trucks could be built lighter and more efficient.

Spend some time around people who like trucks, and you'll understand why this will never happen - people here want bigger, stronger, tougher when it comes to trucks, and advertising a pickup by saying, "Our truck provides less towing capacity because, frankly, we believe that's all the towing capacity you need" is roughly the equivalent of saying, "Our truck is for p**sies, but you should consider buying one anyway, even though Chevy, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan, and GMC are all tougher than ours."

A friend recently justified his family's gargantuan Suburban by saying that they needed it to tow their boat to their summer house in the spring and bring it back in the fall. For the rest of the year it was a daily driver and usually only carried one person. Am I the only one who thinks that's ridiculous?

Probably not, but it's not nearly as ridiculous for owning two vehicles for two different purposes when you can use one for everything.

You ever spend much time in a culture in which it's okay to litter? It's one of the things I simply can't get used to because I think littering is wrong. In my societies, this is rational. Otherwise, things would become an utter effing mess in short order.

On the other hand, this can quickly become irrational. For example, there's nothing inherently wrong about tossing a banana peel into the jungle in the middle of the Congo. I just can't do it without feeling wrong, because that's how I've been conditioned.

So I can understand why some people believe that polluting the air, a common good, is wrong. I'm not one of these people, but I can understand why some of them become less than completely rational in believing that an SUV driver is contributing more than his fair share to degrading the environment.

Bad example - comparing littering to polluting with a car is very different.

You're comparing the choice of littering vs. not littering against polluting more or polluting less.

Maybe if you only toss one banana peel on the sidewalk instead of two you'll feel better about yourself. :cool:

[dukebound85]

^^ I agree

I know my next vehicle is a truck

Why? because I want the capability to bring large things home, pack up gear for trips, hunting, whatnot. I also want to be able to tow a trailer or transport my motorcycle



Trucks imo, are the most useful vehicle ever made bar none

[spaceboots06]

^^ I agree

I know my next vehicle is a truck

Why? because I want the capability to bring large things home, pack up gear for trips, hunting, whatnot. I also want to be able to tow a trailer or transport my motorcycle



Trucks imo, are the most useful vehicle ever made bar none

If Jeeps fall into the trucks category even partially, count me in.

[sushi]

If its a private company its their right to say who can park where so that's fine with me.
Agree. They should be free to set their policy.

What about small cars that cost a lot less than the Prius but are more efficient?
Very good point. Why are these types of vehicles not included.

Hybrids aren't that "green." :rolleyes:
True. In essence the company's policy is promoting less green vehicles with their hybrid parking spots.

What if I ride one of those three wheel bicycles with a big carry cage in the rear. Can I park in the hybrid spot. After all, I am saving energy and my power source is human. :)

[Tomorrow]

If Jeeps fall into the trucks category even partially, count me in.

I think virtually every Jeep is technically classified as an SUV.

[dukebound85]

I think virtually every Jeep is technically classified as an SUV.

the jeep cheroke was like the suv that started the suv craze

[spaceboots06]

the jeep cheroke was like the suv that started the suv craze

Oh, yeah, I know the Jeep Grand Cherokees. Always wanted a red one. I was referring to the plastic-rear-window-easy-to-rob Jeeps. :D

[spillproof]

If there are special spots for "green" vehicles, I want a special spot for my 17mpg SUV.
The parking spot thing is going a bit far in my opinion. What is wrong with having to walk the distance of the rest of us.
I'm not going to protest them, I just don't see the real point in them. And no, its not because I can't park in them of have an SUV. There are reasons for handicapped, expectant mothers, and motorcycle parking spaces - there is a need.

*snip quote about study and most people don't need SUVs*
Please provide a link or file of this study, I would find it interesting to read.

Also, who are you to tell people they don't need an SUV?

[OutThere]

Here's another one hung up on whether an SUV is "necessary." Okay, I'll bite.

I bought an SUV because I wanted it. I like the roominess, the headroom, sitting higher, being able to carry a crowd of people if I feel like it, the cargo capacity, and the fact that the center section of the middle row seat slides forward, so that my son's car seat can slide closer to me and my wife.

Do any of those translate to "necessary" to you? I don't really care one way or another, but those are my reasons for buying it. If you're looking for some other magic formula as to why I "need" an SUV - some reason that's going to make you happy - you're probably out of luck, and quite frankly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.


Fine—personal preference, however my feeling is that generally people don't use SUVs for their real purpose (minivan capacity + towing/4x4ing), and in that way put an unnecessary burden on the environment. I just see so many monstrous Excursions/Escalades/Armadas/Suburbans/Navigators parked at the grocery store, having been driven there by one person. Generally if you don't need to tow things you can find a sedan, minivan or station wagon that will better serve you in many ways (safety, ride quality, efficiency, etc). As for riding high....I guess that's just a matter of taste, I personally like my center of gravity somewhere near the pavement. ;)
[/quote]


I've never been to Europe, but my understanding is that there's more urban sprawl, more public transportation, smaller/narrower roads, and more expensive gasoline. We're built on a completely different infrastructure and support economy here. One size does not fit all.


The US and Europe really aren't all that different, which is why I asked the question in the first place. Yes they have better public transit and more expensive gas, which would be reasons for Europeans not to buy SUVs, but where's the incentive for so many Americans to buy them? SUVs really only took off in the mid-90s in the US, when American automakers started heavily marketing them because of the massive profit margins they could get by selling them. Before then station wagons were pretty popular and seemed to get the job done alright.

