SUV's......getting out of hand
Muskie
I am a 4x4 owner. An owner of a pickup truck.
Over these last few weeks, I have noticed a disturbing trend
in how many SUV's are on the road, and how MOST(not all) of the
drivers of these vehicles seem to be confusing their SUV's with a sports
car.
Example 1.
Jimmy "Road-Rage"Ledfoote.
This is the fella you always see swerving in and out of traffic,
cutting cars off by inches, and tailgating as if he were trying
to get a Pepsi off their bumper.
Jimmy is always beat-red and pissed of. He clutches the steering
wheel like a distraut ship captain in heavy seas.
For some reason, he believes his Ford Expedition is a Mazda Miata.
Example # 2.
Jane"no-see-um"Malleta
Jane is the woman you see driving the Full size SUV with the seat
pushed up centimeters from the steering wheel. Her little head and big
hair peak up over the dash just oh-so slightly, enough for her to
see airplanes and distinct cloud formations.
Jane will drive down the left lane at 45, and when you get in
the middle or right lane to pass, the lumbering beast she is
driving will SLOWLY veer into your lane. You honk your horn as
she almost takes out your front end, but she can't hear because
the heater and air vents are blasting directly at her head level.
Jane parks her SUV on narrow streets with it's rear end hanging
10 feet out into the street because she can't see to properly parallel
park.
When dropping kids off at the soccer and little league fields,
she leaves the 10 foot long doors wide open so they provide an
interesting obstacle course for other drivers.
The above are just two generic examples. I have a couple of questions:
Why is it that when there is a narrow street, and a full size SUV is
coming the other way, the driver will not make any room whatsoever
on his side for a safe passage?
Why do people who live in the city need a Dodge Ram v-10 extended cab?
Final Comments:
I have owned 4x4's for the past few years. I primarily use them
for hunting, fishing, and getting to wilderness areas. They have been
helpful in getting large amounts of gear or wood around.
But the world is a different place these days. The wilderness
areas in Colorado and Michigans U.P. can be EASILY reached by car.
The Boundary waters wilderness entry points can be reached with a
car. Most national forests have paved roads allowing interior access.
The SUV was originally designed for these tasks. It's use is no
longer needed.(for me)
After driving this countries roadways the past week I realized I need
something FAST to get away from all the reckless SUV drivers.
Yes, something with some zip to seperate myself from the pack of
road-rage-ravaged-wanna-be-sport-car-drivin-suv'ers.
A mustang sounds good.......yeah...a Mustang sounds really good.
So, my ravaged 4x4 will be put into storage for those days
when I will need it to access the .1% of wilderness areas that
don't have some sort of paved access.
------Muskie
Steve Winters
Hey Mike,
Glad to see you're still out there.
Muskie wrote:
>
> I am a 4x4 owner. An owner of a pickup truck.
Me, too.
>
> Over these last few weeks, I have noticed a disturbing trend
> in how many SUV's are on the road, and how MOST(not all) of the
> drivers of these vehicles seem to be confusing their SUV's with a sports
> car.
>
> Example 1.
> Jimmy "Road-Rage"Ledfoote.
>
> This is the fella you always see swerving in and out of traffic,
> cutting cars off by inches, and tailgating as if he were trying
> to get a Pepsi off their bumper.
Things are very different where I live. The folks driving like you
describe are usually piloting lowered Hondas with those silly wheels
sticking 2 inches out of the wheel wells. Drivers of pickups, SUV's,
and minivans are usually the most considerate on the road.
>
> Jimmy is always beat-red and pissed of. He clutches the steering
> wheel like a distraut ship captain in heavy seas.
Yesterday I saw a Acura NSX almost sideswipe a Toyota flat bed paint
truck while illegaly passing the truck on a freeway on-ramp.
>
> For some reason, he believes his Ford Expedition is a Mazda Miata.
>
> Example # 2.
> Jane"no-see-um"Malleta
>
> Jane is the woman you see driving the Full size SUV with the seat
> pushed up centimeters from the steering wheel. Her little head and big
> hair peak up over the dash just oh-so slightly, enough for her to
> see airplanes and distinct cloud formations.
Jane drives an El Dorado or Continental or maybe a Lexus around here.
> Jane will drive down the left lane at 45, and when you get in
> the middle or right lane to pass, the lumbering beast she is
> driving will SLOWLY veer into your lane. You honk your horn as
> she almost takes out your front end, but she can't hear because
> the heater and air vents are blasting directly at her head level.
>
> Jane parks her SUV on narrow streets with it's rear end hanging
> 10 feet out into the street because she can't see to properly parallel
> park.
I don't believe I've ever seen this type of behavior at any grocery
store or mall parking lot. On very narrow streets, drivers of large
vehicles pull over in the first available wide spot to allow others to
pass. Don't want any scratches on that Suburban.
>
> When dropping kids off at the soccer and little league fields,
> she leaves the 10 foot long doors wide open so they provide an
> interesting obstacle course for other drivers.
>
> The above are just two generic examples. I have a couple of questions:
>
> Why is it that when there is a narrow street, and a full size SUV is
> coming the other way, the driver will not make any room whatsoever
> on his side for a safe passage?
>
> Why do people who live in the city need a Dodge Ram v-10 extended cab?
Most Ram V-10's or Cummins equipped trucks I've seen have 5th wheel
hitches in the bed.
>
>
> Final Comments:
>
> I have owned 4x4's for the past few years. I primarily use them
> for hunting, fishing, and getting to wilderness areas. They have been
> helpful in getting large amounts of gear or wood around.
>
> But the world is a different place these days. The wilderness
> areas in Colorado and Michigans U.P. can be EASILY reached by car.
> The Boundary waters wilderness entry points can be reached with a
> car. Most national forests have paved roads allowing interior access.
>
> The SUV was originally designed for these tasks. It's use is no
> longer needed.(for me)
>
> After driving this countries roadways the past week I realized I need
> something FAST to get away from all the reckless SUV drivers.
>
> Yes, something with some zip to seperate myself from the pack of
> road-rage-ravaged-wanna-be-sport-car-drivin-suv'ers.
>
> A mustang sounds good.......yeah...a Mustang sounds really good.
Mike, get a Camaro SS or TransAm Ram Air. Better looking (IMHO) and
faster.
>
>
> So, my ravaged 4x4 will be put into storage for those days
> when I will need it to access the .1% of wilderness areas that
> don't have some sort of paved access.
>
> ------Muskie
>
>
>
That's why I have a car and a truck. The wife likes to be able to go
places while I'm at work, too.
--
Cheers,
Steve
82 Z28
96 K1500
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent those of
my employer or any one else.
Remove "*" from address to reply.
"It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave..."
Moody Blues
Dr. Bob
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST. THIS IS SPAMBAIT FROM A GUY WITH A LONG
HISTORY HERE. THE BEST RESPONSE IS NO RESPONSE!
dr bob
GO SUV
In article <34f52...@news9.kcdata.com>, mi...@mail.ntsource.com (Muskie) writes:
Hey, I think Muskie had it. He is making a lot of sense.
> I am a 4x4 owner. An owner of a pickup truck.
Me too. But it is not a pickup truck nor a SUV. It is a sedan.
> Example 1.
> Jimmy "Road-Rage"Ledfoote.
[snip]
> For some reason, he believes his Ford Expedition is a Mazda Miata.
In this part of the world, Ford Expedition owners think that they drive
snowmobiles.
> Example # 2.
> Jane"no-see-um"Malleta
ROTFLMAO!
> After driving this countries roadways the past week I realized I need
> something FAST to get away from all the reckless SUV drivers.
Yep, I think after a chip upgrade my car will have 200hp+ to be a real
SUV killer. In the dry, in the wet, in the snow. Go SUVs go!
--
i s a a c w @ n o r t e l . c a
1991 Isuzu Stylus XS handling by Lotus
1998 Audi A4 1.8T AWD Quattro Sport [GO SUV]
Go SUVs go!
TFrog93
The origin of this thread was cross-posted to the 4X4, Chrysler, Explorer and
Mustang newsgroups, which may indicate that a troll is seeking to start a
flamewar. Be that as it may, I respond from the Mustang newsgroup:
In article <34f52...@news9.kcdata.com>, mi...@mail.ntsource.com (Muskie)
writes:
>So, my ravaged 4x4 will be put into storage for those days when I will need
>it to access the .1% of wilderness areas that don't have some sort of paved
>access.
Yo, Muskie... You can't seriously believe that the current SUV craze has
ANYTHING to do with offroad travel. These beasts are NOT built to leave the
asphalt. Who would take a $50,000 Navigator through mud, for god's sake?
Heck, they don't even want to get them DIRTY! And the Lexus SUV is a luxury,
mobile living room, not a backwoods workhorse.
It's all about power, my friend. If, on the highway, I'm bigger than you, and
can see over you, then I have the power.
Of course, the Mustang does come with an interesting option: "escape
velocity".
dwight
nos...@cp.duluth.mn.us
One person wants a Porsche, the other wants a nice truck. Nobody's business
but their own.
The only person with the right to tell me what I can and can't drive is the
man/woman who cashes checks at my bank. Who says you have to "need" it?
Ryan T. Eberly
Here here! I'm sick to death of these faggot-ass posers driving vehicles
WAY too big for their driving skill (which is miniscule and goes without
sayint). The SUV has become a status symbol that just happens to raping
Mother Earth and pissing off everyone else. What does that Ford Expedition
get in gas mileage? Is it 13 mpg??!?! I could only get 13 mpg if I
redlined EVERY SINGLE GEAR. Fuck these boomers, fuck these yuppies... and
fuck everyone now that I think of it.
Muskie wrote in message <34f52...@news9.kcdata.com>...
>
> I am a 4x4 owner. An owner of a pickup truck.
>
> Over these last few weeks, I have noticed a disturbing trend
> in how many SUV's are on the road, and how MOST(not all) of the
>drivers of these vehicles seem to be confusing their SUV's with a sports
>car.
>
> Example 1.
> Jimmy "Road-Rage"Ledfoote.
>
David Lyons
No, the best response is an intense flame. A long, witty and humorous
one. One that'll make everybody laugh, except Muskie.
--
David A. Lyons
David Lyons
> Muskie wrote:
[SNIP]
Here you go, Mr. Dyke. This fucksponge trolls the automotive newsgroups
periodically with some anti-American or environmental wacko bullshit.
You've got a big audience this time (5 newsgroups). Make it count, sir.
--
David A. Lyons
Mike Korzeniowski
>redlined EVERY SINGLE GEAR. Fuck these boomers, fuck these yuppies... and
>fuck everyone now that I think of it.
Hmm, junior high must have let out early today....
Mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Mike Korzeniowski | Phone: +1-812-378-8898
President / Software Engineer | Fax: +1-812-378-0743
Software Engineering & Technology, Inc.| email: ko...@iquest.net
Columbus, IN USA | http://members.iquest.net/~koski/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Brosofsky
BKL,
That's a pretty strong claim. I suppose you have some data to back that
up.
> Most Suburban drivers just back out without looking. My wife's Audi got
> whacked that way (it was parked legally).
Later,
Harry
--
mailto:ha...@harryworld.com
http://www.harryworld.com/harry/jeep.html
97 TJ Sport, 5-speed, 3.55's, hardtop, A/C, tilt, Tuffy Series II
console, Rhino Lined tub and rockers, Cobra 29 LTD WX CB, Pioneer
DEH-45DH CD, Currie Rockcrawler II front and rear bumpers with tire
rack, Currie rocker skids, Warn XD9000i winch, Mickey Thompson
Challenger wheels, BFG M/T 33x12.50-R15, Rubicon Express fixed yoke
kit and driveshaft, Rubicon Express 4.5" Rockbound suspension,
Doetsch Tech DT3000 shocks, Empty bank account.
Jerry Bransford
Mike Korzeniowski wrote:
>
> In article <6d4kui$1...@nntp1.erinet.com>, "Ryan T. Eberly" <reb...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >f*** everyone now that I think of it.
>
> Hmm, junior high must have let out early today....
You've got that right! Such intelligence LOL!
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To send me email, write me at jerryb(atsign)cts.net
PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
Jeff
Sure as heck makes you wonder where all those school tax dollars are going
to. Doesn't it now?
Regards,
Jeff
-------
It's a JEEP thing, of course.
'97 Platinum Jeep Grand Cherokee LTD
deSPAMing information:
If replying by email, remove the 'Jeep-thing-' from my email address.
Mike Korzeniowski wrote in message <6d4onb$1av$2...@news.iquest.net>...
>In article <6d4kui$1...@nntp1.erinet.com>, "Ryan T. Eberly"
<reb...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>>redlined EVERY SINGLE GEAR. Fuck these boomers, fuck these yuppies... and
>>fuck everyone now that I think of it.
>
>Hmm, junior high must have let out early today....
>
James W. Ash
have to admit that i just got my expedition yesterday, and love it.
what you say below does have some merit, sorry to say to the folks upset
at you. i'm a responsible driver and still learning where the wheels
are on the truck. i plan on using it for all the activities i already
do, snowboarding in tahoe, scuba in monterrey, biking, camping in
yosemite, etc.
i think i'm the correct target audience for this mamouth of a truck
though. not to mention, my 2 golden retrievers are not allowed in my
benz and don't fit in the volvo sedan my wife drives. i agree with you
that they are status symbols now for people who consider outdoor
activities barbequeing on the 4th, and didn't have the sense to buy a
minivan.
i'll take your message to heart as i learn to pass, brake and
accellerate this monster 5.4 liter v8.
take care.
ps i just found the best rack for our trucks in the world. sports rack
in san carlos, ca.(650.591.9200) they modified an aftermarket kit
called the bauer, which plugs into any tow package. i got the
ski/board/bike model, which swings out of the way, locks down etc.
it's sweet.
pps i can't wait to see mike's face as i pass him with ski's/board's and
bike's all on the back of my expedition. :)
Muskie wrote:
>
> I am a 4x4 owner. An owner of a pickup truck.
>
> Over these last few weeks, I have noticed a disturbing trend
> in how many SUV's are on the road, and how MOST(not all) of the
> drivers of these vehicles seem to be confusing their SUV's with a sports
> car.
>
> Example 1.
> Jimmy "Road-Rage"Ledfoote.
>
> This is the fella you always see swerving in and out of traffic,
> cutting cars off by inches, and tailgating as if he were trying
> to get a Pepsi off their bumper.
>
> Jimmy is always beat-red and pissed of. He clutches the steering
> wheel like a distraut ship captain in heavy seas.
>
> For some reason, he believes his Ford Expedition is a Mazda Miata.
>
> Example # 2.
> Jane"no-see-um"Malleta
>
> Jane is the woman you see driving the Full size SUV with the seat
> pushed up centimeters from the steering wheel. Her little head and big
> hair peak up over the dash just oh-so slightly, enough for her to
> see airplanes and distinct cloud formations.
> Jane will drive down the left lane at 45, and when you get in
> the middle or right lane to pass, the lumbering beast she is
> driving will SLOWLY veer into your lane. You honk your horn as
> she almost takes out your front end, but she can't hear because
> the heater and air vents are blasting directly at her head level.
>
> Jane parks her SUV on narrow streets with it's rear end hanging
> 10 feet out into the street because she can't see to properly parallel
> park.
>
> When dropping kids off at the soccer and little league fields,
> she leaves the 10 foot long doors wide open so they provide an
> interesting obstacle course for other drivers.
>
> The above are just two generic examples. I have a couple of questions:
>
> Why is it that when there is a narrow street, and a full size SUV is
> coming the other way, the driver will not make any room whatsoever
> on his side for a safe passage?
>
> Why do people who live in the city need a Dodge Ram v-10 extended cab?
>
>
> Final Comments:
>
> I have owned 4x4's for the past few years. I primarily use them
> for hunting, fishing, and getting to wilderness areas. They have been
> helpful in getting large amounts of gear or wood around.
>
> But the world is a different place these days. The wilderness
> areas in Colorado and Michigans U.P. can be EASILY reached by car.
> The Boundary waters wilderness entry points can be reached with a
> car. Most national forests have paved roads allowing interior access.
>
> The SUV was originally designed for these tasks. It's use is no
> longer needed.(for me)
>
> After driving this countries roadways the past week I realized I need
> something FAST to get away from all the reckless SUV drivers.
>
> Yes, something with some zip to seperate myself from the pack of
> road-rage-ravaged-wanna-be-sport-car-drivin-suv'ers.
>
> A mustang sounds good.......yeah...a Mustang sounds really good.
>
>
> So, my ravaged 4x4 will be put into storage for those days
> when I will need it to access the .1% of wilderness areas that
> don't have some sort of paved access.
>
> ------Muskie
>
>
>
--
Netscape Technical Support: 1-800-639-0939
http://help.netscape.com/index.html
Make Netscape Communicator your default Internet software,
and if you choose, uninstall Internet Explorer.
http://home.netscape.com/download/netscape_now.html?
Robert Davis
So what you are saying is that SUV drivers are the problem on the roads. I
have to tell you that bad drivers have been around a lot longer than SUV's
have. The problem here isn't the vehicles, it is the drivers. If you take
these people out of their SUVs and put them in cars they will be just as bad
drivers.
