Peryn

"yet we allow pollution-spewing vehicles to damage our air quality in the name of "consumer choice." "

You, have no idea what you are talking about. A new SUV is as clean as any car (cept maybe hybrid and PURE electric) off of the lot. A common misconception is that bad mileage = pulluter. This is not the case. Those new H2's that get bad gas mileage are a Low Emmissions Vehicle. Just like a civic. I can Gaurauntee you they have essentially 0 CO, 0 NOx, and 0 HC. You would be better off suckin on a tailpipe of any new car (except some deisel trucks) than you would be being a smoker of cigarettes. Chances are, a 5 yr old Civic will be a bigger polluter than a brand new H2. Also, take a look at Europe. Gas is incredibly expensive their, so naturally they have VERY fuel efficient vehicles. Most people naturally equate this with low pollution, but almost NONE of their cars could pass even teh federal emmisions in the US, let alone the california emissions.


As for the reason behind getting an SUV,

Yes, many aspects of an SUV are better in a more specialized vehicle. But how many other types of vehicles can put all of those together? SUVs are unique in that they can provide room to haul stuff, room for people, a comfy ride, durability, multi-terrain performance, and in some cases decent gas mileage. If anyone had any of those requirements, and asked for a suggestion for a car, you would of course send them toward an SUV. Why? Because its pretty much the only vehicle capable of fulfilling all those needs.

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

tj2001cobra

Lincoln Navigator? Nahhh it's a little too expensive.

Quote:

SUV's have a lot more uses, can haul a lot of stuff and a lot more people. See: minivan, and besides, how often do you haul 2x4's in your tahoe?

I will kill myself before I ever own a minivan. And I dont haul 2x4's in the Tahoe. I use the truck for that. My truck doesn't get any better gas mileage than a Tahoe. Why don't people hate pick-ups? The Tahoe is for COMFORTABLY taking 3+ people somewhere with their luggage. It is an EASY vehicle to get a child and child seat in and out of. It is safer to drive (yes, this is a me me me attitude. I dont care). It sits up so you can see better while driving. It has a good re-sale value, as opposed to the Saturn that my wife had.

lurkette

First of all, I can find the research for you if you'd like.

Second, you can't take one example (the Hummer) and use it as indicative of an entire class of vehicles (SUVs).

Third, you can look up vehicle emissions at the EPA web site, and the "LEV" classification is just so much bullshit. The fact that they have Hummers and Civics in the same LEV class (which, actually, they don't) belies the fact that the LEV classification has a large range of emissions scores - basically between 2 and 6. T1 and T2 classifications are for scores of 0 and 1 (worst polluters), LEV is between 2-6, SLEV and ULEV(super and ultra low) between 7&8, etc., with 10 being the best scores (electrics and hybrids).

<a href="http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_03.pdf">http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_03.pdf</a>

The Hummer gets an emissions score of 2 (LEV).
The Honda Civic gets a score of 7-8 and is classified as an ULEV. GMC Yukon between 0-3 depending on the sales area.
Chevy Silverado 1-2.
Toyota Highlander 4.
Landcruiser 0-2.
Camry 7.

To quote from the EPA web site:
"The emissions score is primarily based on the tailpipe emission standards of two significant air pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons (HC), both of which contribute to the formation of smog. Particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO) are also considered. "

<a href="http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/about.htm">http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/about.htm</a>

So you go suck on a Hummer tailpipe all you want. I'll go find a 5-year old Civic, or even a Toyota Avalon. Bottom line is, larger cars tend to release more pollutants into the air. Pththbt.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Redlemon

I'd like to thank the SUV-purchasers for one thing; SUVs have a huge markup on them, so you are doing a big part to keep the auto industry alive. My little car probably had a lower purchase price because of you.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Peryn

First off, most SUVs dont pullute LESS than a car. They do pollute the same or slightly more. a new car will spew out *maybe* 1 or 2 ppm (parts per million) HC (raw gas). a new SUV *might* stick out upwards of 3-5 off of the lot. and your absolutely right, that SUV is polluting 250% more than the car!! tahts terirble! what you dont look at is that the limit is approcimately 100 ppm. that 2 or 3 ppm is negligable. Like statistics, you can make numbers say whatever you want them to, if you have no reali life comparision and dont stop and think about what they mean.