Spend some time around people who like trucks, and you'll understand why this will never happen - people here want bigger, stronger, tougher when it comes to trucks, and advertising a pickup by saying, "Our truck provides less towing capacity because, frankly, we believe that's all the towing capacity you need" is roughly the equivalent of saying, "Our truck is for p**sies, but you should consider buying one anyway, even though Chevy, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan, and GMC are all tougher than ours."

The initial discussions centered around a 5500 lb towing capacity, because, as Ford product chief Derrick Kuzak points out, "a towing capacity of 5000 lb covers 80 percent of the trailer towing done in America". This was rounded up to 6000 lb.

The old-school Ford truck guys weren't happy, though. The F-150 could tow 11,300 lb, more than anything in its class. They reasoned that if the F-100 was to be Ford truck tough it, too, would need an impressive towing number. They picked, quite arbitrarily, say my sources, 7500 lb. That pushed up the overall vehicle weight. It pushed up cost. It killed engine choices. And in the end, it killed the F-100, too, when Kuzak and marketing boss Jim Farley rightly concluded that suddenly they didn't have the 21st century, $4-a-gallon pickup truck they thought they once had.

[Tomorrow]

...my feeling is that generally people don't use SUVs for their real purpose (minivan capacity + towing/4x4ing)

So the only purpose that an SUV can possibly serve, in your opinion, is to transport 6+ people and/or tow several thousand pounds? What if - please, open your mind just a little bit here - an SUV also serves the purpose of being driven from point A to point B? If you can't fathom that as a reasonable "purpose," then perhaps an SUV isn't for you. For many of us, it is.

Generally if you don't need to tow things you can find a sedan, minivan or station wagon that will better serve you in many ways (safety, ride quality, efficiency, etc).


And I don't know how many times I have to say it - the individual consumer is the only person who gets to decide how his/her needs will best be served. A sedan does not serve me better. I've owned them, I've rented them, and my wife has one - and I do not believe that a sedan serves me better. That's my call; not someone else's.

SUVs really only took off in the mid-90s in the US, when American automakers started heavily marketing them because of the massive profit margins they could get by selling them. Before then station wagons were pretty popular and seemed to get the job done alright.

They took off because the automakers could make a hefty profit on them - correct.

They were able to make a hefty profit on them because people were willing to pay more for them - correct.

People are willing to pay more for something = higher demand for that something.

And it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever want to drive a station wagon. I used to have to drive one for work - it was nothing more than an unattractive, hard-to-drive sedan.

[dontwalkhand]

Every vehicle has a purpose...except SUVs.

Trucks - To haul stuff
Semi-Trucks - To haul huge amounts of stuff
Buses - To carry mass number of passengers
Cars - To carry a few people/groceries etc. (This includes hybrids, etc)
Ricers - To race, etc, show off
Luxury Car - For people who want luxury while they are driving.
Boats - For water
Trains - On tracks
Van - does the same as an SUV for those of you with 10 kids.


Where does SUV fall into any of these? Stupid and Useless Vehicle. An SUV is just a box with curves. What is sexy about that? It seems like their job is to do nothing but allow people to feel like they are king of the road..and get a false sense of safety. I would like to see how SUV drivers feel about other people's SUVs when they drive a smaller car for the day.

And I am tired of the freedom of choice argument, face it, it really doesn't exist. If you really had freedom of choice, then I would be able to choose another cable ISP in my area, another electric company, and another bus operator operating the buses in my city.

Also, because SUVs contribute a lot to greenhouse gasses, etc, it is a threat to everyone's health, this is just like you say "There is freedom to kill anyone you want, its freedom of choice"

Counter me... Most SUV drivers always look for some reason to justify owning an SUV, but there is always another type of vehicle that would suit them just fine.

Most SUVs sadly only house one person that I see on the road too. It is like buying a Mac Pro, and only going on the internet and light office work with it.

[dukebound85]

Every vehicle has a purpose...except SUVs.

Trucks - To haul stuff
Semi-Trucks - To haul huge amounts of stuff
Buses - To carry mass number of passengers
Cars - To carry a few people/groceries etc. (This includes hybrids, etc)
Ricers - To race, etc, show off
Luxury Car - For people who want luxury while they are driving.
Boats - For water
Trains - On tracks
Van - does the same as an SUV for those of you with 10 kids.


Where does SUV fall into any of these? Stupid and Useless Vehicle. An SUV is just a box with curves. What is sexy about that? It seems like their job is to do nothing but allow people to feel like they are king of the road..and get a false sense of safety. I would like to see how SUV drivers feel about other people's SUVs when they drive a smaller car for the day.

And I am tired of the freedom of choice argument, face it, it really doesn't exist. If you really had freedom of choice, then I would be able to choose another cable ISP in my area, another electric company, and another bus operator operating the buses in my city.

Also, because SUVs contribute a lot to greenhouse gasses, etc, it is a threat to everyone's health, this is just like you say "There is freedom to kill anyone you want, its freedom of choice"

Counter me... Most SUV drivers always look for some reason to justify owning an SUV, but there is always another type of vehicle that would suit them just fine.

Most SUVs sadly only house one person that I see on the road too. It is like buying a Mac Pro, and only going on the internet and light office work with it.

How about an SUV is for a family thats wants enough space for family trips while still giving the capability to say tow a boat or trailer? its not uncommon to do that

How about having a vehicle for the family where you can drive comfortably in the winter? There was no way my family would have gotten by with a minivan with the winters I have been through in Colorado

Lastly, if someone wants one, they can get one and its NONE of anyone else's buisness:rolleyes:


And I am tired of the freedom of choice argument, face it, it really doesn't exist. If you really had freedom of choice, then I would be able to choose another cable ISP in my area, another electric company, and another bus operator operating the buses in my city.