And your solution is no better. You want to get a Mustang so you can drive
faster, zip in and out of traffic and be a worse driver than the people you
are criticizing. And as far as practicality is concerned, a sports car,
like the Mustang, is far worse than an SUV. Poor mileage, too much power
and no protection.
So lets focus on the problems of poor driving skills and road rage. The
type of vehicle doesn't matter if it is in the hands of an idiot.
In case you haven't guessed, I have a SUV ( a really big Chevy Blazer ) and
I am a very responsible driver as are the majority of drivers ( SUV, truck
or car ) on the road today.
Finger pointing at one type of vehicle is just plain unintelligent when the
problem on the roads today has nothing to do with vehicles and everything to
do with peoples attitudes. With your gripes and your Mustang solution, you
are part of the problem, not the solution.
BEDLEM
Muskie wrote in message <34f52...@news9.kcdata.com>...
>
James W. Ash
http://search.netscape.com/comprod/server_central/product/ss_hosting/servers/message_ds.html
it's the isp flavor of netscape's messaging server 3.5 that kills spam,
dead.
there's a corporate flavor too:
http://search.netscape.com/comprod/server_central/product/mail/messaging3_data.html
--
David Henley
Yep. This is accurate (description of Muskie). Little kids see it though,
so beware.
David Lyons wrote:
> > Muskie wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> Here you go, Mr. Dyke. This f*cksponge trolls the automotive newsgroups
> periodically with some anti-American or environmental wacko bullsh*t.
> You've got a big audience this time (5 newsgroups). Make it count, sir.
> <--SIR? How dare you respect Muskie?
>
> --
> David A. Lyons
David Henley
How 'bout those LOWERED 100% tint windows, and 8 feet wide slicks in the rain. Now
there's a distraction to the road. (Sadly I saw this done to a '97 Wrangler). If
you don't want my back bumper to hit my chin DON'T HIT ME IN THE ASS!
Tom Fritz wrote:
> BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
> <snip>
> : SUV drivers are no more skilled or considerate than drivers of comparable
> : valued cars of comparable age.
>
> Bullshit! On Wednesday I was hit by this asshole (Feb 25, 98) by this
> idot in a car. This fool drove his car right into my Hummers 37" factory tire.
> Then he got out and blammed the crash on me. A few witness's stopped and
> straighten the record out. The guy got pissed off and sped off.
>
> The only thing that happened to my "truck" was the 37" tire was cleaned off by
> his car. His car had about $2K on it. I would love to see hertz rent-o-car
> face when he turns it in!
>
> More small car drivers are assholes, cutting off larger trucks / jeeps /
> 18 wheelers / Hummers.
>
> I have seen many idots driving trucks and jeeps too... but by far, more
> idots in small cars.
>
> <snip>
> : It is important to have vehicle standards in bumper height, visibility, etc.
> : If people want to buy large vehicles, that's fine. There is no need to have
> : passenger vehicles on the road with extreme ground clearances, high window
> : sills, and nonstandard bumper heights.
>
> Sorry, why should I give up my ground clearance because some person
> wants to drive a shoebox on the road. Safty cost money... how safe
> does each person what to be.
>
> If the goverment would like to buy a nice car for me to use... and insurance,
> I would be more then happy to drive it to work. If the goverment does not
> want to buy this car / insurance for me, at no cost to me... then fuck
> them and the small car owners! I will buy any car I want to buy.
>
> As for the window thing... so what? I try to see through other cars
> windows, and it is distorted due to curves. Are you going to suggest
> all cars have flat windows so everyone can see through? Are you going
> to have every car owner remove their tint on the windows?
>
> --tlf
>
> --
> Thomas Fritz
> Joe Q UNIX
David Henley
Exactly. Or you could INSULT Muskie.
M Dilly
BKL wrote:
>
[speaking on SUV's]
> Except when the cut across the yellow line on curvy roads. Not to mention the
> fact that their mere presence says: "I like the view from up high, it makes me
> safer to be able to see ahead. Never mind that the car drivers behind me
> can't see a damn thing besides my spare tire."
>
> Is it really considerate to drive a vehicle with a bumper that hits the driver
> of a conventional car above its reinforcement members, perhaps on the driver's
> chin?
>
> Most Suburban drivers just back out without looking. My wife's Audi got
> whacked that way (it was parked legally).
>
> incentives. Having different CAFE standards, guzzler taxes, and income tax
> treatments, current policy deters people from buying the cars that are the
> safest for society overall.
>
> It is important to have vehicle standards in bumper height, visibility, etc.
> If people want to buy large vehicles, that's fine. There is no need to have
> passenger vehicles on the road with extreme ground clearances, high window
> sills, and nonstandard bumper heights.
sounds like you have little-big man's syndrome...
how about another perspective... i am a 23 year old woman, i also happen
to be 5'11" and weight approx. 50# more than your average 5'0"
female....since the average woman in America is something like 5'3", and
i don't fit into those specs. at all, should i be outlawed???
granted i'll cause considerably more damage stepping on/running
into/colliding with an average sized woman than another average sized
woman would, but i would hope that most people would never consider
segregating taller people because they're more likely to cause injury in
case of collision-- doesn't seem right to do the same with cars/trucks
either...
wanna place limitations on allowing production of more 'big' people (via
normal reproductive methods) while you're at it-- after all i do eat
more food than your average 5'0" woman, sure that means in your book
that i'm preventing starving children in third world nations from
eating...
car/truck buyers have choice as to the size of the vehicle they
buy--seems simple to me, if you want to be safe buy a larger vehicle and
drive in a safe manner to lessen risk. People who buy tiny vehicles take
the risk of being hit by larger vehicles--it's part of the trade-off,
smaller cars with smaller engines get better gas mileage, but larger
trucks are safer in collisions with other passenger vehicles.
How about OUTLAWING ALL SMALL CARS (for instance any vehicle of less
than 3500#) because people in small cars are in danger???
M Dilly
狂人
In <6d4onb$1av$2...@news.iquest.net>, on 02/26/98
>In article <6d4kui$1...@nntp1.erinet.com>, "Ryan T. Eberly"
><reb...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>redlined EVERY SINGLE GEAR. Fuck these boomers, fuck these yuppies... and
>>fuck everyone now that I think of it.
>Hmm, junior high must have let out early today....
Elementry school, you mean... :)
--
=Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester.=
====Bovine Team Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member.====
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 <<>> Hope_Net CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Java 1.1.4 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp Connect 3.0
My computer, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles and US Nuclear Submarines uses
***OS/2***
How about you?
Clint Olsen
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 23:04:42 -0600, M Dilly <dil...@madisontelco.com>
wrote:
>
>how about another perspective... i am a 23 year old woman, i also happen
>to be 5'11" and weight approx. 50# more than your average 5'0"
>female....since the average woman in America is something like 5'3", and i
>don't fit into those specs. at all, should i be outlawed???
Yes, we're sending over the height police right now. Please don't
resist...
-Clint
Jake Schmidt
Tom Fritz wrote in message ...
>BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
><snip>
>: SUV drivers are no more skilled or considerate than drivers of comparable
>: valued cars of comparable age.
>
>Bullshit! On Wednesday I was hit by this asshole (Feb 25, 98) by this
>idot in a car. This fool drove his car right into my Hummers 37" factory
tire.
>Then he got out and blammed the crash on me. A few witness's stopped and
>straighten the record out. The guy got pissed off and sped off.
So because you were involved in an accident with a vehicle smaller than a
Hummer, it makes SUV drivers more skilled and considerate than drivers of
comparable valued cars of comparable age?
Unfortunately you didn't provide any other information about the accident,
so I can't really form an opinion about whose fault it was.
>The only thing that happened to my "truck" was the 37" tire was cleaned off
by
>his car. His car had about $2K on it. I would love to see hertz
rent-o-car
>face when he turns it in!
>
>More small car drivers are assholes, cutting off larger trucks / jeeps /
>18 wheelers / Hummers.
Care to back this statement up with some hard evidence?
>I have seen many idots driving trucks and jeeps too... but by far, more
>idots in small cars.
You count 'em?
><snip>
>: It is important to have vehicle standards in bumper height, visibility,
etc.
>: If people want to buy large vehicles, that's fine. There is no need to
have
>: passenger vehicles on the road with extreme ground clearances, high
window
>: sills, and nonstandard bumper heights.
>
>Sorry, why should I give up my ground clearance because some person
>wants to drive a shoebox on the road. Safty cost money... how safe
>does each person what to be.
Hello!?! McFly!?! How much does a Hummer go for these days? Pushing $60k,
isn't it? I don't think the waitress working 60 hours a week making minimum
wage should be any less safe because she can't afford a $60k vehicle.
You said that you shouldn't have to give up ground clearance for the other
cars on the road. Why on earth do you need that much ground clearance on a
road? The only place you need much ground clearance, you won't see many cars
anyway.
>If the goverment would like to buy a nice car for me to use... and
insurance,
>I would be more then happy to drive it to work. If the goverment does not
>want to buy this car / insurance for me, at no cost to me... then fuck
>them and the small car owners! I will buy any car I want to buy.
This part doesn't make much sense to me. Why should the government buy you a
car? You're not required to even own a vehicle. You can walk everywhere or
take public transportation for all they care.
>As for the window thing... so what? I try to see through other cars
>windows, and it is distorted due to curves. Are you going to suggest
I don't have any problems seeing out of curved glass.
>all cars have flat windows so everyone can see through? Are you going
>to have every car owner remove their tint on the windows?
Tinted windows are not as hard to see out of as they are to see into.
Jake
Dallas Lowrey
Robert Davis wrote in message <6d555o$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
snip
>And your solution is no better. You want to get a Mustang so you can drive
>faster, zip in and out of traffic and be a worse driver than the people you
>are criticizing. And as far as practicality is concerned, a sports car,
>like the Mustang, is far worse than an SUV. Poor mileage, too much power
>and no protection.
I have to interupt.
My Mustang(v8) gets better gas mileage than my Explorer(v6)
You can never have too much power (ever tow anything with your Blazer?)
No protection? Cars have come a long ways in safety - yes, even the Mustang
ABS, Air bags, side-impact beams etc.
>
>So lets focus on the problems of poor driving skills and road rage. The
>type of vehicle doesn't matter if it is in the hands of an idiot.
Here in Chicago they started an anti-road rage campaign last week. An
unmarked
car is cruising all of the expressways tape recording idiots on the road and
shouldn't have any problems getting convictions with the video tape
>
>In case you haven't guessed, I have a SUV ( a really big Chevy Blazer ) and
>I am a very responsible driver as are the majority of drivers ( SUV, truck
>or car ) on the road today.
>
>Finger pointing at one type of vehicle is just plain unintelligent when the
>problem on the roads today has nothing to do with vehicles and everything
to
>do with peoples attitudes. With your gripes and your Mustang solution, you
>are part of the problem, not the solution.
>
> BEDLEM
agreed...
Dallas
TFrog93
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4,
rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,
rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Folks, if Muskie's post was a sincere essay on his personal opinion of the rise
of popularity of the SUV (and run-on sentences), then he would not have cross
posted to all of the groups above. He would have restricted it to 4X4 and
Mustang (only because of the mention of Mustangs at the end). This looks more
and more like a deliberate attempt to create a war. Let it go.
dwight
In article <34F61088...@netscape.com>, "James W. Ash" <ja...@netscape.com>
writes:
Joshua Presson (R)
Mike Korzeniowski wrote:
>
> In article <6d4kui$1...@nntp1.erinet.com>, "Ryan T. Eberly" <reb...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >redlined EVERY SINGLE GEAR. Fuck these boomers, fuck these yuppies... and
> >fuck everyone now that I think of it.
>
> Hmm, junior high must have let out early today....
>
I wonder if he has ever thought about or been told to seek therapy??
Think he ever experiences "road rage?" NAAAH, not him! LOL!!!
Josh
95 YJ
Lloyd R. Parker
Robert Davis (bed...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:
: And your solution is no better. You want to get a Mustang so you can drive
: faster, zip in and out of traffic and be a worse driver than the people you
: are criticizing. And as far as practicality is concerned, a sports car,
: like the Mustang, is far worse than an SUV. Poor mileage, too much power
: and no protection.
SUVs have the same overall fatality rate as passenger cars. A Mustang
will get better mileage, and assuming the driver knows what he's doing,
its vastly superior handling and braking will allow it to avoid accidents
the SUV will lumber into.
And in a car, when those bad drivers run into someone else, it would do
as much damage as if they were in an SUV.
ryan
In rec.autos.driving Robert Davis <bed...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> And your solution is no better. You want to get a Mustang so you can drive
> faster, zip in and out of traffic and be a worse driver than the people you
> are criticizing. And as far as practicality is concerned, a sports car,
> like the Mustang, is far worse than an SUV. Poor mileage, too much power
> and no protection.
Generalizations. Boo.
Mileage: My Mustang GT gets 20 mpg. My father's V6 Explorer gets 15 mpg.
Power: I like being able to merge onto the freeway at freeway speeds
coming from an onramp. In my opinion this is much safer than trying to
merge into 65mph traffic when you're doing 45mph.
Protection: Yeah, okay, you got me there. In an Expedition vs. Mustang
collision I would definately be the loser.
ryan
Tom Fritz
David Henley (cybe...@geocities.com) wrote:
: How 'bout those LOWERED 100% tint windows, and 8 feet wide slicks in the rain. Now
: there's a distraction to the road. (Sadly I saw this done to a '97 Wrangler). If
: you don't want my back bumper to hit my chin DON'T HIT ME IN THE ASS!
That was one of my points... BKL said that he can't see through the window of
a SUV because he is too short. Well in TX and most states you can have your
rear window spraypainted black so no one can see in (as long as you have a
drivers & passenger side mirrors). If BKL wants to rag on something, he
should start to rag on that first.
: Tom Fritz wrote:
<snip>
: > As for the window thing... so what? I try to see through other cars
: > windows, and it is distorted due to curves. Are you going to suggest
: > all cars have flat windows so everyone can see through? Are you going
: > to have every car owner remove their tint on the windows?
: >
: > --tlf
Sriram Narayan
Robert Davis (bed...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: So what you are saying is that SUV drivers are the problem on the roads. I
: have to tell you that bad drivers have been around a lot longer than SUV's
: these people out of their SUVs and put them in cars they will be just as bad
: drivers.
: And your solution is no better. You want to get a Mustang so you can drive
: faster, zip in and out of traffic and be a worse driver than the people you
: are criticizing. And as far as practicality is concerned, a sports car,
: like the Mustang, is far worse than an SUV. Poor mileage, too much power
: and no protection.
Unless the Mustang driver is redlining it in every gear, the Mustang should return
much better mileage. Since you agree drivers have not changed, why should
behaviour patterns change in a purely comute situation? I see SUVs being
driven *like* cars on freeways (same speeds, same lanes, same type of
manoevureing). Which is safer to other drivers, the weaving/tailgating
SUV driver or the sedan driver? As far as practicalilty, I can haul probably
up to 75% of an SUV in terms of volume and up to 500lb in terms of weight
in my car (SAAB 900). In terms of protection, my car is designed to fare well in
collisions with other cars. It is not designed to handle every situation,
such as collisions with 18 wheelers or "out of norm" vehicles such as SUVs
that proliferate freeways/urban roads these days.
: So lets focus on the problems of poor driving skills and road rage. The
: type of vehicle doesn't matter if it is in the hands of an idiot.
: In case you haven't guessed, I have a SUV ( a really big Chevy Blazer ) and
: I am a very responsible driver as are the majority of drivers ( SUV, truck
: or car ) on the road today.
Since bad drivers existed before and after the proliferation of SUVs, how
come they become suddenly more responsible after buying SUVs? Do you think
they think twice before drinking and driving as opposed to when they
drove cars? Do you think became suddenly enlightened and considerate
after SUV ownership? Which do you think is more dangerous - an enraged/impaired
SUV driver or a typical sedan driver?
: Finger pointing at one type of vehicle is just plain unintelligent when the
: problem on the roads today has nothing to do with vehicles and everything to
: do with peoples attitudes. With your gripes and your Mustang solution, you
: are part of the problem, not the solution.
SUV drivers have to make the choice as well if they are using the vehicle
for its role, i.e offroad, towing, utility etc... If not, they are a part
of the problem as well. When SUVs with their different handling, dimensional,
weight characteristics mingle with cars, results in inequities in safety
for the sedan driver. Is the solution that everyone upgrade to SUVs just
because now a significant % of the population has decided this vehicle
meets their needs for say 10% of their usage, so that the safety equation
is unchanged. Who is being inconsiderate here? What about the fact that
you have to sacrifice fuel economy and handling when you migrate to SUVs.
Is good fuel economy and good handling a bad thing? Has not safety of
cars improved in the last 10 yrs even though they have become more
powerful and more fuel eff, as well as being much safer? Which is the
newcomer to the stree, the SUV or the car? Who should adapt to the
safety /fuel economy requirements already in place? (Granted, there were a
few Jeeps and others for a long time, but these were few and far apart
and were not being used as they being today, in their large numbers).
I am looking for an intelligent discussion as well.
---
sriram narayan sriram....@technologist.com http://www.dsp.net/narayan
pp-asel:san francisco bay area:vfr flight planner:av articles:photo:sw dxing
Liquid
He needs the high ground cleearance to keep the aluminum body from being damaged
by the little bitty cars out there. It also comes in handy for driving over
Miatas whenever possible.