Also, those numbers are federal standards. Federal cars are sloppy gross polluters. A lot of California reject polluters will pass Federal standards. Also, cars have been getting bigger and more polluting over the years (at least thats what people think). Over the last 30 years we have doubled the amount of cars in california and cut the amount of smog in half. At teh same time we have also increased the amount of deisel trucks and large semi's. We have cars that are getting 1/3 or less gas mileage than the cars from teh gas scares of teh 70's. Yet they are allowed to pullute 1/10 of those cars, and they have better performance and are larger. It is all realative. As our standards continue to get more strict, the actual differences in the pollution output gets incredibly small, so 2 cars could have negligible output differences, and one could get a "7" on that scale, and one could get a 2.

Example, a ford f150 5.4L automatic, according to the feds, got a ZERO on that 1-10 scale. It is a horrible polluter right? Well stick on on the smog dyno and youll see one with 70k miles get perfect 0's on the emissions, occasionaly giving 1-2 ppM NOx. 70,000 miles later on a car the feds say is the worst pulluter, and it is pulling what should be a 9 or 10. Another example, a Jeep Wrangler. EPA gives it a 4, or a 1 if not sold in CA. thats a pretty sad number. It pulled about 6 ppm HC (99 or so max), 0.01% CO, and about 12ppm NOx. Again, almost nothing, yet it gets a "bad" rating.

I guess part of my point is that the difference between a hihg and low rating can be essentially nothing. Also, that those federal ratings you are quoting, while are accpeted, are terribly bad. A low number in CA, you come out to be a pretty high number on that scale the EPA gives. Its all about standards, and thats a list for the worst standards in the country. Like the jeep, gets a 1 for the federal version, and a 4 for the CA version. Just one example.


Of all the reasons to complain about and SUV, emissions shouldn't be one of them. in reality, and in comparison, they dont give off too much more than a car.

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

lurkette

Even if SUVs don't give off "too much more" emissions than a car, they do give off more, and 2-3 ppm is not a big deal if you're talking about one car, but when you aggregate the effects times millions of SUVs and light trucks on the road, it is a big deal. Your point is taken about the condition and age of the vehicle, though.

Granted, there are other significant sources of air pollution - coal burning power plants, small engines that aren't regulated, etc., but internal combustion vehicles still account for the vast bulk of air pollutants, and either tightening up fuel efficiency standards for the majority of polluting vehicles, or getting them off the road, is a fairly simple way to make a big dent in the environmental impact. And even if pollution is getting better in some areas, it's still a huge public health problem in many other areas.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

mingusfingers

Well, of course the tercels are going to get crushed by the escalades out there. If we all had small cars, that would mean safety plus a better environment.

__________________
Still Looking

Peryn

Course we could all go buy into large SUV's. Then that would be considered the norm for gas mileage, and pollution. Also, if all cars were big, they would all be safe, right? Safety seems like it will always be one persons safety at another persons expense. Until technology improves some more, larger cars will always be safer for THIER occupants.

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

YzermanS19

Darkblack is my HERO! Right on bud

__________________
the light that burns twice as bright
burns half as long

and you have burned so very, very brightly

tj2001cobra

Pffffffft....

Call me an ALIVE asshole all you want.

Peryn

Why, cause the small car thought his CRX was a racecar and flew in fron of the SUV and slammed on his brakes? Or maybe because he cut him off to show how fast his little racecar was...


People in small cars can and are just as bad of drivers as people in SUVs. Women can be dangerous no matter what they drive

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

shalafi

no we would just all die whenever we ran into something. and i would have to suffer through driving an an uncomfortable ass little car every day. thank god i have the freedom to smoke a stogie while driving down the road in my big cumfy truck ignoring the hippy liberals whining that i shouldnt be allowed to smoke, drive anything bigger than a shoe box, own a gun, pray to my god without honorable mention to everyone elses, or keep any of my money for myself.

ahhh i feel better now

ps. arent gereralizations fun?

glasscutter43

I find it amazing that a Stupid Useless Vehicle that costs thousands of dollars and is capable of climbing Mt. Kilamanjaro can only mount a speedbump at 1 MPH.
I can't wait until it snows. Those stupid useless vehicles look so cute laying in the highway median on their roofs.

__________________
Book 'em Danno

rmarshall

I just backed into a guy in a black Acura sportcar in a restaurant drive-thru last monday with my Highlander.

I didn't see him. I had gone too far and passed the order menu panel and was backing up. The little car had just pulled in behind me and was below my rear window and directly behind me so I couldn't see him through my side mirrors. I heard a terrible crunch. My rear bumper slid over his bumper and pushed in his grill and headlight and buckled his hood and snapped his hood latch and did $2500 CDN worth of damage. My Highlander has a little scratch on the bottom of the bumper, hardly noticable.