What areguemt are you even trying to make? I have the freedom of choice to go buy whatever I want vehicle wise. prove me otherwise before you make such an absurd claim...

[dontwalkhand]

Lastly, if someone wants one, they can get one and its NONE of anyone else's buisness:rolleyes:

"Lastly if someone wants to dump nuclear waste in a river, it is NONE of anyone else's business"

Last I checked, we consume more of the world's resources than all of the countries combined, thanks to the Stupid and Useless Vehicle.

[dukebound85]

"Lastly if someone wants to dump nuclear waste in a river, it is NONE of anyone else's business"

Last I checked, we consume more of the world's resources than all of the countries combined, thanks to the Stupid and Useless Vehicle.

LOL you are cracking me up

are you seriously equating driving an suv that gets roughly the same mpg's as say a truck and slightly less than a minivan and on par with a sports car to be the same as dumping nuclear waste in a river?

that is the most illogical comparision/arguemnt i have seen in a long time

Every vehicle has a purpose...except SUVs.

Trucks - To haul stuff
Semi-Trucks - To haul huge amounts of stuff
Buses - To carry mass number of passengers
Cars - To carry a few people/groceries etc. (This includes hybrids, etc)
Ricers - To race, etc, show off
Luxury Car - For people who want luxury while they are driving.
Boats - For water
Trains - On tracks
Van - does the same as an SUV for those of you with 10 kids.

are you really saying that luxury and showing off are reasons enough to justify ricers and luxury car and then say people shouldnt have the right to buy an suv for real reasons?

[Tomorrow]

Trucks - To haul stuff
Semi-Trucks - To haul huge amounts of stuff
Buses - To carry mass number of passengers
Cars - To carry a few people/groceries etc. (This includes hybrids, etc)
Ricers - To race, etc, show off
Luxury Car - For people who want luxury while they are driving.
Boats - For water
Trains - On tracks
Van - does the same as an SUV for those of you with 10 kids.

Where does SUV fall into any of these?

Here's where mine falls in:

Truck - in my SUV, the things I haul are covered, protected from weather, and locked inside.
Semi-truck - can't park it in my driveway, or in the parking garage at work, and doesn't seat as many as my SUV.
Bus - I can't carry as many as a bus, but I can carry seven quite comfortably - if a Prius could do that, it would be more fuel-efficient. If I ever need to move more people than that, we can take two cars.
Car - too damn small and too damn hard for me to see out of it. Couldn't carry as much when I go on a road trip. Can't slide my son's car seat forward, nearer the front seats. No rear A/C.
Ricer - same as above, only worse.
Luxury car - to me, the size of my truck is the luxury I crave. Plus I have leather, an iPod controller, power seat, etc.
Boat - can't drive it to work, but I would like to have one.
Train - doesn't go to the grocery store, or the kid's school, or just about anywhere else I want to go - plus, my drivers license isn't valid for driving a train.
Van - I actually like vans (not minivans), but an SUV is easier to drive and gets better gas mileage.

[OutThere]

So the only purpose that an SUV can possibly serve, in your opinion, is to transport 6+ people and/or tow several thousand pounds? What if - please, open your mind just a little bit here - an SUV also serves the purpose of being driven from point A to point B? If you can't fathom that as a reasonable "purpose," then perhaps an SUV isn't for you. For many of us, it is.

Clearly an SUV is, in its essence, a way to get from A to B. It just happens to be—in most cases—wasteful in providing a lot of un-utilized capability for the simple task of A->B. I understand that there are many purposes for SUVs (utility is its middle name!), I just see them in the same class of wasteful American behavior as 5,000 square foot McMansions and 100 mile exurban commutes.

And I don't know how many times I have to say it - the individual consumer is the only person who gets to decide how his/her needs will best be served. A sedan does not serve me better. I've owned them, I've rented them, and my wife has one - and I do not believe that a sedan serves me better. That's my call; not someone else's.

Yes it's your call. I, however, have some issues with your call because it affects me. Your SUV brakes slower, turns slower, rolls over, gives an illusion of safety to the driver, is more dangerous to smaller cars, pollutes our air more, blocks others' visibility and uses what oil we still have faster than it needs to. Driving an SUV is a personal choice that affects others, much in the same way choosing to smoke cigarettes (in public) is a personal choice that affects others. Unfortunately our culture is all about ME ME ME...******* everyone else and our children's future.

They were able to make a hefty profit on them because people were willing to pay more for them - correct.

On credit, as with everything else. That sure turned out well...http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/gonemad.gif

[dontwalkhand]

LOL you are cracking me up

are you seriously equating driving an suv that gets roughly the same mpg's as say a truck and slightly less than a minivan and on par with a sports car to be the same as dumping nuclear waste in a river?

that is the most illogical comparision/arguemnt i have seen in a long time



are you really saying that luxury and showing off are reasons enough to justify ricers and luxury car and then say people shouldnt have the right to buy an suv for real reasons?

Well I admit, you got me.

But the problem is most with SUVs aren't using them as you are. They are just driving it as they are around town vehicles. A regular car holds a family of four just fine, and rides extremely comfortable if you put money into it.

Inefficient = The American Way:confused:.

Luxury cars actually do have a purpose, it is the very same reason of why some people use Macs. (People who need one for a job are excluded obviously). A Linux box will do the same for most people however. Face it, Macs are luxury. Luxury cars at least get decent gas mileage, there are hybrid options available, and they do not pollute as much as an SUV. They have very nice interiors, and features a'plenty that I would actually use, such as the iPod integration, MPG calculations, Range, etc. Also, isn't it a good thing to spoil yourself once in a while? I classify luxury cars where I do Macs, and also, these are the most featureful (technology wise) cars available on the road. Built in GPS Nav etc. you can't forget first came out on a luxury car, before it trickled down to other cars.