I, for one, have slowed down considerably since trading my Neon for a 3/4 ton
Dodge Ram Club Cab diesel. Even in the Neon, I was cut off more by compacts than
SUVs. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a Hummer being driven like a road
racer on public roads.
Because you drive a small car and are fearful of the larger ones out there does
not give you the right to make our decisions. Be mad at the poeple that cut you
off, or drop it and live happy. Life's too short to be angry all the time.
Tom Fritz
BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:04:33 GMT, t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) wrote:
: >BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
: ><snip>
: >: SUV drivers are no more skilled or considerate than drivers of comparable
: >: valued cars of comparable age.
: >
: >Bullshit! On Wednesday I was hit by this asshole (Feb 25, 98) by this
: >face when he turns it in!
: Notice I wrote about "comparable value. Your absurd $50k+ vehicle is probably
: not regularly endangered by late model Mercedes and the like, is it?
Can a regular car do damage to a Hummer or 18 wheeler? Sure they can. Will
they have more damage to their car then my Hummer. Sure they will.
: >More small car drivers are assholes, cutting off larger trucks / jeeps /
: >18 wheelers / Hummers.
: Perhaps they feel unsafe driving behind vehicles that block their needed view
: of the road and traffic ahead. I pass such vehicles all the time simply for
: that reason. I hope you don't consider a signaled lane change with adequate
: space a "cut off".
To speed up and cut off a larger car / truck / van / 18 wheeler so you can
see around the truck is wrong. If you can not see around this person your
just too dang close. A driver can alway slow down, and put more space
between the truck and their car.
If you give the 18 wheeler / truck / van / Hummer enough space to be able
to stop before rear-ending you, no problem. I have been at 70+ MPH on the
highway with people cutting me off with 10 feet between my bumper and their
rear bumper. Once they pass me, they slow down to 65 MPH and sometimes
take the next exit. There might not be a car behind me for a mile, but
they feel they must cut me off ( < 10 feet) and make me slow down, so they
can exit. That is really a stupid person. They will even do this
in the rain, when most cars / trucks need twice the space to stop.
: >Sorry, why should I give up my ground clearance because some person
: >wants to drive a shoebox on the road. Safty cost money... how safe
: >does each person what to be.
: How much clearance do you need to drive on public roads? Why should trucks be
: permitted to have bumpers at teeth level of most mainstream car drivers?
How much clearance do you need...
to cross a mud slide that is blocking you from leaving home?
to cross a flooded street to get your family safe?
drive to safty after a tornado destroyed your home?
to drive to the hospital in a snow storm?
to drive food to your horses in the mud?
Many people do you there trucks and 4x4 for many other reasons then
just play.
In CO, during the Ice Storms around Dec., Hummer owners beat the
National Guard to by a 1/2 day to help people. The national guard
would not leave the highway. The Hummer owners rescued many people
from their cars, drove people to Dr. visits, delivered medicine to
people, rushed fire / paramedic to homes. This is just one
example, and I am sure there are a ton more of 4x4 helping in
bad times.
: > then fuck the small car owners!
: Sometimes, regulation is needed to keep the foolish, mean, anti-social or
: merely self-interested from doing things that harm society even more than they
: help themselves. You may get a small margin of safety by having high bumpers,
: but only at a much greater risk to those around you.
It is better to make all cars crumple in a crash, then to have all cars built
better? That is the problem I have see with the goverment. Lets take
good and strong cars, and weaken them. It is not fair that those people
bought a very well built car... when John Doe bought a Yugo that can't even
take a impact with a shopping cart without being totaled.
Why not make the unsafe cars better to handle a crash? If the bumpers don't
line up with small cars, then small car makers should rase them up.
: > I will buy any car I want to buy.
: And I hope the government stops the essential subsidy of your truck or SUV by
: subjecting it to equal tax, safety, CAFE and other standards, so that you can
: have real freedom of choice.
Equal tax... hate to tell ya, but equal tax does not happen in this country.
If you buy a car / truck / what ever that cost more then $30,000, you are
subject to a luxury tax. Yes, it would be nice if the tax for everything
was far. That is everyone in US pays the same amount, but that will
never happen. Life is never fair, and never will be.
: >As for the window thing... so what? I try to see through other cars
: >windows, and it is distorted due to curves.
: I'm not suggesting that you should have your portrait taken through a few
: layers of glass, just that you can watch for the little 3rd brake light of the
: cars in congestion ahead. (And your truck is probably subject to lower
: optical glass clarity regulation standards, if I'm not mistaken).
My glass is clear, and flat. From my Eclipse GST, I can see better through
my Hummers glass, then some small cars curved glass.
: > Are you going
: >to have every car owner remove their tint on the windows?
: Tint is already strictly restricted to a level that permits view-through to
: see brake lights ahead.
Sorry, your information is wrong in many states. I know for a fact that
in Texas, and California, I can paint my windows and do not have to let
people look into my car from the rear. As LONG AS I have a drivers
and passenger side mirrors.
Only the drivers side window has restrictions. I believe that most states
are that way.
Michael Dyke
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:18:51 -0500, David Lyons <lyo...@atl.hp.com>
wrote:
>> Muskie wrote:
>[SNIP]
>
>Here you go, Mr. Dyke. This fucksponge trolls the automotive newsgroups
>periodically with some anti-American or environmental wacko bullshit.
>You've got a big audience this time (5 newsgroups). Make it count, sir.
>
>--
>David A. Lyons
Let's see if we can have a little fun trolling for Muskie.
I think I'll start a new thread to see if I can get him going. Feel
free to help me fan the flames.
Flame seared Muskie for lunch, anyone?
Michael Dyke
Hompage: http://www.planetc.com/users/dykemw
Email:dyk...@planetc.net <---Change net to com
Jitterbug
I can see what he is talking about, the same fuckers that drove Saab's a few
years back. The Yuppie type, but they are known for the "fuck you common
bastard" attitude, hell you might have one for a boss. The part where they
are driving a 4X4 doesn't bother me, it how they drive them. You know the
type..not just lawyers, but worst. Like the kind that owns a "temp agency"
and make a lot of money off the backs of a bunch of poor people that don't
know, or can not do better.
Steve Winters wrote in message <34F59F...@cadence.com>...
>Hey Mike,
>Glad to see you're still out there.
>
>Muskie wrote:
>>
>> I am a 4x4 owner. An owner of a pickup truck.
>
>
>>
>> Over these last few weeks, I have noticed a disturbing trend
>> in how many SUV's are on the road, and how MOST(not all) of the
>> drivers of these vehicles seem to be confusing their SUV's with a sports
>> car.
>>
>> Example 1.
>> Jimmy "Road-Rage"Ledfoote.
>>
>> This is the fella you always see swerving in and out of traffic,
>> cutting cars off by inches, and tailgating as if he were trying
>> to get a Pepsi off their bumper.
>
>describe are usually piloting lowered Hondas with those silly wheels
>sticking 2 inches out of the wheel wells. Drivers of pickups, SUV's,
>and minivans are usually the most considerate on the road.
>
>>
>> Jimmy is always beat-red and pissed of. He clutches the steering
>> wheel like a distraut ship captain in heavy seas.
>
>truck while illegaly passing the truck on a freeway on-ramp.
>
>>
>> For some reason, he believes his Ford Expedition is a Mazda Miata.
>>
>> Example # 2.
>> Jane"no-see-um"Malleta
>>
>> Jane is the woman you see driving the Full size SUV with the seat
>> pushed up centimeters from the steering wheel. Her little head and big
>> hair peak up over the dash just oh-so slightly, enough for her to
>> see airplanes and distinct cloud formations.
>
>
>> Jane will drive down the left lane at 45, and when you get in
>> the middle or right lane to pass, the lumbering beast she is
>> driving will SLOWLY veer into your lane. You honk your horn as
>> she almost takes out your front end, but she can't hear because
>> the heater and air vents are blasting directly at her head level.
>>
>> Jane parks her SUV on narrow streets with it's rear end hanging
>> 10 feet out into the street because she can't see to properly parallel
>> park.
>
>store or mall parking lot. On very narrow streets, drivers of large
>vehicles pull over in the first available wide spot to allow others to
>pass. Don't want any scratches on that Suburban.
>
>>
>> When dropping kids off at the soccer and little league fields,
>> she leaves the 10 foot long doors wide open so they provide an
>> interesting obstacle course for other drivers.
>>
>> The above are just two generic examples. I have a couple of questions:
>>
>> Why is it that when there is a narrow street, and a full size SUV is
>> coming the other way, the driver will not make any room whatsoever
>> on his side for a safe passage?
>>
>> Why do people who live in the city need a Dodge Ram v-10 extended cab?
>
>hitches in the bed.
>
>>
>>
>> Final Comments:
>>
>> I have owned 4x4's for the past few years. I primarily use them
>> for hunting, fishing, and getting to wilderness areas. They have been
>> helpful in getting large amounts of gear or wood around.
>>
>> But the world is a different place these days. The wilderness
>> areas in Colorado and Michigans U.P. can be EASILY reached by car.
>> The Boundary waters wilderness entry points can be reached with a
>> car. Most national forests have paved roads allowing interior access.
>>
>> The SUV was originally designed for these tasks. It's use is no
>> longer needed.(for me)
>>
>> After driving this countries roadways the past week I realized I need
>> something FAST to get away from all the reckless SUV drivers.
>>
>> Yes, something with some zip to seperate myself from the pack of
>> road-rage-ravaged-wanna-be-sport-car-drivin-suv'ers.
>>
>> A mustang sounds good.......yeah...a Mustang sounds really good.
>
>faster.
>
>>
>>
>> So, my ravaged 4x4 will be put into storage for those days
>> when I will need it to access the .1% of wilderness areas that
>> don't have some sort of paved access.
>>
>> ------Muskie
>>
>>
>>
>
>places while I'm at work, too.
>--
>Cheers,
>Steve
>82 Z28
>96 K1500
>The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent those of
>my employer or any one else.
>Remove "*" from address to reply.
>
>"It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave..."
> Moody Blues
Mario Perez
<SNIP - so I can get on the soapbox>
OK, lets legislate small cars off the road - after all they are obviously an
endangerment to everyone who rides/drives in one - after all THE BIG RIGS do
just a little bit more damage to the econo-sized cars when the big rig is
passed, then cut in front of just feet from their front bumper - then the
econo-sized driver jumps on the brakes. After all they almost passed their
exit trying to get in front of said big rig (anything they can not see
around) and MUST slow to get off the road. Oh, and yes, maybe we should
also legislate anything over one ton in weight off the road - they can't
stop fast enough to avoid all the people who managed to have their older,
econo-sized car grandfathered into staying on the road. (if only...)
As I understand it, the issue is safety - who is responsible - the guy who
hits the little car with a big one - generally from the rear? Or the little
car owner who pulled out/passed then braked sharply/"didn't even see the big
truck as I tried to turn across traffic" (would they have seen a small car?)
etc.?
Each vehicle owner/operator is ultimately responsible for their actions. If
they directly cause an accident, and it is with a bigger or smaller vehicle,
then they have shown a less responsible attitude and should pay more for
insurance. If they are the victim of a bigger or smaller vehicle, they
should be compensated for the damage to body, spirit and property. That is
what insurance companies presently pay for (and why we should all have
insurance). A driver of a large vehicle who has never caused an accident,
but was involved in one is often simply the recipient of bad
luck/timing/day, and should never be penalized for this. Also, the driver
of a small vehicle hit by a larger vehicle should never be penalized for the
accident, and is also the recipient of bad luck/timing/day.
Personally, I think that if a specific driver in has proven by their actions
to be inherently "unsafe" as compared to other vehicles, and this SPECIFIC
driver has a large vehicle, then YES they SHOULD PAY more that a driver who
does drive a smaller vehicle with a similar driving record. But from what I
have seen in the past, that is somewhat the case.
When I was younger, and involved with the insurance industry, I noted that
drivers of larger vehicles who qualified for "higher risk" policies -
because of accidents, tickets, or whatever, DID pay more - for all parts of
the insurance - comprehensive, property and liability, than those who drove
the same vehicle with a "preferred" policy.
My opinion of some of the other issues seen in this and related threads, is
that the tire size, bumper height, has little to do with what the operator
of the vehicle does with it. There are complete idiots driving Geo Metros,
and also 18 wheelers. It is my goal to identify them from their behavior on
the road, and stay clear. If not possible, (i.e. accident), then I will let
the insurance company deal with it.
If I have a bad day, and cause an accident, then I accept the responsibility
for those actions. I will not try to blame anyone else for what I did. -
Of course, in this litigious society today, the insurance attorneys may do
whatever they want...
So each of you out there, be responsible for your self. Tell your
government officials that you are responsible for your actions, and that the
present standards (at least where I am) are adequate, so leave them alone.
Don't add laws that are un-enforceable, would require a doctorate on the
part of the enforcement officials to enforce, and do not harm the business
world. Do make sure the existing laws are logical for the area they are
supposed to protect, and that they help, not harm as many people as
possible.
Remember - we as citizens have the power and responsibility of determining
who is making our laws, if we choose to forgo that right, we should not
complain when legislation passes that we do not like (of course, you do have
the RIGHT to complain anyway, that is why we can all whine whenever we
want - whether we vote or not)...
Oh well I'll get off my soapbox now.
I have/drive (in case you care)
88 Ford Bronco (FS)
91 Ford Aerostar
67 Ford F250
67 Austin Healey Sprite and 69 Austin Healey Sprite - and they are smaller
and slower than a metro - but nimble.
MPerez
Michael Dyke
I would like everyone to join me in extending a warm welcome to
Muskie, the latest troll to imagine he has the testicular fortitude to
smear his humorless and talentless socio-political feces into
rec.autos.makers.autos.mustang.
Our RAMFM board of directors has recenty interviewed a number of troll
applicants, but they have failed to survive past the first or second
*interview phase*. For their failures, we collectively have made sure
that our former troll/(f)lamer wanna be's associate Mustang with pure
unadulterated mind rape, not that they had much of a brain cherry to
pop.
So, as I continue to scrape the quivering and charred remains of
ANALMOtion ( read cowardly fuck) from my usenet boot, I would just
like to welcome you Muskie to our humble group.
I must admit that I have been a bit dissapointed with the quaility of
the trolls we have abused of late. I am sure it has something to do
with all of the inbreeding and squalid conditions in the troll stock
pens, but rejoice Muskie, here is your chance to break free from the
grip of mediocrity.
Let the beatings begin!
Michael Dyke
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:49:32 -0500, "Ryan T. Eberly"
<reb...@erinet.com> wrote:
>Here here! I'm sick to death of these faggot-ass posers driving vehicles
>WAY too big for their driving skill (which is miniscule and goes without
>sayint). The SUV has become a status symbol that just happens to raping
>Mother Earth and pissing off everyone else. What does that Ford Expedition
>get in gas mileage? Is it 13 mpg??!?! I could only get 13 mpg if I
>redlined EVERY SINGLE GEAR. Fuck these boomers, fuck these yuppies... and
>fuck everyone now that I think of it.
>
Thanks for that enlightening social commentary, you pud.
You forgot someone in that litany of 'fucks', however... Please go
fuck yourself!
blown46
Sriram Narayan wrote:
snipped
>
> SUV drivers have to make the choice as well if they are using the vehicle
> for its role, i.e offroad, towing, utility etc... If not, they are a part
> of the problem as well. When SUVs with their different handling, dimensional,
> weight characteristics mingle with cars, results in inequities in safety
> for the sedan driver. Is the solution that everyone upgrade to SUVs just
> because now a significant % of the population has decided this vehicle
> meets their needs for say 10% of their usage, so that the safety equation
> is unchanged.
Whoa bud. Who gets to decide?
> Who is being inconsiderate here? What about the fact that
> you have to sacrifice fuel economy and handling when you migrate to SUVs.
And in return gain a significant margin of safety for my family. I
consider
this a pretty good trade.
> Is good fuel economy and good handling a bad thing? Has not safety of
> cars improved in the last 10 yrs even though they have become more
> powerful and more fuel eff, as well as being much safer?
Of course they have. Is a Tarus or Malibu or Camry as safe as the wife'e
expedition? Relative - no?
> Which is the
> newcomer to the stree, the SUV or the car? Who should adapt to the
> safety /fuel economy requirements already in place? (Granted, there were a
> few Jeeps and others for a long time, but these were few and far apart
> and were not being used as they being today, in their large numbers).
The SUV's meet all federal requirements? What requirements are you
talking about?
Are you suggesting there should be parity in weight and structural
integrity in all vehicles?
Perhaps we should reduce this down one more level. Consider the poor
motorcycle rider who is outweighed and unprotected for the most part.
Should we all commute on scooters until the bicyclists start
complaining?
I'll keep my family in the safest vehicle I can thank you very much.
Monroe
97 Cobra Conv.
98 Expedition
GO SUV
In article <904C14547AEE5732.70EAD078...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, blown46 <blo...@airmail.net> writes:
> Sriram Narayan wrote:
> > Who is being inconsiderate here? What about the fact that
> > you have to sacrifice fuel economy and handling when you migrate to SUVs.
>
> And in return gain a significant margin of safety for my family. I
> consider
> this a pretty good trade.
Whoa. I thought accident "avoidance" is a pretty good safety "device"
over those huge pile of steel your Ex has to offer.