I have an SUV because I live in the country on a private unmaintained gravel road and we get lots of snow up here in Ontario. I also have a 20 foot 3500 lb. boat and need to have a good vehicle to pull and launch it.

My Highlander gets better gas milage than the Previa it replaced. After having a minivan, I wouldn't want a little car. I don't think I could even fit into one!

I wonder if you could enter a SUV in a demolition derby?

__________________
"Do not resent growing old. Many are denied the privilege" Irish proverb

Conclamo Ludus

That's a lot of damage! Highlanders aren't all that big compared to the rest of the SUV's too. An SUV demolition derby would be fun to watch. A Honda civic demolition derby would be even more fun.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

Peryn

I am by no means a "hippy liberal" at all. But personally, i have seen a lot of different people drive a lot of different types of vehicles, and their is some truth to your statement. I believe we should have several different classes of drivers liscense' for different size vehicles. I think little CRX, go kart size and weight vehicles should have separate requirements to be able to get a liscence to drive. Same with minivans and large SUVs/trucks. Most people dont know how to handle their normal sedan, let alone a car at 2-3 times the size and weight. I think any vehicle above 4800-5000 lbs should require a different liscence and test to drive. same with any vehicle under 2500 lbs.

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

Darkblack

See that is the difference between you and me. I care about your saftey along with mine.

tj2001cobra

I care about you too. I love you guys

ninety09

Was this thread's purpose to make people hate less SUV drivers? Because it had the opposite effect on me. I hate selfish people -_-

Conclamo Ludus

It depends on what you see as selfish. Is it selfish to hate SUV drivers because they have a different preference of car they want to drive? Or is it selfish to drive a "safer" bigger vehicle, while not everybody can or wants to?

I think people should drive nearly anything they want.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

lurkette

I think in the opinion of most SUV-haters, it's selfish to drive a car that may or may not be safer for the driver (the jury is out on that one) but is definitely less safe for everyone else on the road, and creates a worse environment for everyone. Affording it is not an issue, although I do think most people who don't need to drive SUVs for utility's sake purchase them for reasons of prestige. I could afford an SUV, but I choose to drive something smaller that gets better gas mileage because it's consistent with my values of environmentalism and caring about more than my own life.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

tj2001cobra

Spare me.

Conclamo Ludus

You can't beat freedom of choice. I would hate to take that from anybody.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

irseg

So what you're saying is, if a 60 mph head-on collision between an Expedition and a Civic were imminent, you'd rather be in the Civic. Because emitting marginally less emissions, using less gas, and caring about the guy in the other vehicle is more important than your life. Interesting. I guess some of us value our lives a little differently than others...

lurkette

Re: freedom of choice: I don't want to ban SUVs, thereby taking away freedom of choice. I just wish that people would choose more wisely and based on long-term outcomes instead of immediate personal desires. We all agree to certain limitations on our freedoms for the greater good - speed limits, no-smoking laws in public places, etc.

Quote:

So what you're saying is, if a 60 mph head-on collision between an Expedition and a Civic were imminent, you'd rather be in the Civic. Because emitting marginally less emissions, using less gas, and caring about the guy in the other vehicle is more important than your life. Interesting. I guess some of us value our lives a little differently than others...

Irseg, we all make decisions based on certain probabilities. I'm betting the the probability that I get into a head-on collision at 60 mph with an Expedition is low enough that my driving a smaller car is less risky than you would suggest. If I get into a 60-mph head-on crash in ANY vehicle, I'm likely to come out mangled. Not to mention that head-on crashes at that speed are much less likely than offset crashes and side-impact crashes, at which SUVs fare rather badly. It hardly seems worth it to me to hasten a high-probability event with negative impact on millions or billions of people - global warming and air pollution - by supposedly protecting against a relatively unlikely event that will affect only a few people: me personally getting into a head-on collision in a small car at 60 mph with an SUV.

Large trends are an aggregate of millions of individual decisions. I'd rather protect the group than my own ass in this case when the data show that my own ass is actually relatively safe.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Prince

This seems to be one of those discussions that you cannot participate in without getting slammed down for your opinions or thoughts. But I'll share mine anyway. This may get long and boring, so feel free to skip it.

I moved to the States from Europe earlier this year, and as you can imagine (or may even know from personal experience), the "automobile culture" differs there greatly from the American one. I ended up in Texas, which seems to be truly the land of trucks. I am still amazed by how many people here drive a truck, and even more so by the size of these things. I've seen bigger SUVs here than I ever did in Europe, and I've been driving for close to ten years. It feels like 3 or 4 out of every car I see out there is a truck. Since this is mostly a college town, I find it hard to believe that ALL of these kids driving an SUV actually needs one. Having said that, though, I do feel they have every right to drive one should they so choose.