Now I do not see the point in ricer cars at all, and I hate them, but at least these cars also do not pollute as much as an SUV.

Now I know that the dumping nuclear waste in a river is over exaggerating a bit...but does anyone know why SUVs have their tailpipes pointed toward the sidewalk, while cars have the exhaust pointed straight back? It is almost they want to push the pollution to pedestrians on the sidewalk! It seems that SUV drivers do not give a rat's ass about other drivers on the road, pedestrians, have LARGE blindspots, etc.

And yes, the decision of most to purchase an SUV does affect other drivers on the road, and because it does, it is very well other people's business.

[dontwalkhand]

Clearly an SUV is, in its essence, a way to get from A to B. It just happens to be—in most cases—wasteful in providing a lot of un-utilized capability for the simple task of A->B. I understand that there are many purposes for SUVs (utility is its middle name!), I just see them in the same class of wasteful American behavior as 5,000 square foot McMansions and 100 mile exurban commutes.



Yes it's your call. I, however, have some issues with your call because it affects me. Your SUV brakes slower, turns slower, rolls over, gives an illusion of safety to the driver, is more dangerous to smaller cars, pollutes our air more, blocks others' visibility and uses what oil we still have faster than it needs to. Driving an SUV is a personal choice that affects others, much in the same way choosing to smoke cigarettes (in public) is a personal choice that affects others. Unfortunately our culture is all about ME ME ME...******* everyone else and our children's future.



On credit, as with everything else. That sure turned out well...http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/gonemad.gif
You have hit it right on!, I just couldn't come up with the right group of words to fulfill the argument. Gah I suck at debating.

[dukebound85]

Well I admit, you got me.

But the problem is most with SUVs aren't using them as you are. They are just driving it as they are around town vehicles. A regular car holds a family of four just fine, and rides extremely comfortable if you put money into it.

Inefficient = The American Way:confused:.

Luxury cars actually do have a purpose, it is the very same reason of why some people use Macs. (People who need one for a job are excluded obviously). A Linux box will do the same for most people however. Face it, Macs are luxury. Luxury cars at least get decent gas mileage, there are hybrid options available, and they do not pollute as much as an SUV. They have very nice interiors, and features a'plenty that I would actually use, such as the iPod integration, MPG calculations, Range, etc. Also, isn't it a good thing to spoil yourself once in a while? I classify luxury cars where I do Macs, and also, these are the most featureful (technology wise) cars available on the road. Built in GPS Nav etc. you can't forget first came out on a luxury car, before it trickled down to other cars.

How can you justify spoiling oneself as a reason yt turn around and say a family shouldnt have a suv since they dont use it to its full capacity 100% of the time........

I will say its nice to have the capability when you need it

Now I do not see the point in ricer cars at all, and I hate them, but at least these cars also do not pollute as much as an SUV.

You do realize SUV's are not as horrible in terms of gas mileage for the most part as you are making them out to be right?

Now I know that the dumping nuclear waste in a river is over exaggerating a bit...but does anyone know why SUVs have their tailpipes pointed toward the sidewalk, while cars have the exhaust pointed straight back? It is almost they want to push the pollution to pedestrians on the sidewalk! It seems that SUV drivers do not give a rat's ass about other drivers on the road, pedestrians, have LARGE blindspots, etc.


uh what? its more because an SUV is on a different chassis (truck) than a car. they don't make them off to the side to intentionally pollute which makes no sense anyways to be honest lol


And yes, the decision of most to purchase an SUV does affect other drivers on the road, and because it does, it is very well other people's business.
How does it again? you lost me there

In terms of safety? well there is a myriad of suv's ranging from big to small. then there are trucks and commericial vehicles as well

what about really expensive cars (gotta make sure you dont hit those!)? or motorcycles(those either!)?

maybe everyone should be forced to drive the same vehicle so they are all worth the same and once isnt safer than the other right?

In terms of pollution, they arent that bad compared to minivans or whatnot either

for instance, here is a popular suv and a minivan compared mpg wise

dodge caravan
The 2009 Grand Caravan is a 4-door, 7-passenger mini van, available in two trims, the SE and the SXT. Upon introduction, the SE is equipped with a standard 3.3-liter, V6, 175-horsepower engine that achieves 17-mpg in the city and 24-mpg on the highway. A 4-Speed automatic transmission with overdrive is standard. The SXT is equipped with a standard 3.8-liter, V6, 197-horsepower engine that achieves 16-mpg in the city and 23-mpg on the highway. A 6-Speed automatic transmission with overdrive is standard. The 2009 Grand Caravan is a carryover from 2008.

4runner


* 4.0L V6, 24 valves, 236 hp @ 5200 rpm
* 5 speed automatic transmission
* 16 mpg city / 21 mpg hwy



corvette
2009 CHEVROLET CORVETTE
8 cylinder 6.2 liter P (M6) Manual 14mpg city 20mpg highway

how about an camry?
camry



* 3.5L V6, 24 valves, 268 hp @ 6200 rpm
* 6 speed automatic transmission
* 19 mpg city / 28 mpg hwy




yea...argument kinda sorta falls apart there doesnt it?

the 4runner is like identical to the van and better than the vette and not that far behind a camry in terms of mpg's

how is that horrible to the added utlilty you get?

really, i want to hear your logic.:rolleyes:

or did you just think SUVs have horrible gas mileage without bothering to even compare anything?