> > Is good fuel economy and good handling a bad thing? Has not safety of
> > cars improved in the last 10 yrs even though they have become more
> > powerful and more fuel eff, as well as being much safer?
>
> Of course they have. Is a Tarus or Malibu or Camry as safe as the wife'e
> expedition? Relative - no?
Yes. Definitely yes. A Malibu, Camry and Taurus, can avoid the accident
in the first place, while your Expedition may not.
BTW, that's why every vehicle comes with a steering wheel. Use it.
> > Which is the
> > newcomer to the stree, the SUV or the car? Who should adapt to the
> > safety /fuel economy requirements already in place? (Granted, there were a
> > few Jeeps and others for a long time, but these were few and far apart
> > and were not being used as they being today, in their large numbers).
>
> The SUV's meet all federal requirements? What requirements are you
> talking about?
> Are you suggesting there should be parity in weight and structural
> integrity in all vehicles?
Like, controlled and pre-determined crush zones, side-impact protection
beams. Car's have to go through a stricter safety standard than trucks,
no?
> Perhaps we should reduce this down one more level. Consider the poor
> motorcycle rider who is outweighed and unprotected for the most part.
> Should we all commute on scooters until the bicyclists start
> complaining?
Let's keep it to four wheels, ok? Can a cyclist hold its bike steady
while stationary with his feet off the ground?
> I'll keep my family in the safest vehicle I can thank you very much.
Well, an Expedition is hopeless if it encounters anything tougher than
it. Such as, an 18-wheeler, a concrete wall, or, guess what, another
Expedition.
Good luck in using the Ex's steering wheel to maneuver it around those
obstacles. With its horrible handling no wonder why it has to be tough,
because you WILL need it.
--
i s a a c w @ n o r t e l . c a
1991 Isuzu Stylus XS handling by Lotus
1998 Audi A4 1.8T AWD Quattro Sport [GO SUV]
Go SUVs go!
PAUL PASCHKE
The way one drives or the bad driving habits they may have, has nothing
to do with SUV's. Maybe you need to take another look at things around
you, and you may find you're not so perfect yourself. It is people like
you that have complaints about something and choose to start sterotyping
and in return giving the subject a bad label, in this case, people who
drive SUV's.
As to why someone in the city would buy a Dodge V-10, because it is
their business to own whatever they please for whatever reason they may
have. Why would someone buy a Corvette that may go 150 mph when the
maxium speed limit is 70 mph. GET THE POINT!!!!!
Let people enjoy whatever they want to drive and focus on the issue on
hand, not some uneducated assumption.
Charlie Choc
mi...@mail.ntsource.com (Muskie) wrote:
<snip>
>
>So, my ravaged 4x4 will be put into storage for those days
> when I will need it to access the .1% of wilderness areas that
>don't have some sort of paved access.
>
Well bless your heart. So you'll occaionally hop into the vehicle
you've forgotten how to drive and drive it like you do your new
Mustang? Why not just stay out of the .1% altogether, sounds safer all
around to me.
--
Charlie...
Tom Fritz
Liquid (liq...@deathsdoor.com) wrote:
: SUVs. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a Hummer being driven like a road
: racer on public roads.
I do not know of any Hummer / 18 wheeler owner ever drive bad. Most adults
who have been driving a large truck /Jeep / etc. know that they can kill
someone... and would do almost anything to avoid that. That is a fact.
I have seen some large trucks driven by kids drive like hell... but that
has nothing to do with the truck, but the driver.
To make a statement that all SUV / Jeep / Truck / Hummer what ever drivers
are poor, and should be taxes heavyer based on their size would not be fair.
Tax by number of tickets / crashes would be a little bit more even.
Steve Winters
BKL wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:01:33 -0800, Steve Winters <winterss*@cadence.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Things are very different where I live. The folks driving like you
> >describe are usually piloting lowered Hondas with those silly wheels
> >sticking 2 inches out of the wheel wells. Drivers of pickups, SUV's,
> >and minivans are usually the most considerate on the road.
>
> fact that their mere presence says: "I like the view from up high, it makes me
> safer to be able to see ahead. Never mind that the car drivers behind me
> can't see a damn thing besides my spare tire."
TFB.
>
> Is it really considerate to drive a vehicle with a bumper that hits the driver
> of a conventional car above its reinforcement members, perhaps on the driver's
> chin?
It is considered considerate not to hit a conventional car at all!
>
> SUV drivers are no more skilled or considerate than drivers of comparable
> valued cars of comparable age.
A blanket generalization. Utter nonsense.
>
> >I don't believe I've ever seen this type of behavior at any grocery
> >store or mall parking lot. On very narrow streets, drivers of large
> >vehicles pull over in the first available wide spot to allow others to
> >pass. Don't want any scratches on that Suburban.
>
> Most Suburban drivers just back out without looking. My wife's Audi got
> whacked that way (it was parked legally).
Just because of one instance, all drivers of Suburbans get painted with
the same brush.
>
> Freedom of vehicle choice is important. Current policies provided distorted
> incentives. Having different CAFE standards, guzzler taxes, and income tax
> treatments, current policy deters people from buying the cars that are the
> safest for society overall.
>
> It is important to have vehicle standards in bumper height, visibility, etc.
> If people want to buy large vehicles, that's fine. There is no need to have
> passenger vehicles on the road with extreme ground clearances, high window
> sills, and nonstandard bumper heights.
Distorted incentives, yes. No private vehicles would be safest for
society overall, but would you want to live in such a society? Let me
buy the vehicle that satisfies my list of wants and requirements and
you can buy the one that fits yours.
Tom Fritz
GO SUV (ad...@spammer.killer.com) wrote:
: In article <904C14547AEE5732.70EAD078...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, blown46 <blo...@airmail.net> writes:
: > Of course they have. Is a Tarus or Malibu or Camry as safe as the wife'e
: > expedition? Relative - no?
: Yes. Definitely yes. A Malibu, Camry and Taurus, can avoid the accident
: in the first place, while your Expedition may not.
: BTW, that's why every vehicle comes with a steering wheel. Use it.
Great, so if a car has an option for ABS and they don't buy it, then
lets tax them 8 X the normal rate. After all, that is a safty option
that they did not buy. They may not have had the money to buy it in
the fisrt place, but lets tax them more.
Since all new cars have dual airbags on their cars, let also tax
cars that are too old to have them. Lets make it 20 X the amount the
a new car is charged to be fair.
Wait! There is more... before 1960 (don't know the correct date)
99 percent of the cars did not have seatbelts. Since that was a
safty option that they did not buy (my dad did buy them for his 57 Chevy)
lets hit them up with a 30 X tax amount every year.
Heck at this rate, USA would be out of the red and into the black.
: > > Which is the
: > > newcomer to the stree, the SUV or the car? Who should adapt to the
: > > safety /fuel economy requirements already in place? (Granted, there were a
: > > few Jeeps and others for a long time, but these were few and far apart
: > > and were not being used as they being today, in their large numbers).
: >
: > The SUV's meet all federal requirements? What requirements are you
: > talking about?
: > Are you suggesting there should be parity in weight and structural
: > integrity in all vehicles?
: Like, controlled and pre-determined crush zones, side-impact protection
: beams. Car's have to go through a stricter safety standard than trucks,
: no?
See above.
: > I'll keep my family in the safest vehicle I can thank you very much.
: Well, an Expedition is hopeless if it encounters anything tougher than
: it. Such as, an 18-wheeler, a concrete wall, or, guess what, another
: Expedition.
Picture of a Hummer after hitting a highway concrete wall:
http://www.humvee.com/pix/crump.htm
(nobody hurt -- thank god)
Jim Janecek
In article <34f718ea...@news.planetc.com>, dyk...@planetc.net
(Michael Dyke) wrote:
> I would like everyone to join me in extending a warm welcome to
> Muskie, the latest troll to imagine he has the testicular fortitude to
> smear his humorless and talentless socio-political feces into
> rec.autos.makers.autos.mustang.
(snip)
> Let the beatings begin!
>
>
>
> Michael Dyke
so why did you post this to rec.autos.4x4? :-/
--
.
.
Jim Janecek 57 BMW Isetta---59 Austin Healey Bugeye Sprite
results of the 97 Microcar & Minicar Club National Meet are at:
http://www.tezcat.com/~janecek/1997micro.html
Pete Llarena
Bill Funk
In article <uBeWjl7Q9GA.232@upnetnews04>, nos...@email.msn.com says...
> I can see what he is talking about, the same fuckers that drove Saab's a few
> years back. The Yuppie type, but they are known for the "fuck you common
> bastard" attitude, hell you might have one for a boss. The part where they
> are driving a 4X4 doesn't bother me, it how they drive them. You know the
> type..not just lawyers, but worst. Like the kind that owns a "temp agency"
> and make a lot of money off the backs of a bunch of poor people that don't
> know, or can not do better.
> Steve Winters wrote in message <34F59F...@cadence.com>...
> >Hey Mike,
> >Glad to see you're still out there.
> >
> >Muskie wrote:
> >>
> >> I am a 4x4 owner. An owner of a pickup truck.
> >
> >Me, too.
> >
> >>
> >> Over these last few weeks, I have noticed a disturbing trend
> >> in how many SUV's are on the road, and how MOST(not all) of the
> >> drivers of these vehicles seem to be confusing their SUV's with a sports
> >> car.
> >>
> >> Example 1.
> >> Jimmy "Road-Rage"Ledfoote.
Hey, people, here's a little bit of math for you:
MUSKIE = TROLL
Respond to anything from him appropriately.
--
Bill Funk
http://www.starlink.com/~ascii
"All I ask is an opportunity to prove that money doesn't buy
happiness."
Jerry Bransford
Jitterbug wrote:
>
> chuck wrote in message <01bd4408$1ad78140$2ad2c4d0@chuck>...
> >
> >
> >Why is it that when there is a narrow street, and a full size SUV is
> >>coming the other way, the driver will not make any room whatsoever
> >>on his side for a safe passage?
> >
> >
> >
>
> This is the attitude I was talking about. " get out of the way you common
> bastard" They like the feeling of power they get. Next they will hang plows
> on them, and tailgate you."Why should he?" the little things like this,
> start road-rage. How about trying to be nice, instead of having the "get out
> of my way, because I can hit you in your little car, and walk away"
You wouldn't by any chance be generalizing about SUV drivers would you
<g>?
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To send me email, write me at jerryb(atsign)cts.net
PP-ASEL, C.A.P., KC6TAY
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!
Randolf Pitchford
lang*lo...@teleport.com (BKL) wrote:
>But those truck exact a greater cost to other drivers, and this cost is not
>measured by or reflected in your "fatality rate" statistics.
So what? As heartless as this may sound, even in our civilized
society, the law of the"survival of the best equipped " still applies.
It could be argued, that since the folks who drive SUVs believe in the
family values that made this country great, that it benefits society
as a whole to give them a slight edge on our bloody roads.
After all, in any confrontation between two vehicles, SOMEONE has got
to lose.
Regards,
Randolf Pitchford
( the artist formerly known as "Cactus Jack" )
Sriram Narayan
In article <t5150Ep...@netcom.com>, t5...@netcom.com says...<904C14547AEE5732.70EAD0785C9FC604.E1D2475EE711E30C@library-proxy.a
>irnews.net>, blown46 <blo...@airmail.net> writes:
>: > Of course they have. Is a Tarus or Malibu or Camry as safe as the wife'e
>: > expedition? Relative - no?
>
>: Yes. Definitely yes. A Malibu, Camry and Taurus, can avoid the accident
>: in the first place, while your Expedition may not.
>
>: BTW, that's why every vehicle comes with a steering wheel. Use it.
>
>Great, so if a car has an option for ABS and they don't buy it, then
>lets tax them 8 X the normal rate. After all, that is a safty option
>that they did not buy. They may not have had the money to buy it in
>the fisrt place, but lets tax them more.
>
>Since all new cars have dual airbags on their cars, let also tax
>cars that are too old to have them. Lets make it 20 X the amount the
>a new car is charged to be fair.
>
>Wait! There is more... before 1960 (don't know the correct date)
>99 percent of the cars did not have seatbelts. Since that was a
>safty option that they did not buy (my dad did buy them for his 57 Chevy)
>lets hit them up with a 30 X tax amount every year.
Exactly, what is your point? Are you implying here that the SUV is the next
evolutionary step in safety? Increase in vehicle mass = safety? Safety for
whom? So while the early adopters buy SUVs to "protect their families", the
later ones are going to be having more accidents with SUVs. I would rather take
my chances in a car-car collision (which would be easier to avoid in the first
place) than an SUV-SUV collision.
Extending your witty repartee further, we should then tax cars since they don't
meet the safety levels of SUVs. I am beginning to see the light now.
--
Sriram Narayan
In article
<904C14547AEE5732.70EAD078...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
blo...@airmail.net says...
>
>> Is the solution that everyone upgrade to SUVs just
>> because now a significant % of the population has decided this vehicle
>> meets their needs for say 10% of their usage, so that the safety equation
>> is unchanged.
>
>Whoa bud. Who gets to decide?
You, of course. I think that's why we were given brains.
>
>> Who is being inconsiderate here? What about the fact that
>> you have to sacrifice fuel economy and handling when you migrate to SUVs.
>
>And in return gain a significant margin of safety for my family. I
>consider
>this a pretty good trade.
Maybe for a brief time, while you are still a relative minority. I see 25-30%
of vehicles being the SUV/minivan/large pick-up type these days. A collision
with a heavy like object will not be a pretty picture, with no crumple zones,
rigid chassis and poor handling to avoid the accident in the first place. And
if you tried a heroic move thinking you were in a car, the rollover picture
would look uglier.
>
>> Is good fuel economy and good handling a bad thing? Has not safety of
>> cars improved in the last 10 yrs even though they have become more
>> powerful and more fuel eff, as well as being much safer?
>
>Of course they have. Is a Tarus or Malibu or Camry as safe as the wife'e
>expedition? Relative - no?
With like collisions again, the car is a better choice, better chances to avoid
the accident. OK, you will win if you hit the Camry with your Expedition, but
the chances are decreasing that you will hit a car in the first place. Then
what are you going to buy?
>
>> Which is the
>> newcomer to the stree, the SUV or the car? Who should adapt to the
>> safety /fuel economy requirements already in place? (Granted, there were a
>> few Jeeps and others for a long time, but these were few and far apart
>> and were not being used as they being today, in their large numbers).
>
>The SUV's meet all federal requirements? What requirements are you
>talking about?
Automakers got around CAFE and safety laws by building SUVs, which replaced the
big cars of the past. Oil companies are happy, automakers are happy, with
healthy profits on vehicles built on truck platforms with little investment in
safety or fuel economy areas. You think you have choice? No, the choices are
fewer these days - station wagons, hatchbacks, manual txm vehicles, decent
sports cars are a dying breed. The choices are being made for you. The future
is bleak, with monstrous SUVs out-duelling each other to be bigger, heavier and
"more protective of its occupants". And a smaller and smaller percentage of
them will actually make it off road. What a joke.
>Are you suggesting there should be parity in weight and structural
>integrity in all vehicles?
More or less. Can't you see the benefit of this in a freeway situation? SUVs
are typically 1.5 times or more the weight of cars (excluding the RAV4s and
CR-Vs), that is a big difference in weight, not to mention the physical
differnces. No body is preventing you from buying SUVs for offroad or other
activities.
>
>Perhaps we should reduce this down one more level. Consider the poor
>motorcycle rider who is outweighed and unprotected for the most part.
>Should we all commute on scooters until the bicyclists start
>complaining?
I think you are reducing the intelligence level of your argument to a lower
level. Let's leave it at that.
>
>I'll keep my family in the safest vehicle I can thank you very much.
>
As long as you don't run into yourself or anything bigger, you will do fine.
The race has just begun.
chuck
Matthew Maynard
Well, to tell you the turth, I think that your little stereotypes are
only typical of certain types of SUV's. I thnk that the Lexus (ML320),
Acura (SLX), LandCruiser, Expedition, Suburban crowd are among the more
likely to fit into your scenarios. Around my area, people in SUV's tend
to respect each otehr and everyone else for that matter. The most
considerate of all teh SUV'ers are those that drive the real SUV's;
namely Jeeps. Yes, even soccer mom herself in her Grand Cherokee
Limited seems to be considerate. She may even pass on the Jeep wave if
she is in a good mood!
--
"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way."
-Juan Ramón Jiménez
Matthew Maynard
<mailto:mmay...@erols.com>
Jitterbug
chuck wrote in message <01bd4408$1ad78140$2ad2c4d0@chuck>...
>
>
Pete Llarena
Monroe Roden
Sriram Narayan wrote:
snipped to hell & back
> >Whoa bud. Who gets to decide?
>
> You, of course. I think that's why we were given brains.
My apologies. I thought you might actually be trying to make a point.
You're not. You're trolling with a pretty good lure across several
very good ng's.
I bit. I'm embarrased. You got me. Feel better?
Sriram Narayan
In article
<8EFB66DF8C517EBF.F337D4B8...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
, blo...@airmail.net says...
Me, trolling? I didn't start this thread and the ridiculous crossposting.
TFrog93
In article <6d7ptk$d...@camel15.mindspring.com>, bishp@mindspring+com (Randolf
Pitchford) writes:
>So what? As heartless as this may sound, even in our civilized society, the
>law of the"survival of the best equipped " still applies.