My wife drives a Japanese sedan (Jap model, US build), fairly new, automatic, with an engine of well over 2 litres. Now I'm no tree-hugger, but if there is a choice I always go for a more economic and environment-friendly solution when it comes to a car. It amazes me that the engine on her Jap is relatively big for a sedan, especially since a typical European sedan with a 1.6 or even 1.4 litre engine can kick out a whole lot more power with less consumption and pollution. But looking further into this, it seems that American sedans typically seem to have engines that are bigger than necessary, and less efficient compared to the European models. The only reason I can think of why this is, is that the automobile manufacturers in this country still front the image that "bigger is better". Hence, even a small car should have an unnecessarily big engine.

Probably the reason for this is that there is less pressure in America for automobile manufacturers to build engines that consume less yet provide the same power. This is because gas is significantly cheaper here. Before I came to the States, I paid approximately 3 dollars and 80 cents per gallon, for gas. Wouldn't that make you consider selecting a more economic model, too? Hence European manufacturers have had to focus on economy while not producing cars that are less efficient than their North American counterparts.

I used to work at an auto shop that specialized in purchasing and repairing and then reselling new Volvos that had been involved in car accidents. European-made Volvos (I don't know about American manufactured models, haven't had the opportunity to check them out) are extremely safe; I saw hundreds of wrecked Volvos and not one of them was done in so badly that the cabin was completely gone. Yet I've seen a co-worker of mine fold a Jap car's door with his bare hands...

To me, a car is not a status symbol, it's utilitarian. It serves a purpose and that's it. I do think that buying a big car to show it off is utterly ridiculous, just as in Europe people don't buy trucks, they buy as "small and lean" cars as possible, to show off. I would be willing to fork up the money for an SUV, but only for a used one...I would not want to spend a dime more than necessary paying for unnecessary engine power or ridiculous amounts of steel.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

Peryn

You are absolutely right, out of necessity, Europe and japan make small cars and small engines. They tend to have worse maintained, more congested, and smaller streets than the US. Naturally a small car works here. They also have incredibly high gas prices. This discourages large engines, so small, high output gas-freindly engines are the norm there. Good power, in a small car, with happy gas mileage. Everybody wins.

Well, almost everyone wins. While you tend to get smaller cars and engines with better performance AND mileage, you simply cannot pass USA emmissions standards. To get cars to pass strict emissions standards here we tend to put in larger engines capable of large amount of power. We then choke the power out of them to meet strict emissions requirements yet still maintain sufficient power.

Ever wonder why the Japanese, european, australian, etc. cars have more power? Because they are dirtier. They pollute too much to be allowed in the US as a daily driver. The pollution limiting equipment we require robs horsepower.

Anyway, had to leave for a while and forgot what i said. Point im making is foreign (to the US) cars are better for fuel and size, but pullute more than even our large (non-deisel) cars/SUVs

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

monty121052

It's very much like the old adedge guns dont kill people.Cars, no matter what size dont kill people,bad fucking drivers kill people,along with speed and alcohol of course.

Prince

There is some truth to this, especially for older cars, but not so much for newer ones... Old cars are allowed to go as far as 600 ppm (HC), which is three or more times the limit of some states, that is true. However, cars built after 1992 are required to stay below 100 ppm, which is, to me, extremely low, and even lower than most states' standards.

I think the only way that limit can be met in European cars is by using a catalysator, which is mandatory in cars built in 1992 or after.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

wwcd101

It depends...

The car you drive should fit your needs. We've got a family of 5, 3 kids ages 10-17, a big dog, a cottage, with an 18' boat, on a lake 7 hours drive away and live in suburbia adjacent to the snow belt. The Suburban is almost a necessity.

If we were just two with no kids and no dog and no towing and no 4 wheel drive living in NYC. The same car would be stupid.

Thanks for listening.

Tophat665

However, in the Greater DC metropolitan area, that's the way to bet. If I had a nickel for every solo rider in an SUV, no child seats, dog cages, or trailer hitches visible who cut me off in traffic while yakking on their cell phone, I'd be able to buy a Maxi Mog and monster truck their asses.

This whole conversation misses the point, though: Yes, SUVs and light trucks are safer than cars. Hummers are far safer. An M-1 Abrams tank is safer still.