[spillproof]

For those arguing above me, are we talking about SUVs with a truck frame or car frame? Does that even matter? How do you feel about "crossovers"? Not trolling, just wondering. This thread has become really interesting and I'd get blasted for making a new thread with these questions.

[OutThere]

For those arguing above me, are we talking about SUVs with a truck frame or car frame? Does that even matter? How do you feel about "crossovers"? Not trolling, just wondering. This thread has become really interesting and I'd get blasted for making a new thread with these questions.

This is something I meant to address earlier when I posted about Ford 86ing the F100 because it didn't have enough towing capacity. I think SUVs with a car frame can provide some of the 'high riding' and 'rugged image' that people like without the gas mileage hit of a heavy truck frame for hauling and towing, which many people don't even wind up using. That said, their aerodynamics and styling (puke) leave something to be desired for the most part, but I'm willing to compromise.

My biggest problem is with huge body-on-frame SUVs being driven by one person on a daily basis when a smaller car would suffice 9 times out of 10. You don't need an Escalade getting 12 mpg to drive down Park Avenue alone.

[dontwalkhand]

This is something I meant to address earlier when I posted about Ford 86ing the F100 because it didn't have enough towing capacity. I think SUVs with a car frame can provide some of the 'high riding' and 'rugged image' that people like without the gas mileage hit of a heavy truck frame for hauling and towing, which many people don't even wind up using. That said, their aerodynamics and styling (puke) leave something to be desired for the most part, but I'm willing to compromise.

My biggest problem is with huge body-on-frame SUVs being driven by one person on a daily basis when a smaller car would suffice 9 times out of 10. You don't need an Escalade getting 12 mpg to drive down Park Avenue alone.
And anyone who says they need one when driving alone, just fell into a marketing trap. You bit their bait, and now justifying the purchase.

[opinioncircle]

For those arguing above me, are we talking about SUVs with a truck frame or car frame? Does that even matter? How do you feel about "crossovers"? Not trolling, just wondering. This thread has become really interesting and I'd get blasted for making a new thread with these questions.

SUVs are crossovers. The word SUV was made up by car manufacturers so they could create a whole new line, with either cheaper elements than the luxury models or more expensive parts too expensive for the cheapest ones...It's all made up anyway.
From where I see it, there are only a handful of SUVs that are driven as Sports Utility Vehicles, most of them are just for show. If you take a Porsche Cayenne and a Lada 4*4 on a trail, I'll take the Lada anyday of the week.

[Tomorrow]

A regular car holds a family of four just fine, and rides extremely comfortable if you put money into it.

Perhaps, but not nearly as comfortably as my Expedition - and yes, I've compared several sedans. My Expedition also cost me about half what I would have paid for a luxury car.

Luxury cars actually do have a purpose, it is the very same reason of why some people use Macs. (People who need one for a job are excluded obviously). A Linux box will do the same for most people however. Face it, Macs are luxury.

I dicked around with Linux off and on for years before I finally decided, once and for all, that I didn't like using it. I wanted to buy into all of the arguments that you and other Linux fanbois might like to throw around, and I wanted to like using it - but I didn't. So, does that mean I chose a Mac because it's a luxury? No, I chose a Mac because the damn thing works the way I want it to. Same reason I bought my SUV.

I've owned five vehicles in my life - three sedans, a coupe, and my SUV. Believe me, I don't like parking farther away because I need to find a parking space wide enough for my truck (because too many ********** park crooked or on the lines), I don't like buying more gas, and I don't like paying extra at the carwash. I wanted to agree with and buy into all of your reasons for owning something smaller and less expensive. In the end, I didn't buy the SUV because I wanted to piss off people like you, either. I bought it because it was the vehicle that suited me best.

Luxury cars...They have very nice interiors, and features a'plenty that I would actually use, such as the iPod integration, MPG calculations, Range, etc. Also, isn't it a good thing to spoil yourself once in a while?

My SUV does all those things, and yes, it was a good thing for me to buy it. At last, we see eye-to-eye on something.

It seems that SUV drivers do not give a rat's ass about other drivers on the road, pedestrians, have LARGE blindspots, etc.

I'm pretty sure you're letting your biases cloud your judgment by saying this. You actually believe that owning an SUV changes a person's disposition toward others, and comes out in their driving habits?

I invite you to join me on my commute to and from work into Dallas, 40 miles each way. The ones weaving in and out of traffic, cutting people off, and generally driving like menaces can be in any type of vehicle whatsoever - luxury, sport, truck, SUV, motorcycle, sedan, you name it.

And as I've pointed out, my blindspots are much smaller than in a sedan - my windows are enormous, I have more of them, and my side-view mirrors are huge compared to a sedan.

For those arguing above me, are we talking about SUVs with a truck frame or car frame? Does that even matter? How do you feel about "crossovers"?

Six of one, half dozen of the other. A crossover is a vehicle built on a car's frame, just jacked up higher. The ones I've ridden in aren't any more roomy or comfortable than a car.

I think SUVs with a car frame can provide some of the 'high riding' and 'rugged image' that people like without the gas mileage hit of a heavy truck frame for hauling and towing, which many people don't even wind up using. That said, their aerodynamics and styling (puke) leave something to be desired for the most part, but I'm willing to compromise.

If you like sitting higher above the road, then yes, I think a crossover helps you there. It's also easier to get a child in and out of a car seat. But it's still small like a car, because it pretty much is a car. No headroom, no shoulder room, and it only has about as much cargo room as a small- to mid-size SUV.

I do not, however, believe that there's a crossover out there that exudes a "rugged image."