>
>It could be argued, that since the folks who drive SUVs believe in the
>family values that made this country great, that it benefits society
>as a whole to give them a slight edge on our bloody roads.
>
>After all, in any confrontation between two vehicles, SOMEONE has got
>to lose.
Now THAT's funny!
Did you really mean that? "The folks who drive SUVs believe in the family
values that made this country great"? What?!? Where are you getting this
drivel? What magazine, exactly, did this study? Was it "Christian Right
Life", perchance?
That's about THE single dumbest statement I've ever read on this thread. You
win the prize.
dwight :()
(Family values, my ass. I didn't see that chapter in my Driver's Manual...)
Tom Fritz
Jake Schmidt (sh...@netins.net) wrote:
: Tom Fritz wrote in message ...
: >BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
: ><snip>
: >: SUV drivers are no more skilled or considerate than drivers of comparable
: >: valued cars of comparable age.
: >Bullshit! On Wednesday I was hit by this asshole (Feb 25, 98) by this
: >idot in a car. This fool drove his car right into my Hummers 37" factory
: tire.
: >Then he got out and blammed the crash on me. A few witness's stopped and
: >straighten the record out. The guy got pissed off and sped off.
: So because you were involved in an accident with a vehicle smaller than a
: Hummer, it makes SUV drivers more skilled and considerate than drivers of
: comparable valued cars of comparable age?
Yes... when you drive a truck that is higher the most other cars, and you
understand that you can crush another car at a "good" speed & will
kill someone... that alone is enough for 99% of the larger truck / Jeep / Hummer
people to drive much better. I don't think there are too many people who
would want to live with the idea that their careless driving killed someone.
It is hard enough for people to live with the idea that they killed someone
even when it was not their fault.
The little sports car drivers don't think that far ahead of time. It
can't happen to them.
: Unfortunately you didn't provide any other information about the accident,
: so I can't really form an opinion about whose fault it was.
This road had three lanes. At this light, there was a left and right
turn only lanes. The Canadian idot thought he was in the middle lane since
there was a lane to the right. That lane ended, so he turned into my
lane since he thought he was in the middle lane. Wrong... he was in the
right lane, and I was in the middle. He made his turn fast and without
a signal and I could do nothing.
: >The only thing that happened to my "truck" was the 37" tire was cleaned off
: by
: >his car. His car had about $2K on it. I would love to see hertz
: rent-o-car
: >face when he turns it in!
: >
: >More small car drivers are assholes, cutting off larger trucks / jeeps /
: >18 wheelers / Hummers.
: Care to back this statement up with some hard evidence?
Drive down the highway behind an 18 wheeler. Watch for yourself how
many small car / sports cars cut him off, because they don't want to
get behind the 18 wheeler.
I figured you would ask this, and on my way home, six small car assholes
cut me off with less the 15 feet between me and their bumpers. This is
for a little highway trip less then 10 miles.
Also on this one example trip, not one 18 wheeler, 4x4, SUV did the same
thing. Yes there were many 18W, 4x4 and SUV - LAV trucks / jeeps out
on the same highway.
: >I have seen many idots driving trucks and jeeps too... but by far, more
: >idots in small cars.
: You count 'em?
I think in the last year, I have only been cut off by one asshole in a
jeep wagon, and one large 4x4 truck (ford). A very small number. This
number does include a cross country trip from San Francisco - Bay Area
to San Antonio, TX and back.
: ><snip>
: >: It is important to have vehicle standards in bumper height, visibility,
: etc.
: >: If people want to buy large vehicles, that's fine. There is no need to
: have
: >: passenger vehicles on the road with extreme ground clearances, high
: window
: >: sills, and nonstandard bumper heights.
: >
: >Sorry, why should I give up my ground clearance because some person
: >wants to drive a shoebox on the road. Safty cost money... how safe
: >does each person what to be.
: Hello!?! McFly!?! How much does a Hummer go for these days? Pushing $60k,
: isn't it? I don't think the waitress working 60 hours a week making minimum
: wage should be any less safe because she can't afford a $60k vehicle.
Sure they cost a whole lot more. My used Hummer is forsale at $68,000
and paid much more then that. If she can not afford the Hummer, then
that is fine... If she can not afford the safest truck / car around, then
don't punish those poeple who can.
: You said that you shouldn't have to give up ground clearance for the other
: cars on the road. Why on earth do you need that much ground clearance on a
: road? The only place you need much ground clearance, you won't see many cars
: anyway.
Can you say El Nino, and floods? There has been a few streets in my
area that has flooded. In my wifes parking lot, four cars were flooded
because if El Nino. She did not park my 1996 Eclipse in that area, and
for that week, she took the Hummer to work.
: >If the goverment would like to buy a nice car for me to use... and
: insurance,
: >I would be more then happy to drive it to work. If the goverment does not
: >want to buy this car / insurance for me, at no cost to me... then fuck
: >them and the small car owners! I will buy any car I want to buy.
: This part doesn't make much sense to me. Why should the government buy you a
: car? You're not required to even own a vehicle. You can walk everywhere or
: take public transportation for all they care.
Oh I see... I should walk three miles to the train station, when it has
rained sometimes in this area more then 1" in a day. Your a real funny
dude.
: >As for the window thing... so what? I try to see through other cars
: >windows, and it is distorted due to curves. Are you going to suggest
: I don't have any problems seeing out of curved glass.
The point you made with 4x4's is that you can not see through someone
elses car / truck / jeep. Not see out of.
: >all cars have flat windows so everyone can see through? Are you going
: >to have every car owner remove their tint on the windows?
: Tinted windows are not as hard to see out of as they are to see into.
See through, not see out of. That was your point with a 4x4. If you
need proof that there is not a law about people being able to see through
your car, look at pannel vans. A lot of them do not even have windows,
others have stuff - junk in the windows. There is not a law that says
you need a rear window... if you have a mirror on both sides of your car/
truck/jeep/hummer.
: Jake
: >--tlf
: >
: >--
Tom Fritz
Sriram Narayan (sriram.narayan@*technolgist.com) wrote:
: In article <t5150Ep...@netcom.com>, t5...@netcom.com says...
: >
: >GO SUV (ad...@spammer.killer.com) wrote:
: >: In article
: <904C14547AEE5732.70EAD0785C9FC604.E1D2475EE711E30C@library-proxy.a
: >irnews.net>, blown46 <blo...@airmail.net> writes:
: >: > expedition? Relative - no?
: >
: >: Yes. Definitely yes. A Malibu, Camry and Taurus, can avoid the accident
: >: in the first place, while your Expedition may not.
: >
: >: BTW, that's why every vehicle comes with a steering wheel. Use it.
: >
: >Great, so if a car has an option for ABS and they don't buy it, then
: >lets tax them 8 X the normal rate. After all, that is a safty option
: >that they did not buy. They may not have had the money to buy it in
: >the fisrt place, but lets tax them more.
: >
: >cars that are too old to have them. Lets make it 20 X the amount the
: >a new car is charged to be fair.
: >
: >Wait! There is more... before 1960 (don't know the correct date)
: >99 percent of the cars did not have seatbelts. Since that was a
: >safty option that they did not buy (my dad did buy them for his 57 Chevy)
: >lets hit them up with a 30 X tax amount every year.
: Exactly, what is your point? Are you implying here that the SUV is the next
: evolutionary step in safety? Increase in vehicle mass = safety? Safety for
: whom? So while the early adopters buy SUVs to "protect their families", the
: later ones are going to be having more accidents with SUVs. I would rather take
: my chances in a car-car collision (which would be easier to avoid in the first
: place) than an SUV-SUV collision.
: Extending your witty repartee further, we should then tax cars since they don't
: meet the safety levels of SUVs. I am beginning to see the light now.
Tax by lack of safty equipment, not by size.
Lets take another car-car crash I was almost in. I was parked behind
two other cars at a red light. Watching my rear view mirror I noticed
this idot looking for street numbers, and not looking at the road.
I pressed the brake lights and horn on and off, hoping that the idot would
catch the horn / light flicking on and off. There was nothing else
I could do except run from my car. That would be even more unsafe then
staying in the car. The horn / lights cought his eyes at the last
seconed, and he burned his tires stopping.
Yes, the idot did not hit me, because of my actions. If I had not seen
this idot a long way off... I would have been rear-ended at a dead stop,
while he was doing 50+ MPH. This 1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT/VR4 would have
been totaled, and I am sure I would have been really fucked up for many
years had this asshole hit me.
Now picture this in my 1996 Hummer, this idot would only hurt himself
due to his poor driving. Nobody else would be hurt due to his driving (
or lack there of).
Why should I give up my safty, so some idot can really hurt me. Why
should I live with a damaged neck / back for the rest of my life,
because some idot was not watching were he was going.
Tell me why this person should hit another car and hurt both
drivers (or kill both). Why should I risk my life and safty.
Why should the President of USA drive an armored car that weights
twice as much as a Hummer? Should he on the road with something like
that, when a geo metro can get him there just as fast / safe?
sixtyfive
What happened to 2wd pickups?
The local dealer has maybe 1 or 2 2wd's and 20 4x4s.
> Why do people who live in the city need a Dodge Ram v-10 extended cab?
It's a status symbol. They probably don't even know what v-10 means, but it sounds cool.
Why do people need hummers?
same reason.
Andrew
Tom Fritz
BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:06:22 GMT, t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) wrote:
: >If you can not see around this person your
: >just too dang close.
: No matter how far back a car is, it can't see "around" a truck or SUV in the
: same lane. Light travels in a straight line.
What do you want to see around? You want to see around so you can see
when to stop. Slow down, and give yourself a enough room to be able to
stop if you have to.
: >How much clearance do you need...
: > to cross a mud slide that is blocking you from leaving home?
: > to cross a flooded street to get your family safe?
: > drive to safty after a tornado destroyed your home?
: > to drive to the hospital in a snow storm?
: > to drive food to your horses in the mud?
: The question involved driving on the road, not engaging in heroic Rambo
: fantasy rescues. If you're so concerned about your family's safety, you'll
: get a vehicle that reduces the much more significant (but alas mundane) risk
: that they will be killed when the GI Joe truck you enjoy tips over during hard
: maneuvering or an unavoidable traffic emergency.
I have had to drive through a few flooded streets to go home, nothing to
do with rambo... more El Nino.
NO when you drive safe, you give yourself a lot of room to stop. You
know were the cars are around you, so you know were to drive if something
does go wrong. That is call driving.
: And If you care about society's safety you will certainly drive a large car
: that does more for your family, without creating a more than offsetting risk
: to other families.
No your drive very safe, and leave yourself an exit. If they do something
that indangers the other drives life - family, that was the other drivers
choice. I do not wish to crush anyone, so I drive very safe. As for
driving a "large car", the little car will still end up on the short end
of the stick. The driver of the small car will still be hurt more then
the driver of the large car. A large car weighs more then a Geo Metro. The
Geo Metro family will suffer.
: >In CO, during the Ice Storms around Dec., Hummer owners beat the
: >National Guard to by a 1/2 day to help people.
: I wonder how many lives were saved, compared to the lives lost every year in
: collisions with SUVs and passenger trucks, that would not have been lost if
: the truck owners had been driving a conventional equally safe car?
I wonder how many drivers / people killed due to drugs / drunks / police
chases when compaired to a good driver? I don't have those figures, but
I would be willing to bet that drunk / high / police cashes account for
a whole lot more lost lives.
Police normally chase people at speeds way over the designed limits of
highways. Take that corvette driving 150 MPH with the police "hot" in
chase in AZ. What the hell was going on with the police?
: >This is just one
: >example, and I am sure there are a ton more of 4x4 helping in
: >bad times.
: When it snows (a few days a year here in Oregon) the truck owners are out
: tear-assing around looking for ways to get stuck, and learning how 4-wheel
: brakes on trucks aren't any better than 4 wheel brakes on cars.
If they do that in the country, and no one get hurt, who cares? If they
do it on the streets in town, then they should be taken to jail. A yahoo
who does stupid stuff, should be taken to jail.
How many people did the same thing in other cars? Did you count them?
: The rest of us just stay home (school and work is closed) chain up our cars,
: or take the (chained up) busses. Some people get around in their (chained up)
: Subarus, which have 4 wheel drive, but which don't have high bumpers, rigid
: frames, or vision obscuring height.
I have chains for my Hummer, and my all-wheel-drive 3000GT/VR4.
My 3000GT could not get me home if the streets were flooded, and
the 3000GT could not drive in deep snow. The 3000GT could not
drive in the sand at Pismo Beach too. The 3000GT did not have the
storage that my Hummer has. The 3000GT tires cost more then the
ones for my Hummer. The Hummer tires cost $250 each, while the
3000GT/VR4 ZR rated tires cost $350.00 each.
: >It is better to make all cars crumple in a crash, then to have all cars built
: >better?
: Engineers design cars to crumple, in case you have missed the word over the
: past several decades. The crumpling process absorbs the energy of the
: collision to protect the occupants. The development of crumple zones
: *improved* crash survivability, given a fixed barrier or a comparable vehicle
: as the barrier collided with. The increase of rigid-framed trucks is setting
: back this safety improvement, at the expense of car drivers, with little or no
: safety benefit to SUV/truck drivers.
That was one solution to the crash issue... Most crash crumple zones do not
work very well with an impact that is not dead center. On a front crash
that is not dead center, most people suffer crushed legs... and many of
those can't walk again.
A few cars are well built for the non-dead-center crashs, but that is just
a few (source: NTSB).
As for the ridged frame argument, I would take any type of crash in my
1996 Hummer Wagon, compaired to my 1996 Eclipse /GST. Any kind of crash.
It is better built, safer, and more stable when driven like a Hummer should.
: >when John Doe bought a Yugo that can't even
: >take a impact with a shopping cart without being totaled.
: How about when Jane Doe buys a big Mercedes because Safety is important. Then
: gets hit by a jacked up pickup and killed by the bumper coming through the
: side window, well about the safety structure in the door? (The pickup then
: rolls and kills its occupant, so two are dead when a simple bumper height
: standard would have prevented the deaths.)
Now how would that happen? Say the truck driver ran a red light, or
Jane Doe ran a red light? People how do not follow the rules of the
road, end up killing people. It hardly matters if bumpers line up
with someone t-bones you at 40+ miles per hour.
If the truck driver did make it alive, then he should be charged
with murder if he ran the light.
Take the example of a police chase in LA. The CHP officer was in a high speed
chase. The driver of the sports car drove across a lawn and killed two people
eating lunch while waiting for a bus.
The people having a picnic did not have a bumper, or a crumple zone.
: >Why not make the unsafe cars better to handle a crash? If the bumpers don't
: >line up with small cars, then small car makers should rase them up.
: To eye level?!
If that is what you would like to see. A strong cage around the passenger
area would increase the safty of all people inside of the car.... if that
is what you want.
: >My glass is clear, and flat. From my Eclipse GST, I can see better through
: >my Hummers glass, then some small cars curved glass.
: That's great for bird watching or star gazing, but I'd like to see the traffic
: down on the road ahead of you, as I can with any conventional vehicle.
Great, but there is still no law (except AZ with a 33% factory tint law) that
says you can not tint / paint your rear windows black so people can't see
through your car / truck / jeep.
The AZ law may not even cover the rear window.
: As far as tinting being permitted at any darkness, I can only speak to Oregon
: law. Here, the windows behind the driver may be heavily tinted, but *only* to
: a vehicle built on a truck chassis, or with special features for off-road
: operation. Yet another government bias favoring trucks.
Are you saying that a normal car can not tint their rear window(s) black if
they want to but only trucks can? That is hard to believe.
Tom Fritz
BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:09:46 -0800, Steve Winters <winterss*@cadence.com>
: wrote:
: >BKL wrote:
: >> SUV drivers are no more skilled or considerate than drivers of comparable
: >> valued cars of comparable age.
: >
: >A blanket generalization. Utter nonsense.
: I'm saying that in the absence of evidence, that no class of drivers is
: superior. Read carefully.
: >Distorted incentives, yes. No private vehicles would be safest for
: >society overall, but would you want to live in such a society? Let me
: >buy the vehicle that satisfies my list of wants and requirements and
: >you can buy the one that fits yours.
: OK. How about if I want a vehicle with external "pedestrian spikes" because
: it reduces the incidence in which pedestrians dangerously get in my way?
: Should I be allowed a feature that provides me minuscule benefit and endangers
: others to a greater magnitude of risk?
Oh you would like the car from the movie: "Death Race 2000"
How about a police armored car that it's only duity is to drive and
crash into things. If someone gets in the way, run them over and
use their guts to grease their wheels. What they hell is that
about, when they have robots that can be used.
How about the bikers of San Francisco, during their protest damaging
peoples cars to make a point? Do you think it was right for them to
scratch the hoods of the cars when the bikers were running a
red light? The drivers were not doing anything wrong, just the bikers
were being total assholes.
Jitterbug
Yea I just hate to be seen in my C280
BKL wrote in message <350466d7...@news.teleport.com>...
