SUV's......getting out of hand

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Muskie

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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:

>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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

> 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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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....

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

Mike Korzeniowski wrote:
>
> In article <6d4kui$1...@nntp1.erinet.com>, "Ryan T. Eberly" <reb...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >redlined EVERY SINGLE GEAR. F*** these boomers, f*** these yuppies... and
> >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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to Muskie
this was the funniest posting i've read in an auto group in a while. i
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?

vcard.vcf

Robert Davis

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to Jeff
if your still getting spam, check out and tell your isp about this:
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

--

vcard.vcf

David Henley

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

Exactly. Or you could INSULT Muskie.

M Dilly

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to BKL

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).
>
> 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.

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

In <6d4onb$1av$2...@news.iquest.net>, on 02/26/98
at 10:16 PM, ko...@iquest.net (Mike Korzeniowski) said:

>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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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)

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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....
>
> Mike

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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.

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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
: >idot in a car....I would love to see hertz rent-o-car

: >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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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.
>>
>> 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

Mario Perez

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

<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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to Sriram Narayan

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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.
>
> 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."

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

Bill Funk

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

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?
> >
> >
> >
> >Why should he?
>
> 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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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:
>: > 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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

Matthew Maynard

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

chuck wrote in message <01bd4408$1ad78140$2ad2c4d0@chuck>...
>
>

Pete Llarena

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

Monroe Roden

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

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 the