My biggest problem is with huge body-on-frame SUVs being driven by one person on a daily basis when a smaller car would suffice 9 times out of 10. You don't need an Escalade getting 12 mpg to drive down Park Avenue alone.

On what are you basing this claim?

How do you define "suffice"? How do you define "need"?

For me, it is absolutely a "need" that I be able to get into and out of the vehicle comfortably, and not have my head touch the ceiling of the vehicle. I've ridden in a Prius, and it was an absolute nightmare - my head was cocked to the side the whole time. My sister-in-law has a Civic, and it's just as bad. My wife's Altima isn't a whole lot better.

Again, let us define our own "needs."

[LumbermanSVO]

Sorry if my post is lagging behind where this thread has gone, I've been busy working. I have driven most types of big trucks out there from little Isuzu flatbed straight trucks to my current Kenworth with a 53' trailer. I spent 3 years in a big truck dealing with Seattle traffic every morning and afternoon, Now I drive OTR and rack up over 110k miles/year.

This applies on a much, much more massive scale with large trucks. I've never driven an 18-wheeler, but I imagine the visibility is quite poor compared with that of a car or SUV. I imagine they have the potential to do vastly more damage in a collision. Are you advocating that those be removed from roads as well?

Many people want big trucks to disappear from the roads, I'd like them to try living without them, but that is another debate :) I can assure you that people do NOT keep a greater following distance when behind big trucks, nor do they leave a proper following distance when they pull in front of one. If people only understood the stopping ability and destructive force of a big truck their driving habits would change drastically. The odds are NOT on the 4-wheelers side in a wreck with a big truck.

I have also trained new truck drivers and talked to LOTS of students in various stages of their training. EVERY single student I've talked to has transformed their driving after just the first couple times in a big truck, myself included.

And to add to things, I often use my big truck as a daily driver when I'm home because I don't have a car there. I go to all your typical shopping places and never have I run over a kid(or an adult for that matter), and thats with a 13' tall truck that has a wheelbase of 19.5 feet. Even with the driver seat all the way down too! More accidents could be prevented if drivers and pedestrians would just simply pay attention to what they are doing and maybe, just maybe, question their own driving habits.

Yes I do. It was a study done my a university I read a few years ago at multiple intersection.
The study showed that SUV where both slower getting threw the intersection and the lag time until the next car entered it was longer. So it made traffic worked.

IMO, people are in way too much of a hurry when behind the wheel. Ironically, if people in traffic backups would just slow down they'd actually get through it faster!

They also noted on high ways that the following distances between car to car was closer than between SUV and Car.

That is a great argument FOR driving SUV's. From my experience of observing traffic, most people think that 1-2 seconds is enough following distance at highway speeds. It is absolutely NOT. I have seen the results of this over and over, sometimes it happens right in front of me. In my experience the overwhelming majority of people tailgate most of the time.

SUV are more dangerous than cars. In wrecks with SUV involves it is a greater chance some one will be injured or kill than one involving cars.

Same goes for big trucks, should we ban them too? BTW, some people, including the ATA, are pushing for heavier trucks right now.

Not many people are going to bicycle 6 miles to work and 6 miles back everyday. I wouldn't do it. I'd look like a slob if I showed up at work after bicycling 6 miles. I'd be sweaty, my armpits would have great sweat stains, and I'd smell. Its absolutely not practical if you work in a professional environment and riding a bike might be impossible if your job involves visiting clients. Not to mention in many cases it would take significantly longer to bike to work than to drive. I can drive to my work in 10 minutes, it would probably take closer to an hour for me bike there; I'm not willing to wake up an extra hour early to ride a bike to work, I'll save the bike for fun on the weekend.

I used to do quite a big of bicycling, 6 miles is not far once you get into shape. Even with the hills in Seattle riding a bike was often far more practical for me than driving, and faster too. parking was never a problem. ;) With one of those baby trailers converted for cargo you can even get the majority of your grocery shopping done on a single trip.


Edit: Forgot to add, I'd MUCH rather be in a traffic backup in my truck than in any of the personal vehicles I've owned.

[OutThere]

I'm pretty sure you're letting your biases cloud your judgment by saying this. You actually believe that owning an SUV changes a person's disposition toward others, and comes out in their driving habits?


Yet a growing body of research by automakers is finding that buyers of these two kinds of vehicles are very different psychologically. Sport utility buyers tend to be more restless, more sybaritic, less social people who are ''self-oriented,'' to use the automakers' words, and who have strong conscious or subconscious fears of crime. Minivan buyers tend to be more self-confident and more ''other-oriented'' -- more involved with family, friends and their communities.

The height could be particularly troublesome. In his fascinating book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), journalist Tom Vanderbilt cites studies that show that drivers seated at higher eye sights tend to drive faster than those at lower heights. The farther you are from the ground, writes Mr. Vanderbilt, the better you can to make out the texture of the road, which gives you a better sense of how fast you are going.

A survey has found that drivers of 4x4 motor cars in London are four times as likely to drive while using a cellphone without a hands-free kit, than drivers of other motor vehicles. They are also more likely to ignore laws requiring occupants to wear a seatbelt. The survey was conducted by three researchers based at Imperial College and was designed specifically to seek out any patterns in driving habits between 4x4 owners and normal car drivers.

In an 18-month-old ongoing Internet survey of drivers from the United States and Canada, drivers of SUVs admit to being more aggressive - quicker to tailgate, speed or change lanes without signaling, reports Leon James, a professor of traffic psychology at the University of Hawaii-Manoa.

____


And as I've pointed out, my blindspots are much smaller than in a sedan - my windows are enormous, I have more of them, and my side-view mirrors are huge compared to a sedan.