>On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:54:35 -0500, "Jitterbug" <nos...@email.msn.com>
wrote:
>
>>I can see what he is talking about, the same fuckers that drove Saab's a
few
>>years back. The Yuppie type, but they are known for the "fuck you common
>>bastard" attitude, hell you might have one for a boss. The part where they
>>are driving a 4X4 doesn't bother me, it how they drive them. You know the
>>type..not just lawyers, but worst. Like the kind that owns a "temp agency"
>>and make a lot of money off the backs of a bunch of poor people that don't
>>know, or can not do better.
>
>visibly prosperous than you, huh?
Brandon Sommerville
Tom Fritz wrote:
>Jake Schmidt (sh...@netins.net) wrote:
>
>: So because you were involved in an accident with a vehicle smaller than a
>: Hummer, it makes SUV drivers more skilled and considerate than drivers of
>: comparable valued cars of comparable age?
>
>Yes... when you drive a truck that is higher the most other cars, and you
>understand that you can crush another car at a "good" speed & will
>kill someone... that alone is enough for 99% of the larger truck / Jeep / Hummer
>people to drive much better. I don't think there are too many people who
>would want to live with the idea that their careless driving killed someone.
Hmm, the biggest offenders as far as tailgating goes for me are SUVs.
Nothing like a big ol' set a headlights right above your trunk to
cheer up your day. I've also seen SUVs pulling moves through traffic
that I wouldn't feel comfortable doing in my Scirocco.
>It is hard enough for people to live with the idea that they killed someone
>even when it was not their fault.
>
>The little sports car drivers don't think that far ahead of time. It
>can't happen to them.
Heh, speaking as an ex-little sports car driver, I was VERY aware of
those trucks around me. I was often cut off by them, and I was
driving a bright red car, so I don't know how they couldn't have seen
me.
>: Unfortunately you didn't provide any other information about the accident,
>: so I can't really form an opinion about whose fault it was.
>
>This road had three lanes. At this light, there was a left and right
>turn only lanes. The Canadian idot thought he was in the middle lane since
>there was a lane to the right. That lane ended, so he turned into my
>lane since he thought he was in the middle lane. Wrong... he was in the
>right lane, and I was in the middle. He made his turn fast and without
>a signal and I could do nothing.
Yeah, that happens, but one stupid driver doesn't make for all drivers
being stupid.
>Drive down the highway behind an 18 wheeler. Watch for yourself how
>many small car / sports cars cut him off, because they don't want to
>get behind the 18 wheeler.
Don't forget the favourite trick of 18 wheelers, riding your bumper
till you move. I test drove a 92 Civic Si, on this drive I had a
transport no more than 6 inches off my bumper. There was nowhere for
me to go as I had a car beside me and a guy in front of me. As soon
as there was about 8 inches of clearance front and back between the
guy I was passing and the guy in front of me, I took it, rocketed
ahead of the two cars in the passing lane and proceeded to put as much
distance between myself and the rig that I could. It wasn't a pass I
would make under normal circumstances, but having a rig looming over
you isn't pleasant.
>I figured you would ask this, and on my way home, six small car assholes
>cut me off with less the 15 feet between me and their bumpers. This is
>for a little highway trip less then 10 miles.
But are they passing you or are you coming up on them? If I'm passing
you, I may pull in front of you 15' ahead if there is someone coming
up quickly on me, but you can be sure I'm going faster than you and
will quickly open up the space.
Brandon
All generalizations are false.
Jake Schmidt
chuck wrote in message <01bd4408$1ad78140$2ad2c4d0@chuck>...
>
>
>Why is it that when there is a narrow street, and a full size SUV is
>>coming the other way, the driver will not make any room whatsoever
>>on his side for a safe passage?
>
>
>
>Why should he?
Because no matter how big it is, an SUV is expensive to repair. In fact,
I've heard that SUVs are among the most expensive vehicles around to repair.
It involves something about 5-mph bumpers. I'm not sure if they're required
on trucks or not. Anyone know?
Jake
Jake Schmidt
Liquid wrote in message <34F6FF97...@deathsdoor.com>...
>He needs the high ground cleearance to keep the aluminum body from being
damaged
>by the little bitty cars out there. It also comes in handy for driving over
>Miatas whenever possible.
>I, for one, have slowed down considerably since trading my Neon for a 3/4
ton
>Dodge Ram Club Cab diesel. Even in the Neon, I was cut off more by compacts
than
>SUVs. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a Hummer being driven like a
road
>racer on public roads.
Ever see the performance numbers on one of those? A top speed of ~70 mph
doesn't imply real road-racer characteristics...
>Because you drive a small car and are fearful of the larger ones out there
does
>not give you the right to make our decisions. Be mad at the poeple that cut
you
>off, or drop it and live happy. Life's too short to be angry all the time.
It sure as hell is.
Jake Schmidt
Tom Fritz wrote in message ...
<snip>
>: So because you were involved in an accident with a vehicle smaller than a
>: Hummer, it makes SUV drivers more skilled and considerate than drivers of
>: comparable valued cars of comparable age?
>
>Yes... when you drive a truck that is higher the most other cars, and you
>understand that you can crush another car at a "good" speed & will
>kill someone... that alone is enough for 99% of the larger truck / Jeep /
Hummer
>people to drive much better. I don't think there are too many people who
>would want to live with the idea that their careless driving killed
someone.
So let me get this straight: you're still saying that simply driving a truck
makes you a better driver? FWIW, I drive a regular-sized car, and I realize
I could kill someone in another car. All I'd have to do is swerve into their
lane when they're coming at me at 60 mph. You don't need a truck to realize
that driving is a big responsibility.
>It is hard enough for people to live with the idea that they killed someone
>even when it was not their fault.
I love your condescending attitude towards car-drivers.
>The little sports car drivers don't think that far ahead of time. It
>can't happen to them.
From what vast source of knowledge did you extract this?
>: Unfortunately you didn't provide any other information about the
accident,
>: so I can't really form an opinion about whose fault it was.
>
>This road had three lanes. At this light, there was a left and right
>turn only lanes. The Canadian idot thought he was in the middle lane since
I see you feel the same way about Canadians as you do about car-drivers...
>there was a lane to the right. That lane ended, so he turned into my
>lane since he thought he was in the middle lane. Wrong... he was in the
>right lane, and I was in the middle. He made his turn fast and without
>a signal and I could do nothing.
There are idiots driving every vehicle. There are idiots driving Hummers.
There are idiots driving Ferraris. There are idiots driving the same kind of
car as me. FWIW, one of my friends was recently in a car accident. An
"idiot" in a brand new Explorer pulled off a side street onto the highway my
friend was on right in front of him and caused the accident.
<snip>
>Drive down the highway behind an 18 wheeler. Watch for yourself how
>many small car / sports cars cut him off, because they don't want to
>get behind the 18 wheeler.
Well, I don't enjoy being behind an 18-wheeler either. They spray rocks at
your car and their speed varies greatly depending on the hills.
>I figured you would ask this, and on my way home, six small car assholes
>cut me off with less the 15 feet between me and their bumpers. This is
>for a little highway trip less then 10 miles.
Well, maybe you were driving too slowly...
>Also on this one example trip, not one 18 wheeler, 4x4, SUV did the same
>thing. Yes there were many 18W, 4x4 and SUV - LAV trucks / jeeps out
>on the same highway.
Not joking here in the least bit, but many SUVs hardly have the reserve
power to pass people as easily. Witness the base Ford Explorer.
>: >I have seen many idots driving trucks and jeeps too... but by far, more
>: >idots in small cars.
>
>: You count 'em?
>
>I think in the last year, I have only been cut off by one asshole in a
>jeep wagon, and one large 4x4 truck (ford). A very small number. This
>number does include a cross country trip from San Francisco - Bay Area
>to San Antonio, TX and back.
Well, I believe there are still more cars than SUVs on the road. I don't
have the numbers handy however. I don't think automatically think all
Porsche drivers are great just because I've never been cut off by one.
>: ><snip>
>: >: It is important to have vehicle standards in bumper height,
visibility,
>: etc.
>: >: If people want to buy large vehicles, that's fine. There is no need
to
>: have
>: >: passenger vehicles on the road with extreme ground clearances, high
>: window
>: >: sills, and nonstandard bumper heights.
>: >
>: >Sorry, why should I give up my ground clearance because some person
>: >wants to drive a shoebox on the road. Safty cost money... how safe
>: >does each person what to be.
>
>: Hello!?! McFly!?! How much does a Hummer go for these days? Pushing $60k,
>: isn't it? I don't think the waitress working 60 hours a week making
minimum
>: wage should be any less safe because she can't afford a $60k vehicle.
>
>Sure they cost a whole lot more. My used Hummer is forsale at $68,000
>and paid much more then that. If she can not afford the Hummer, then
>that is fine... If she can not afford the safest truck / car around, then
>don't punish those poeple who can.
Well, you're basically saying that since you have the money for a Hummer,
you deserve to live in an accident. No one's punishing the people who can
afford one. The people being punished are those forced to drive ten-year-old
Escorts because their financial situation isn't as good.
>: You said that you shouldn't have to give up ground clearance for the
other
>: cars on the road. Why on earth do you need that much ground clearance on
a
>: road? The only place you need much ground clearance, you won't see many
cars
>: anyway.
>
>Can you say El Nino, and floods? There has been a few streets in my
>area that has flooded. In my wifes parking lot, four cars were flooded
>because if El Nino. She did not park my 1996 Eclipse in that area, and
>for that week, she took the Hummer to work.
Where does your wife work? If the floods are bad enough that she had to
drive a $68k Hummer just to get to work, I doubt there's a lot of people out
and about.
>: >If the goverment would like to buy a nice car for me to use... and
>: insurance,
>: >I would be more then happy to drive it to work. If the goverment does
not
>: >want to buy this car / insurance for me, at no cost to me... then fuck
>: >them and the small car owners! I will buy any car I want to buy.
>
>: This part doesn't make much sense to me. Why should the government buy
you a
>: car? You're not required to even own a vehicle. You can walk everywhere
or
>: take public transportation for all they care.
>
>Oh I see... I should walk three miles to the train station, when it has
>rained sometimes in this area more then 1" in a day. Your a real funny
>dude.
Oh I see. Someone should get seriously hurt or killed because you insist on
driving around in an overly large vehicle that might be involved in a
collision with a much smaller vehicle. The majority is the one with the
small vehicle--you're the minority.
>: >As for the window thing... so what? I try to see through other cars
>: >windows, and it is distorted due to curves. Are you going to suggest
>
>: I don't have any problems seeing out of curved glass.
>
>The point you made with 4x4's is that you can not see through someone
>elses car / truck / jeep. Not see out of.
I never made a point on this topic.
>: >all cars have flat windows so everyone can see through? Are you going
>: >to have every car owner remove their tint on the windows?
>
>: Tinted windows are not as hard to see out of as they are to see into.
>
>See through, not see out of. That was your point with a 4x4. If you
Again, you must be thinking of someone else.
Jake
<snip>
Jake Schmidt
Tom Fritz wrote in message ...
<snip>
>: How much clearance do you need to drive on public roads? Why should
trucks be
>: permitted to have bumpers at teeth level of most mainstream car drivers?
>
>How much clearance do you need...
> to cross a mud slide that is blocking you from leaving home?
Seen it on TV a couple times, but have never known anyone needing to do
this.
> to cross a flooded street to get your family safe?
Well, usually you can see a flood coming in time to leave. Has it been
raining real hard? Is water starting to collect outside? If so, then leave.
> drive to safty after a tornado destroyed your home?
After a tornado goes through, it's done. Not like an earthquake.
> to drive to the hospital in a snow storm?
This is a rare event. The one time I do know of it happening, my dad took my
grandfather to the hospital 25 miles away in a FWD station wagon. No
problems.
Anyone remember the snowstorm the weekend of the Chicago Auto Show last
year? One of my friends decided to take my SHO there (a four hour trip) in
the middle of the night. It was supposedly the worst snow storm of the year.
We encountered no problems.
> to drive food to your horses in the mud?
Don't have horses.
>Many people do you there trucks and 4x4 for many other reasons then
>just play.
>
>In CO, during the Ice Storms around Dec., Hummer owners beat the
>National Guard to by a 1/2 day to help people. The national guard
>would not leave the highway. The Hummer owners rescued many people
>from their cars, drove people to Dr. visits, delivered medicine to
>people, rushed fire / paramedic to homes. This is just one
>example, and I am sure there are a ton more of 4x4 helping in
>bad times.
Doesn't the National Guard use Hummers also? Why couldn't they get out
there?
>: > then fuck the small car owners!
>
>: Sometimes, regulation is needed to keep the foolish, mean, anti-social or
>: merely self-interested from doing things that harm society even more than
they
>: help themselves. You may get a small margin of safety by having high
bumpers,
>: but only at a much greater risk to those around you.
>
>It is better to make all cars crumple in a crash, then to have all cars
built
>better? That is the problem I have see with the goverment. Lets take
>good and strong cars, and weaken them. It is not fair that those people
>bought a very well built car... when John Doe bought a Yugo that can't even
>take a impact with a shopping cart without being totaled.
Well, maybe I'm in the minority, but I see a car with crumple zones AS being
built better. They weaken the area of the crumple zone so that it absorbs
the impact instead of your body. Makes sense to me, and seems to work from
what the crash tests tell us.
>Why not make the unsafe cars better to handle a crash? If the bumpers
don't
>line up with small cars, then small car makers should rase them up.
Yeah, that would be real cute--the bumpers would be a little below roof
level. That wouldn't be dumb at all.
>: > I will buy any car I want to buy.
>
>: And I hope the government stops the essential subsidy of your truck or
SUV by
>: subjecting it to equal tax, safety, CAFE and other standards, so that you
can
>: have real freedom of choice.
>
>Equal tax... hate to tell ya, but equal tax does not happen in this
country.
>If you buy a car / truck / what ever that cost more then $30,000, you are
>subject to a luxury tax. Yes, it would be nice if the tax for everything
>was far. That is everyone in US pays the same amount, but that will
>never happen. Life is never fair, and never will be.
Was the luxury tax really a stretch for you when you already admitted that
you spent over $68k on a vehicle?
<snip window treatment of cars>
Jake
JBratu
>Subject: Re: SUV's......getting out of hand
I thought this was America where we could all drive whatever the hell we wanted
and say what we wanted to say. I guess someone with a wagon and a mule could be
considered unsafe also...
jb
Randolf Pitchford
gri...@NOSPAMmindless.com (Brandon Sommerville) wrote:
>Hmm, the biggest offenders as far as tailgating goes for me are SUVs.
>Nothing like a big ol' set a headlights right above your trunk to
>cheer up your day.
The perhaps you should move out of the left lane and let the faster
traffic get on down the road. This is not a problem with the SUV's,
it's a problem with a lack of highway courtesy.
> I've also seen SUVs pulling moves through traffic
>that I wouldn't feel comfortable doing in my Scirocco.
So what's your point? How many of these vehicles did you actually see
wreck because of all these "moves"? Does it occur to you that perhaps
the reason these people can do things you don't feel comfortable doing
is not because they're behind the wheel of a SUV, but because they're
,more skillful drivers to BEGIN with?
>Hah, speaking as an ex-little sports car driver, I was VERY aware of
>those trucks around me. I was often cut off by them, and I was
>driving a bright red car, so I don't know how they couldn't have seen
>me.
So what's your point? many of us have been cut off by BMW's. That
doesn't mean we have a hard on for everyone who happens to DRIVE one.
Cheeez.
Randolf Pitchford
lang*lo...@teleport.com (BKL) wrote:
>So your choice to drive a high vehicle means that traffic must move slower, or
>that a given stretch of lane can be safely occupied by fewer vehicles.
Bull, on any given piece of road, the SUV drivers are the fastest and
most aggressive. If ANYONE is holding up traffic, it's the clowns in
the econoboxes and the beemers with their cell phones and high end
coffee.
> And
>you don't pay a penny extra (and are subsidized) for this hogging of public
>resources.
Absolute, total, fiction. The SUV owners pay FAR more in terms of
inflated personal property taxes and a far great percentage of the
gasoline taxes (which are used to benefit ALL drivers) than the
car clowns.
Jake Schmidt
Randolf Pitchford wrote in message <6dccv4$b...@camel20.mindspring.com>...
>lang*lo...@teleport.com (BKL) wrote:
>>So your choice to drive a high vehicle means that traffic must move
slower, or
>>that a given stretch of lane can be safely occupied by fewer vehicles.
>
>Bull, on any given piece of road, the SUV drivers are the fastest and
>most aggressive. If ANYONE is holding up traffic, it's the clowns in
>the econoboxes and the beemers with their cell phones and high end
>coffee.
Care to show some hard evidence of this Jack? Since when is it a good thing
to be ..."the fastest and most aggressive."
And as you might say to me, it's spelled Bimmer, not "beemer".
>> And
>>you don't pay a penny extra (and are subsidized) for this hogging of
public
>>resources.
>
>Absolute, total, fiction. The SUV owners pay FAR more in terms of
>inflated personal property taxes and a far great percentage of the
>gasoline taxes (which are used to benefit ALL drivers) than the
>car clowns.
What do property taxes have to do with owning an SUV? And why shouldn't they
pay more gasoline taxes--THEY USE MORE GAS!
Jake
chuck
Sounds like youve got me figured out, SO get the hell outof my way!
Jitterbug <nos...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<eMs91OBR9GA.204@upnetnews04>...
>
> chuck wrote in message <01bd4408$1ad78140$2ad2c4d0@chuck>...