Bigger cars are taking a tragic toll

“The problem has gotten worse with the increased popularity of SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans as family vehicles,” says Mike Quincy, an automotive expert with Consumer Reports. “Some of the blind spots are incredible.”

During the last few years, Consumer Reports measured the blind zones behind hundreds of vehicles using both short and tall drivers. Here’s the range they found for each category:

Sedans: 12 feet to 24 feet
Minivans: 15 feet to 26 feet
Sport Utility Vehicles: 13 feet to 29 feet
Pickup trucks: 23 feet to 35 feet
With some of these large pickups, the blind zone can be longer than the driveway.

The 2006 Jeep Commander Limited had the biggest blind spot of any vehicle Consumer Reports tested – a stunning 69 feet with a short driver. With an optional backup camera, that huge blind spot is nearly eliminated.

_____



How do you define "suffice"? How do you define "need"?

For me, it is absolutely a "need" that I be able to get into and out of the vehicle comfortably, and not have my head touch the ceiling of the vehicle. I've ridden in a Prius, and it was an absolute nightmare - my head was cocked to the side the whole time. My sister-in-law has a Civic, and it's just as bad. My wife's Altima isn't a whole lot better.

Again, let us define our own "needs."

You were the one to originally point out that an SUV's most basic purpose is getting from A to B. To get from A to B (in my example along Park Avenue) you do not need an Escalade, nobody does. You can get from A to B on a bicycle, motorcycle or small car. Many people, however, want to go from A to B in an Escalade, and want the extra amenities they provide. Maybe if you are taller than 95% of US drivers (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-01-14-tootall_x.htm) you need a larger car (though still not an Escalade, which only offers 0.5 inches more headroom than a Sentra) to feel comfortable. That's great for you, but my essential question is why so many of those 95% of American drivers must have an inefficient SUV.

[dukebound85]

isnt the whole arguemnt against SUV's the mpg's? which is clearly exaggerated as pointed out by my above post?.....

[Nukemkb]

I have no problem with folks owning SUV's, as long as they only drive then when needed for their ability to haul dirt and manure etc. Rest of the time, ride your bicycle or drive your hybrid!! :p

[dukebound85]

I have no problem with folks owning SUV's, as long as they only drive then when needed for their ability to haul dirt and manure etc. Rest of the time, ride your bicycle or drive your hybrid!! :p

its not economical to own a suv and a hybrid for most families when asuv suffices for all purposes

once again, the mpg argument doesnt really exist....

[Nukemkb]

its not economical to own a suv and a hybrid for most families when asuv suffices for all purposes

once again, the mpg argument doesnt really exist....

doesn't hauling that stinky stuff get stinky after a while? :eek::D

[dukebound85]

doesn't hauling that stinky stuff get stinky after a while? :eek::D

stuff as in cargo you cant fit in a car? not really

[dontwalkhand]

I haul stuff in my car all the time, but I do not haul things that would require an SUV or a truck.

I do not drive a Hybrid, but I do help the environment by taking the bus/train a few times a week, and couple that with my small Toyota, that equates to hybrid driving already.

[OutThere]

isnt the whole arguemnt against SUV's the mpg's? which is clearly exaggerated as pointed out by my above post?.....

You picked a few cars out of the vast selection out there to use as anecdotes.

Here you can see that the 2008 New Passenger Car Average MPG is 31.4, versus the 2008 New Light Truck (includes SUVs and pickups) Average MPG is 23.4. (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html)

[dukebound85]

I haul stuff in my car all the time, but I do not haul things that would require an SUV or a truck.

I do not drive a Hybrid, but I do help the environment by taking the bus/train a few times a week, and couple that with my small Toyota, that equates to hybrid driving already.

your definition of haul does not equal mine and many others in any way you look at it :cool:

You picked a few cars out of the vast selection out there to use as anecdotes.

Here you can see that the 2008 New Passenger Car Average MPG is 31.4, versus the 2008 New Light Truck (includes SUVs and pickups) Average MPG is 23.4. (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html)

I picked a very common car, a very common van, and a very common suv. It is example enough to make my point

Regardless, looking at your post are people really getting worked up over 8mpg...seriously?

an SUV will get 75% of the mileage of a car with the added capability. Small price to pay

Also, hybrids are not economical for families if they already own a car. The premium you pay for a hybrid will take so many thousand miles to see any real benefit economically

Environmentally, 8mpg's really isn't something to get in a hizzy over lol

[miloblithe]

... SUV will get 75% of the mileage of a car with the added capability...environmentally, 8mpg's really isn't something to get in a hizzy over lol

I have to disagree with you there. By almost any definition, 25% is quite significant--and definitely so when we're talking about 25% of the amount of fuel consumed by passenger vehicles.

[imac/cheese]

You drive ~60 miles a week and you use an Explorer? If you're working 5 days a week, that means you're only 6 miles from work. Do you live where you can't bicycle? Seems like a total waste of money to have such an expensive vehicle and use it so little.

The roads where I live are not safe for a bicycle though I have riden it a few times. In addition, I work in a professional job and riding if the weather is at all warm leaves me rather unpleasant to sit next to.

It is not a waste of money at all. I bought the explorer used paying less than $5K for it and it has served me very well. I use it for the rare occasion I need to haul something like landscaping supplies or home appliances and I drive it to work. The gas mileage is not very good, but it would be a waste of money for me to try to sell my vehicle and buy something else that gets better mileage.

[Gelfin]

I have to disagree with you there. By almost any definition, 25% is quite significant--and definitely so when we're talking about 25% of the amount of fuel consumed by passenger vehicles.

Quick math note: when you're looking at it relative to the car it isn't a quarter more fuel consumption. It's a third more.

[yg17]

The sad part is that these SUVs weren't even double parked, over the line or anything out of the ordinary. They were just there.

A Hummer parked perfectly in the center of a spot between the lines can still take up 3 spots, because the damn things are so wide that you probably can't open the door on one wide enough to easily get in without hitting the car next to you with it. I refuse to park my car next to Hummers or other large SUVs and trucks because even if they're perfectly centered in the spot, there's still a good chance that they'll ding my car.

Also, around here the big SUVs are driven by ignorant soccer moms who probably couldn't give a damn about anyone else's property and won't even make an effort to not hit cars next to them when they open their doors, I try to park next to cars where I think the owner may respect someone else's property enough to not ding it, which seems to be newer, sometimes more luxurious, smaller sedans and sports cars.

Oh, and before someone gets the wrong idea, I do not support the idea of vandalizing cars that are parked in 2 spots. There have been a couple times at malls and such where I see security writing out a ticket for an illegally parked car and I feel like bursting out into uncontrollable laughter because the schmuck got what they deserve, but I don't condone vandalism.

[OutThere]

Oh, and before someone gets the wrong idea, I do not support the idea of vandalizing cars that are parked in 2 spots. There have been a couple times at malls and such where I see security writing out a ticket for an illegally parked car and I feel like bursting out into uncontrollable laughter because the schmuck got what they deserve, but I don't condone vandalism.

There are other ways to get justice, as well. This past spring we went to the mall on a Saturday afternoon and there was absolutely no parking. After driving around the lot for a while we found a behemoth Infiniti QX56 parked perfectly straddling the line between two spots, with 1/2 a space on either side, right in the middle of a row of hundreds of cars that were all parked neatly in their spaces. Luckily his back window was pretty dusty, so I jumped out of the car and wrote "YOU PARK LIKE AN *******" in big letters with my finger on the rear window. He was still there after we finished lunch, a movie and some shopping, so everyone walking by saw it. Justice! :D

[yg17]

There are other ways to get justice, as well. This past spring we went to the mall on a Saturday afternoon and there was absolutely no parking. After driving around the lot for a while we found a behemoth Infiniti QX56 parked perfectly straddling the line between two spots, with 1/2 a space on either side, right in the middle of a row of hundreds of cars that were all parked neatly in their spaces. Luckily his back window was pretty dusty, so I jumped out of the car and wrote "YOU PARK LIKE AN *******" in big letters with my finger on the rear window. He was still there after we finished lunch, a movie and some shopping, so everyone walking by saw it. Justice! :D

There is (was? Haven't been in awhile and I'm not going to check it at work) a website out there called youparklikean*******.com which you may want to check out :D

And in case anyone can't fill in the blank, the censored word is a donkey plus something you dig with a shovel ;)

[Badandy]

There are other ways to get justice, as well. This past spring we went to the mall on a Saturday afternoon and there was absolutely no parking. After driving around the lot for a while we found a behemoth Infiniti QX56 parked perfectly straddling the line between two spots, with 1/2 a space on either side, right in the middle of a row of hundreds of cars that were all parked neatly in their spaces. Luckily his back window was pretty dusty, so I jumped out of the car and wrote "YOU PARK LIKE AN *******" in big letters with my finger on the rear window. He was still there after we finished lunch, a movie and some shopping, so everyone walking by saw it. Justice! :D

That's hilarious.

[Tomorrow]

...we found a behemoth Infiniti QX56 parked perfectly straddling the line between two spots, with 1/2 a space on either side, right in the middle of a row of hundreds of cars that were all parked neatly in their spaces.

This reminds me of an example of why I can't stand the old-fashioned scheme of striping "compact car only" parking spaces.

A few miles from the office there's a small development with common parking. Behind the Chili's is a lot which is 100% "compact car only" spots, which are only 7' wide (a standard spot is at least 9', many are 9'-6"). My wife's mid-size Altima neatly straddles both lines if you try to center it in the parking space, making three spaces worthless instead of two.

Invariably, you'll see an entire row of trucks and SUV's parking with respect to the adjacent vehicle, ignoring the lines altogether - you can get about 12 trucks in about 15 spots that way. The cars end up leaving very large gaps in between, but not quite big enough to squeeze another car in.

[jknight8907]

Are you kidding? My leased Discovery Land Rover and then leased 2005 Land Rover had more visibility than my current BMW and Jaguar. The mirrors on the Land Rovers were gigantic. I miss those rides. :(

I was agreeing with you, doc.

[munkees]

I support this 100% The Whole Foods in Naperville has preferred parking for their hybrid-driving/ULEV customers. I think it's a great idea.

The new Honda Insight gets 45+MPG* for $18,000. Take that!:D

The new 3rd Gen. Toyota Prius gets an EPA estimated 50MPG. Starting at $22,000. Which, IMO, is very affordable.


*EPA rated MPG is 40city/43highway, but actual real-world tested scenarios are averaging 45+MPG.

yep they can fit 2 small people, half a sandwich, and 1/4 can of coke. These are not practical for all people, I can get all my kids in them, if myself and the wife don't get into one of these.

Seeing we are a family of six. I have a 5 year old and triplet boys, all in car seats. the only vehicle we can find that can take 3 cars seats in a row, is a truck, not even an Ford expedition can. Getting kids in and out is a big hassle, minivans SUV all fail. and going and doing all the shopping in one trip, becomes a nightmare trying to get all the kids in seats, as you go store to store, but having all seats in a row easy to reach, well life gets easier. Plus plenty of room in the back for the stroller , which itself does not fit into a minivan.