> >
> >
> >Why is it that when there is a narrow street, and a full size SUV is
> >>coming the other way, the driver will not make any room whatsoever
> >>on his side for a safe passage?
> >
> >
> >
> >Why should he?
>
>
chuck
How about recognizing the fact that my vehicle is bigger and therfore needs
more room in the first place? Perhaps life would be easier for all if you
just relaxed and let the bigger truck through instead of getting a hair up
your butt. Of course if you feel like asserting yourself and your tiny car,
go for it.
Doccers
In article <6d6rod$akd$1...@news.xmission.com>,
ryan <ry...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>In rec.autos.driving Robert Davis <bed...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> And your solution is no better. You want to get a Mustang so you can
drive
>> faster, zip in and out of traffic and be a worse driver than the people
you
>> are criticizing. And as far as practicality is concerned, a sports car,
>> like the Mustang, is far worse than an SUV. Poor mileage, too much power
>> and no protection.
>
>Generalizations. Boo.
>
>Mileage: My Mustang GT gets 20 mpg. My father's V6 Explorer gets 15 mpg.
>
>Power: I like being able to merge onto the freeway at freeway speeds
>coming from an onramp. In my opinion this is much safer than trying to
>merge into 65mph traffic when you're doing 45mph.
>
>Protection: Yeah, okay, you got me there. In an Expedition vs. Mustang
>collision I would definately be the loser.
>
>ryan
My SUV gets 28 mpg, and merges just fine on 75 mph highways.
Jennifer Miller
AMEN. I drive a VW Rabbit truck (the farthest thing from a real truck)
and I get more use from it than most of the yuppies you refered to. The
lady you refered to holds me up in traffic every day (left lane and
55mph) wish I could e-mail her this!
Dale P.......
White Tornado Jr. wrote:
>
> Blah blah blah.
>
> If you don't tow a trailer.
>
> If you don't haul lots of shit around.
>
> If you don't drive "off road."
>
> And you do own an SUV, you are a brainless lemming who is following
> the latest trend. I bet you got a Motorola flip phone back in 1993
> just to look cool.
>
> For further details on your mindless behaviour see:
>
> http://poseur.4x4.org
>
> You pathetic brainless lemming.
>
> Your pal,
> WT!
Wow!!!!!! Where did you find that smelly shit,,,,, really ripe bait,,but
no bites............
Your pal,
dp
Randolf Pitchford
"Jake Schmidt" <sh...@netins.net> wrote:
>>> And
>>>you don't pay a penny extra (and are subsidized) for this hogging of
>public
>>>resources.
>>
>>Absolute, total, fiction. The SUV owners pay FAR more in terms of
>>inflated personal property taxes and a far great percentage of the
>>gasoline taxes (which are used to benefit ALL drivers) than the
>>car clowns.
>What do property taxes have to do with owning an SUV? And why shouldn't they
>pay more gasoline taxes--THEY USE MORE GAS!
There you go again, Jake.... off topic as usual...
Some fool made the statement that SUV drivers don't pay one cent more
in fees and taxes than car drivers. I simply pointed out that he was
full of it... SUV owners pay a HELL of a lot more in fees and taxes
than their free-loading car driving breathern.
White Tornado Jr.
Carol Tarr
I am looking for a four wheel drive
love, kat
uf...@webtv.net
..AND STAY OUT!!
Jake Schmidt
Randolf Pitchford wrote in message <6dcuno$s...@camel12.mindspring.com>...
>"Jake Schmidt" <sh...@netins.net> wrote:
>>>> And
>>>>you don't pay a penny extra (and are subsidized) for this hogging of
>>public
>>>>resources.
>>>
>>>Absolute, total, fiction. The SUV owners pay FAR more in terms of
>>>inflated personal property taxes and a far great percentage of the
>>>gasoline taxes (which are used to benefit ALL drivers) than the
>>>car clowns.
>
>>What do property taxes have to do with owning an SUV? And why shouldn't
they
>>pay more gasoline taxes--THEY USE MORE GAS!
>
>There you go again, Jake.... off topic as usual...
How is this off-topic?
>Some fool made the statement that SUV drivers don't pay one cent more
>in fees and taxes than car drivers. I simply pointed out that he was
>full of it... SUV owners pay a HELL of a lot more in fees and taxes
>than their free-loading car driving breathern.
Yes, and you make them out to be saints because they pay more in fees and
taxes. You make it seem that SUV-drivers should be rewarded for paying more
taxes, when in reality, no one is forcing them to pay the luxury tax or the
on their $30k vehicle. They also don't have to pay that extra gas tax--they
could always do what "their free-loading car driving breathern" do, and get
a vehicle that offers a lot greater gas mileage.
Jake
Charlie Choc
"Jake Schmidt" <sh...@netins.net> wrote:
>Yes, and you make them out to be saints because they pay more in fees and
>taxes. You make it seem that SUV-drivers should be rewarded for paying more
>taxes, when in reality, no one is forcing them to pay the luxury tax or the
>on their $30k vehicle. They also don't have to pay that extra gas tax--they
>could always do what "their free-loading car driving breathern" do, and get
>a vehicle that offers a lot greater gas mileage.
>
tax. A lot of SUV's are in this category I expect.
--
Charlie...
David Chen
I for one and also sick and tire of big cars or trucks bullying the road.
The road lanes are design big enough for all sizes. And somehow SUVs and
trucks can't seem to stay in the middle. Also, the fact that they merge
with a vengence doesn't help either. You know what I mean, you just
signal a beep and merge over, no-matter how many room there is for you to
safely merge. Because you know for a fact that no compact cars dare to
challenge a SUV.
Tom Fritz
sixtyfive (4ha...@montana.campus.mci.net) wrote:
: What happened to 2wd pickups?
Andrew,
Not everyone wants a Hummer for status. Most Hummer owners buy them because
they are an anti-status symbol. They are mean looking, grunt, and do need
more maintaince then your average "status symbol". Thus, your yuppy snobs
will not buy them because of the maintaince.
Also the Hummer is so ugly, it makes it look great! Also most Hummer
owners own their own business, and don't have time to put together
by parts a Jeep / Truck. Then when you have a super jeep / truck
what do you end up with? A Jeep / Truck that is operating way out
of Mfg spec, subject to roll-overs, and poor brakes.
Also with a Hummer, everything is covered under warranty from one source.
--tlf
--
Tom Fritz
Brandon Sommerville (gri...@NOSPAMmindless.com) wrote:
: Tom Fritz wrote:
: >Jake Schmidt (sh...@netins.net) wrote:
: >
: >: So because you were involved in an accident with a vehicle smaller than a
: >: Hummer, it makes SUV drivers more skilled and considerate than drivers of
: >: comparable valued cars of comparable age?
: >
: >Yes... when you drive a truck that is higher the most other cars, and you
: >understand that you can crush another car at a "good" speed & will
: >kill someone... that alone is enough for 99% of the larger truck / Jeep / Hummer
: >people to drive much better. I don't think there are too many people who
: >would want to live with the idea that their careless driving killed someone.
: Hmm, the biggest offenders as far as tailgating goes for me are SUVs.
: Nothing like a big ol' set a headlights right above your trunk to
: cheer up your day. I've also seen SUVs pulling moves through traffic
: that I wouldn't feel comfortable doing in my Scirocco.
In my little car, I am only notice this at lights. during normal driving
they are far enough away. Then again, I am known as a person who drives
fast in my little sports cars.
: >: Unfortunately you didn't provide any other information about the accident,
: >: so I can't really form an opinion about whose fault it was.
: >
: >This road had three lanes. At this light, there was a left and right
: >turn only lanes. The Canadian idot thought he was in the middle lane since
: >there was a lane to the right. That lane ended, so he turned into my
: >lane since he thought he was in the middle lane. Wrong... he was in the
: >right lane, and I was in the middle. He made his turn fast and without
: >a signal and I could do nothing.
: Yeah, that happens, but one stupid driver doesn't make for all drivers
: being stupid.
I don't think anyone is saying "all SUV / all 4x4 or all car" drivers are
bad, but safty - lack there of is all in the driver.
A bad driver gets behind all wheels. The faster / larger his / her toy is,
the worse a crash will be.
: >Drive down the highway behind an 18 wheeler. Watch for yourself how
: >many small car / sports cars cut him off, because they don't want to
: >get behind the 18 wheeler.
: Don't forget the favourite trick of 18 wheelers, riding your bumper
: till you move. I test drove a 92 Civic Si, on this drive I had a
: transport no more than 6 inches off my bumper. There was nowhere for
: me to go as I had a car beside me and a guy in front of me. As soon
: as there was about 8 inches of clearance front and back between the
: guy I was passing and the guy in front of me, I took it, rocketed
: ahead of the two cars in the passing lane and proceeded to put as much
: distance between myself and the rig that I could. It wasn't a pass I
: would make under normal circumstances, but having a rig looming over
: you isn't pleasant.
When I find that problem, I slow down by more... when I was much
younger (and much dumber) my VW bug did not have rear breaks. I
would give the VW full power & lock my front brakes up, the 18 wheeler would
lock up all 18 wheels. They would stop following me so close. I am sure
many 18 wheelers ended up making a mess in their pants.
Now I belive this was a real stupid thing to do, since now I know it
could have been a real mess on the highway. Two wrongs don't make a
right.
: >I figured you would ask this, and on my way home, six small car assholes
: >cut me off with less the 15 feet between me and their bumpers. This is
: >for a little highway trip less then 10 miles.
: But are they passing you or are you coming up on them? If I'm passing
: you, I may pull in front of you 15' ahead if there is someone coming
: up quickly on me, but you can be sure I'm going faster than you and
: will quickly open up the space.
Most of the time I am driving in the middle lane. John Doe enters the
highway, and looks in his rear view mirror. He sees the Hummer, and
then pulls right in my lane. Then I have to brake or hit the dummy.
Then they slowly speed up and go on with life. Most of the time
the slow lane is 55+ MPH and the middle lane is 60+ MPH and the
third lane is 65+MPH. Also little traffic is behind me. They just
don't want to wait / be behind my truck. If they had the power to
pull out infront of my truck and get up to speed... that would
be one thing. To cut out, and make me slow down fast, is another.
: Brandon
: All generalizations are false.
Tom Fritz
Jake Schmidt (sh...@netins.net) wrote:
: Tom Fritz wrote in message ...
<snip>
: Well, I don't enjoy being behind an 18-wheeler either. They spray rocks at
: your car and their speed varies greatly depending on the hills.
: >I figured you would ask this, and on my way home, six small car assholes
: >cut me off with less the 15 feet between me and their bumpers. This is
: >for a little highway trip less then 10 miles.
: Well, maybe you were driving too slowly...
I do the speed limit or better in light traffic. In heavy traffic I
do what ever the other traffic speed is.
: >Also on this one example trip, not one 18 wheeler, 4x4, SUV did the same
: >thing. Yes there were many 18W, 4x4 and SUV - LAV trucks / jeeps out
: >on the same highway.
: Not joking here in the least bit, but many SUVs hardly have the reserve
: power to pass people as easily. Witness the base Ford Explorer.
Underpowered car / truck /what ever are around all over the place.
: >Sure they cost a whole lot more. My used Hummer is forsale at $68,000
: >and paid much more then that. If she can not afford the Hummer, then
: >that is fine... If she can not afford the safest truck / car around, then
: >don't punish those poeple who can.
: Well, you're basically saying that since you have the money for a Hummer,
: you deserve to live in an accident. No one's punishing the people who can
: afford one. The people being punished are those forced to drive ten-year-old
: Escorts because their financial situation isn't as good.
Safty cost money... and life is not fair.
: Where does your wife work? If the floods are bad enough that she had to
: drive a $68k Hummer just to get to work, I doubt there's a lot of people out
: and about.
Three cars were totaled in the lot due to water. She is just an office
worker.
Jon Pearsall
Sriram Narayan wrote in message <6d6unp$ptu$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>...
>Robert Davis (bed...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: So what you are saying is that SUV drivers are the problem on the roads.
I
>: have to tell you that bad drivers have been around a lot longer than
SUV's
>: have. The problem here isn't the vehicles, it is the drivers. If you
take
>: these people out of their SUVs and put them in cars they will be just as
bad
>: drivers.
>
>: And your solution is no better. You want to get a Mustang so you can
drive
>: faster, zip in and out of traffic and be a worse driver than the people
you
>: are criticizing. And as far as practicality is concerned, a sports car,
>: like the Mustang, is far worse than an SUV. Poor mileage, too much power
>: and no protection.
>
return
>much better mileage.
Yup, My '90 Mustang GT got around 20-21 mpg (highway). My '98 Sport SOHC
Explorer gets about 16 mpg (highway).
Also, although I like my Sport, I feel that the Mustang was much easier than
the Explorer to drive and therefore, "safer". With the Mustang, it took
care of the handling for me. If doing a lane change or going around a bend,
I just had to watch out for traffic or the side of the rode and move the
wheel when I saw fit. The Mustang took care of the rest. With the
Explorer, I have to watch out for traffic still, and I have to watch the
rode still, but now have to be more careful about when to turn that wheel,
how hard to turn it, how fast to turn it, how fast the truck is moving, am I
forcing it to lean to hard, etc. The Explorer is simply "dumb" when it
comes to handling itself so I have to take up the slack and process a lot
more information in my mind to drive it. Therefore, I'm probably much more
error-prone than in the Mustang. This is very hard to explain without
making it sound like I just drove "blindly" in my Mustang. And without
making it sound like I'm going to crash my Explorer anyday now. Anybody
who's experiences both of these extremes of driving knows what I mean, I
hope.
I'm not trying to say that from my experience on both sides of the track
that SUVs are more dangerous than Sports cars. But I guess I am trying to
say that the driving lies ultimately with the driver. A sports car driver
can abuse a sports car and cause and accident. An SUV driver may not
realize the limitations of their SUV and also cause an accident.
I've always said that there's not too may true "accidents" on the roads.
Mostly, they're just incidents of "somebody making a mistake".
- Jon Pearsall, DXI Incorporated, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
For replies, remove "_NO_SPAM" from address.
"Move along people. There's nothin' more to see here."
>behaviour patterns change in a purely comute situation? I see SUVs being
>driven *like* cars on freeways (same speeds, same lanes, same type of
>manoevureing). Which is safer to other drivers, the weaving/tailgating
>SUV driver or the sedan driver? As far as practicalilty, I can haul
probably
>up to 75% of an SUV in terms of volume and up to 500lb in terms of weight
>in my car (SAAB 900). In terms of protection, my car is designed to fare
well in
>collisions with other cars. It is not designed to handle every situation,
>such as collisions with 18 wheelers or "out of norm" vehicles such as SUVs
>that proliferate freeways/urban roads these days.
>
>: So lets focus on the problems of poor driving skills and road rage. The
>: type of vehicle doesn't matter if it is in the hands of an idiot.
>
>: In case you haven't guessed, I have a SUV ( a really big Chevy Blazer )
and
>: I am a very responsible driver as are the majority of drivers ( SUV,
truck
>: or car ) on the road today.
>
>Since bad drivers existed before and after the proliferation of SUVs, how
>come they become suddenly more responsible after buying SUVs? Do you think
>they think twice before drinking and driving as opposed to when they
>drove cars? Do you think became suddenly enlightened and considerate
>after SUV ownership? Which do you think is more dangerous - an
enraged/impaired
>SUV driver or a typical sedan driver?
>
>: Finger pointing at one type of vehicle is just plain unintelligent when
the
>: problem on the roads today has nothing to do with vehicles and everything
to
>: do with peoples attitudes. With your gripes and your Mustang solution,
you
>: are part of the problem, not the solution.
>
>SUV drivers have to make the choice as well if they are using the vehicle
>for its role, i.e offroad, towing, utility etc... If not, they are a part
>of the problem as well. When SUVs with their different handling,
dimensional,
>weight characteristics mingle with cars, results in inequities in safety
>for the sedan driver. Is the solution that everyone upgrade to SUVs just
>because now a significant % of the population has decided this vehicle
>meets their needs for say 10% of their usage, so that the safety equation
>is unchanged. Who is being inconsiderate here? What about the fact that
>you have to sacrifice fuel economy and handling when you migrate to SUVs.
>Is good fuel economy and good handling a bad thing? Has not safety of
>cars improved in the last 10 yrs even though they have become more
>powerful and more fuel eff, as well as being much safer? Which is the
>newcomer to the stree, the SUV or the car? Who should adapt to the
>safety /fuel economy requirements already in place? (Granted, there were a
>few Jeeps and others for a long time, but these were few and far apart
>and were not being used as they being today, in their large numbers).
>
>I am looking for an intelligent discussion as well.
>
>---
>sriram narayan sriram....@technologist.com
http://www.dsp.net/narayan
>pp-asel:san francisco bay area:vfr flight planner:av articles:photo:sw
dxing
>
Tom Fritz
<snip>
: >How much clearance do you need...
: > to cross a mud slide that is blocking you from leaving home?
: Seen it on TV a couple times, but have never known anyone needing to do
: this.
I have a friend that lives in the Santa Cruz mountains, and
he has used his Hummer many times to go home / leave for work.
: > to cross a flooded street to get your family safe?
: Well, usually you can see a flood coming in time to leave. Has it been
: raining real hard? Is water starting to collect outside? If so, then leave.
I have done this to get home. The streets at not hard to handle in
my Hummer, but in a low small car, it would be. Since some older
cars use a coil + distributer cap, water gets inside, and stranded.
: > drive to safty after a tornado destroyed your home?
: After a tornado goes through, it's done. Not like an earthquake.
Done leaving trees and junk in the street. Many days go by before
the city can clean it up.
: >In CO, during the Ice Storms around Dec., Hummer owners beat the
: >National Guard to by a 1/2 day to help people. The national guard
: >would not leave the highway. The Hummer owners rescued many people
: >from their cars, drove people to Dr. visits, delivered medicine to
: >people, rushed fire / paramedic to homes. This is just one
: >example, and I am sure there are a ton more of 4x4 helping in
: >bad times.
: Doesn't the National Guard use Hummers also? Why couldn't they get out
: there?
The national guard took six hours to get there. Why? The local goverment
has to call them into action. It takes a long time for red tape to be
done.
Also the Army / guard drive HMMWVs not Hummers.
Their bumpers don't line up too.
: >better? That is the problem I have see with the goverment. Lets take
: >good and strong cars, and weaken them. It is not fair that those people
: >bought a very well built car... when John Doe bought a Yugo that can't even
: >take a impact with a shopping cart without being totaled.
: Well, maybe I'm in the minority, but I see a car with crumple zones AS being
: built better. They weaken the area of the crumple zone so that it absorbs
: the impact instead of your body. Makes sense to me, and seems to work from
: what the crash tests tell us.
A crumple zone is a good idea for cars... but a crumple zone car will almost
always be a total if the impact is hard enough to use them.
: >: > I will buy any car I want to buy.
: >
: >: And I hope the government stops the essential subsidy of your truck or
: SUV by
: >: subjecting it to equal tax, safety, CAFE and other standards, so that you
: can
: >: have real freedom of choice.
: >
: >Equal tax... hate to tell ya, but equal tax does not happen in this
: country.
: >If you buy a car / truck / what ever that cost more then $30,000, you are
: >subject to a luxury tax. Yes, it would be nice if the tax for everything
: >was far. That is everyone in US pays the same amount, but that will
: >never happen. Life is never fair, and never will be.
: Was the luxury tax really a stretch for you when you already admitted that
: you spent over $68k on a vehicle?
The lux tax on my new 1994 Mitsubishi 3000GT/VR4 was $3,000 for my
$37,000 sports car. The Hummer would have been about 8,400.00. In
many parts of USA, that is a good downpayment on a house.
Now ask yourself, with all the money they already take from you...
why would you pay $3,000 extra just because you would like to buy a
new car?
Well, they used to have a lux tax on boats. the boat indust. almost
collapsed due to the tax. I would not have bought my Hummer if I
would have to pay a lux tax. I think I would have used the money on
legal - "off-shore" investments, and bought a 197x toyota landcruser.
Who would have lost? US Goverment in tax, American Workers who make the
Hummer, the dealership that does not sell that many of those products,
and a sales person. Also would be the state of California that would
loose $1,700 per year in "road tax". The Hummer is a 99% made in N.
America product (Canada / USA/ Mexico).
: <snip window treatment of cars>
: Jake
--
Jake Schmidt
Charlie Choc wrote in message <34fa863b...@news.mindspring.com>...
I know the Ford Expedition and the GMC Yukon are both under 6000 lbs., and
they're among the biggest, so I wouldn't think that there would be too many
in this category.
>--
>Charlie...
Jake
Tom Fritz
BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 22:00:33 GMT, t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) wrote:
: >Tax by lack of safty equipment, not by size.
: Tom, this is where you, I, and the NMA agree. Weight (when well designed) is
: a good thing for safety. If everyone drove a car that weighed 100 lbs more
: (with the weight devoted to safe structural designs) traffic fatalities would
: probably decrease by hundreds or thousands every year.
I agree... the indy cars take a hell of a beating in a crash. Yet, most
of the time, they walk away. Why? It is built better then a lot
of cars.
: But we might disagree on what "lack of safety features" should be taxed. In
: my opinion, any feature or characteristic that caused more risk to others than
: benefit to the driver should be taxed as detrimental to the overall safety
: picture. Does this seem like a fair measure, or would there be a better way
: to measure whether a feature was "safe"?
Well a qucik trip to my local Mitsubishi dealer, and I found 23 Eclipse cars.
Only four has ABS on them. Yes they will save 1K for not having the ABS
on the car, but then on a slippery road, they are not as safe as the
models with the ABS. On a slick road, the non-abs cars will have a "better"
chance of a crash, then those with ABS (all of my cars have always had
the best safty stuff on them).
Why should I pay the more for my Eclipse/GST in insurance, then a cheap
Eclipse GS/RS. Yea they don't have thge turbo, but mine has ABS. Mine
also has the power to get into traffic better then their Eclipse.
My 1996 Eclipse is well maintained. I have seen too many California
cars with missing tail-light, head lights, and such. Those are
for safty, but I would assume they pay a lot less then I do. (if
they have insurance).
The goverment should keep current of safty standards of the cars, and
have insurance companys give the clients a break if they keep up with the
current standard. Right now, the goverment hits new car buyers in the
pocket book, if they buy a new car.
: For instance, non-standard bumper heights, non-crushable frames, open wheel
: wells (vision obscuring spray), window sills, hood, trunk above a certain
: height. These are all likely to fail the test of providing an aggregate total
: safety benefit.
Unless this was a truck truck, and used only for work...
: >Now picture this in my 1996 Hummer, this idot would only hurt himself
: >due to his poor driving. Nobody else would be hurt due to his driving (
: >or lack there of).
: But it's not really fair to presume that the good driver (you) is always going
: to be in the high vehicle that punishes a bad driver in a lower car. When we
: control for driver capability, the Hummer might be the one who made a mistake,
: and left people in a Taurus dead who would have survived an impact by a large
: car making the same mistake.
That is why I drive very very carefull. All my friends who drive Hummers
also drive the same way. Most of us all have business's that we don't want
to loose due to a stupid mistake.
Tom Fritz
BKL (lang*lo...@teleport.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 22:50:34 GMT, t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) wrote:
: >What do you want to see around? You want to see around so you can see
: >when to stop. Slow down, and give yourself a enough room to be able to
: >stop if you have to.
: So your choice to drive a high vehicle means that traffic must move slower, or
: that a given stretch of lane can be safely occupied by fewer vehicles. And
: you don't pay a penny extra (and are subsidized) for this hogging of public
: resources.
Read your states driver handbook. By all means, if you would like to pass
and keep driver faster then the truck... do it. All I am saying is not
to pass the truck and go slower then the truck you just passed.
That is what pisses me off.
: >A large car weighs more then a Geo Metro. The
: >Geo Metro family will suffer.
: But not as badly as when hit by a high-bumper truck. And the family in the
: big car is actually safer for being in the big car, while the family in truck
: isn't made much safer because of the rollover risk canceling out the "heavy
: hitter" advantage.
Some times a 4x4 will tip, but then that would be a design flaw. There
is a picture of a Hummer that rolled at highway speeds and was totaled.
Source: http://www.humvee.com/pix/wreck.htm
All persons in the Hummer did not have a scratch. All persons were wearing
their seatbelts too.
: >I wonder how many drivers / people killed due to drugs / drunks / police
: >chases when compaired to a good driver? I don't have those figures, but
: >I would be willing to bet that drunk / high / police cashes account for
: >a whole lot more lost lives.
: And when those "drunk / high / police cashes" happen top be driving
: high-bumper trucks, they kill more innocent victims when they are driving
: regular cars, of comparable weight.
I don't have a cue about how many chases happen in a 4x4 vs var / car
crashes... do you? I would be willing to bet more cars / mini-vans
are in these chases then a 4x4.
: >...my Hummer...drive[s] in the sand at Pismo Beach
: So would you advocate making it legal to drive dune buggies on public roads?
When I was much younger, I used to drive my sandrail on the streets. As
long as they pass DOT / state laws, who cares?
: >That was one solution to the crash issue... Most crash crumple zones do not
: >work very well with an impact that is not dead center. On a front crash
: >that is not dead center, most people suffer crushed legs... and many of
: >those can't walk again.
: I guess your instinct is superior to decades and billions on automotive
: research. The engineers at Mercedes are going to be crushed when they hear of
: this! ;-)
Check it out yourself... http://www.hwysafety.org/press/press17.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Lincoln Continental performed reasonably well overall, although the
forces on the crash dummy's left lower leg in the offset test were high
enough to break a driver's leg. In the Infiniti Q45 test, the head injury
1criterion was high enough to indicate the possibility of head injury.
Measures on the left leg indicated the possibility of injury.
The Cadillac Seville was the worst performer among the six large luxury cars
tested. The driver space wasn't maintained well. There was major intrusion
into the occupant compartment. And measures on the right leg indicated the
likelihood of significant injury.
"The Seville has the oldest design of the six large luxury cars we tested. The
rest have been recently redesigned, and this could be a reason the Cadillac
didn't perform up to the other models,"
O'Neill says. He adds that "next year, this car will be redesigned, and we
hope it does better in offset crashes.
"Expensive cars like the ones the Institute tested are those in which
state-of-the-art safety designs and technologies typically are introduced,"
O'Neill notes. The four imported models tested come with side airbags and
safety belt tensioners to reduce belt slack. Front airbags in the BMW and
Mercedes have higher deployment thresholds for belted occupants. These
advanced safety features aren't yet found in most popular models. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the "best" of the lav cars, and "measures on the right leg
indicated the likelihood of significant injury."
The Hummer own the other hand broke crash barriers... Also from
crash information about HMMWV's with the same type of crashs have
torn the tires off. Nobody hurt who has worn a seat belt.
Death rates:
"SUV" sports 2door 4door lux car Van Pickup
Large 60 81 74 65 52
midsize 82 191 120 88 62 63 106
small 174* 146 155 135 112 154
*Small SUV:
Sidekick, Jeep Wrangler, Geo Tracker, Geotracker 4x4
: So is the fact that buyers of large powerful cars must pay exorbitant guzzler
: taxes, while truck buyers who get worse mileage don't pay a penny.
: And a realtor with a $50k business sedan may write off only $3000 depreciation
: per year, while the owner of a $50k Range Rover may write off a full $10,000
: per year.
Why should anyone be fined for the car they use. Lets get rid of all tax
writeoffs... dump thousands of pages of tax codes, say everyone / business has
to pay 10% of their income for tax.
Just think of the amount of money that would be saved in lawers, and
CPA's fees. With something like that, we could also trash the IRS.
: --
: Ben Lang1otz
: National Motorists Association, Oregon Chapter Coordinator
: www.motorists.com
: "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error;
: it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
: U.S. Supreme Ct. Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1950
Tom Fritz
Charlie Choc (cc...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: "Jake Schmidt" <sh...@netins.net> wrote:
: >Yes, and you make them out to be saints because they pay more in fees and
: >taxes. You make it seem that SUV-drivers should be rewarded for paying more
: >taxes, when in reality, no one is forcing them to pay the luxury tax or the
: >on their $30k vehicle. They also don't have to pay that extra gas tax--they
: >could always do what "their free-loading car driving breathern" do, and get
: >a vehicle that offers a lot greater gas mileage.
: >
: If the GVW of the vehicle is > 6000# there is no gas guzzler or luxury
: tax. A lot of SUV's are in this category I expect.
There are not SUV's in this area. That would make the truck a class
three truck, subject to DOT regs.
: --
: Charlie...
GO SUV
In article <t5150Ep...@netcom.com>, t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) writes:
> GO SUV (ad...@spammer.killer.com) wrote:
> : BTW, that's why every vehicle comes with a steering wheel. Use it.
>
> Great, so if a car has an option for ABS and they don't buy it, then
> lets tax them 8 X the normal rate. After all, that is a safty option
> that they did not buy. They may not have had the money to buy it in
> the fisrt place, but lets tax them more.
>
> Since all new cars have dual airbags on their cars, let also tax
> cars that are too old to have them. Lets make it 20 X the amount the
> a new car is charged to be fair.
>
> Wait! There is more... before 1960 (don't know the correct date)
> 99 percent of the cars did not have seatbelts. Since that was a
> safty option that they did not buy (my dad did buy them for his 57 Chevy)
> lets hit them up with a 30 X tax amount every year.
Wait. I didn't know steering wheels were optional on SUVs. No wonder why
they often plant themselves firmly in the left lane doing under the speed
limit on a clear day.
If I wanted to haul stuff, I get a real truck.
If I wanted to haul people, I get a minivan.
If I wanted a comfortable ride and good handling, I get a car.
If I wanted to go fast, I get a sports car.
If I wanted all-wheel-drive, I get an Audi.
I stay away from poseur SUVs because they can't haul as much stuff as a
real truck, can't haul as many people as a minivan, don't have as good
handling as a car, can't go fast as a sports car (but many of them are
driven like one), and all-wheel-drive is optional on many poseur SUVs.
Not to mention these poseur SUVs cost $10,000 and up over their truck
cousins, get worse fuel economy than cars, and uses ancient technology
such as leaf springs and solid axles.
No we don't need to heavily tax those poseur SUV owners. The manufacturers
are already laughing all the way to the banks and the owners have been
ripped off enough.
--
i s a a c w @ n o r t e l . c a
1991 Isuzu Stylus XS handling by Lotus
1998 Audi A4 1.8T AWD Quattro Sport [GO SUV]
Go SUVs go!
Marc
t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) wrote:
>Why should the President of USA drive an armored car that weights
>twice as much as a Hummer? Should he on the road with something like
>that, when a geo metro can get him there just as fast / safe?
You are confusing crash safety with resistance to an armed attack.
The limo is designed to withstand small arms fire (at least, with the
maximum damage absorbing capabilities supposedly classified). The Geo
Metro can't. It isn't the weight that does it, or tossing a few
thousand pounds of lead in the trunk would make cars bulletproof.
Marc
For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@ticnet.com
Tom Fritz
Marc (Gum...@ticnet.com) wrote:
: t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) wrote:
Sure but since his car weighs a whole lot more, it should not be on
the road. This car is designed also to crash through barriers, thus
would cause more damage to another car.
If we are going to get rid of all cars that are heavyer / better
build then a cheap geo metro, then his car should be one on the list.
The value of one human life, is no more then anyone elses. Just
because his office makes him / her a target, does not mean his life
is more valuable then mine.
Unless you are saying that value of one life is more then anothers.
I also don't think that his car has crumple zones, or the barrier
breaker system would not work.
His car must be totally unsafe to all drivers in the citys / towns
he is driven in.
He is in safest car in the world. Designed for crashes, bombs,
and bullets. It is also one of the most deadly IF put in the
hands of a bad driver.
Charlie Choc
t5...@netcom.com (Tom Fritz) wrote:
The GVW of my D90 is 6001#, FWIW. The Range Rover is 6130#. I expect
you are thinking of curb weight.
--
Charlie...
Charlie Choc
"Jake Schmidt" <sh...@netins.net> wrote:
>Charlie Choc wrote in message <34fa863b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>"Jake Schmidt" <sh...@netins.net> wrote:
>>>Yes, and you make them out to be saints because they pay more in fees and
>>>taxes. You make it seem that SUV-drivers should be rewarded for paying
>more
>>>taxes, when in reality, no one is forcing them to pay the luxury tax or
>the
>>>on their $30k vehicle. They also don't have to pay that extra gas
>tax--they
>>>could always do what "their free-loading car driving breathern" do, and
>get
>>>a vehicle that offers a lot greater gas mileage.
>>>
>>If the GVW of the vehicle is > 6000# there is no gas guzzler or luxury
>>tax. A lot of SUV's are in this category I expect.
>
>I know the Ford Expedition and the GMC Yukon are both under 6000 lbs., and
>they're among the biggest, so I wouldn't think that there would be too many
>in this category.
>
It's 6000# Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW), not curb weight. GVW is curb
weight plus payload. My Defender 90 has a GVW of 6001#, oddly
enough<g>.
--
Charlie...
Stephen Masraum
I don't completely disagree, but I have had mostly cars and one Ford
Ranger. The Ranger had some definite advantages but lacked some
things. I think that most SUV's combine the best of both worlds. In
traffic because of thier higher profile you can see traffic problems
before you get to them and react accordingly. You can take the
occassional shortcut to get around problems by going over curbs and
trough holes that is not as easy in a car. On the few occassions that
you do have to bring home that 35" TV or new Lawn Mower, or ten bags of
potting soil and all of those flowers that your wife insists upon you
can do it in one trip. For you single people who move from apt to apt
as a way of life it is much easier. When your friends are all drunk and
you have to drive them home from the club just put the plastic liner
down in the back and heap them one atop the other then remove the
stained and smelly liner the next day.
There are a lot of times that I've been in a traffic jam and wanted to
know which lane was closed a 1/2 mile up but couldn't tell because I
couldn't see over the car infront of me or through the jet black tint on
its back window.
>
> White Tornado Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Blah blah blah.
> >
> > If you don't tow a trailer.
> >
> > If you don't haul lots of shit around.
> >
> > If you don't drive "off road."
> >
> > And you do own an SUV, you are a brainless lemming who is following
> > the latest trend. I bet you got a Motorola flip phone back in 1993
> > just to look cool.
> >
>
> Yada yada yada. And I think the same about you. So there.