The point is that, with (according to NPR Morning Edition yesterday - 10/17/2003) 50% of cars sold last year light trucks or SUVs, and fuel efficiencies falling, not because engines are less efficienet but because cars are getting heavier, gas gets more and more expensive.

I have no argument for folks who need an SUV to haul a trailer or 7 children (though why a family needs that many in this day and age is beyond me, and proof of mental softness as far as I can tell as a father of 2), or dog cages or some such similar thing - Heck, I keep a pickup truck , but I only drive it when I need it- but the folks commuting in F-150s and Oversized SUVs are doing nothing but driving up the price of gas and increasing our dependance on oil from places where they'd be just as happy to give each of us a C-4 suppository. And I have yet to find a reason anyone outside the military needs a hummer (chuckle - well, maybe Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be improved by a skillful hummer each, but we're talking cars here) though.

So, while it is an environmental thing, that's secondary. It's economic and political. It just makes no sense to drive more weight than you need.

For the record - I drive a Hyundai. I would drive a small, fuel efficient, American car if they made one for sale at a reasonable price. They don't. I would also drive an SUV if it ran on something other than gasoline or with a hybrid engine and I could afford it (and it had been out for a couple of years so that the kinks had been worked out of the model. I think the hybrid Escape is in its second model year now. I'll probably trade the Huyndai and the truck for one in another two years.)

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Tophat665

It's selfish to have you automotive preference materially decrease national security. That is the bottom line.

Now, each SUV owner has only a tiny part of this, but putting all together, they have a significant impact on our Middle East policy (oil interests are the next largest consideration after Israel), which is 80% of why we have problems in the Middle East (the other 20%, an estimate, is PR), which is 90% of why we have a deadly terrorist threat, which is 10% of the reason and 80% of the excuse for having a war with Iraq, and 100% of the reason that Governor Bush has any credibility at all, which is 100% of the reason we have deficits for as far as the eye can see.

So, to boil all that down:
SUVs are a significant part of a significant part of the largest part of our greatest national security threat, and, incidentally, the worst government this country has ever had bar none.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Tophat665

Exactly!

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Nizzle

This is why I don't like yuppies who drive SUVs. Thanks for demonstrating for us today.

__________________
Nizzle

Sensei

As soon as I read this article, this is what i wanted to say. I highly doubted I was the first one and I was not.

__________________
Slacking off with style since 1981.

mvassek

I have a 95 Geo metro, a 92 Jeep Wrangler, a 88 Chevy Cavalier, a 91 Isuzu trooper, a 75 Ford F-100. Each has its purpose and use.

The safety of a vehicle would be a moot point and no one would worry if everyone would do what they are supposed to do when they climb behind the wheel , DRIVE!!!! A vehicle is not a place to eat, read, talk on the cell phone, scream at the kids. If every driver put 100% of their attention to the task at hand, wrecks would not occur. Notice I did not say accidents there is no such thing as vehicle accident, if a vehicle is properly maintained including tire pressure and condition, brakes etc. and drivers pay attention to highway laws, speeds and road condition and drove defensively they would never have to worry about being involved in a wreck.

jets

Cool article that neatly convinces some that we should be dependant on gas guzzling hunks of steel. Basically; keep buying petroleum and make some huge company rich.

__________________
Hey. Wasn't Me.

Fire

I should note that I have a titanium plate running along the remnants of the humerous (upper arm bone) of my right arm- it is held there by 13 titanium screws and was installed at a cost of 24,794 dollars- this was required after a person driving in a small, fuel efficient, zippy car swerved into the side of my fiancee's car. resulting in our impact at 70 mph into a very unsympathetic concrete barrier- more than a year later i can use my "improved" arm, but no where near as well as before- while I do not support suv's, as I think they are overpriced, I feel far safer in a large vehicle, and had I the money (ie i hit the lotto) I would not hesitate to get a hummer, the older one that is built like a tank, (the new ones are too small) thus greatly decreasing my chances of repeating my earlier ordeal.....as i cannot decrease the population of bad drivers, some "armor" would be nice.

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

mb99usa

I have driven vehicles from sports cars to mini vans to pick-ups to my current Explorer. The vans and trucks offer much better visibility. The sports cars offered better handling and acceleration. I think this whole argument comes down to driver responsibility.

You have to drive the vehicle you are in. By this I mean stay within its capabilities. It takes some time but you need to learn how the vehicle you are driving responds in different situations.

You also have to take into account the vehicles around you. I drive quite a bit. My daily drivers have always been trucks or SUVs. I find most of my problems come from other drivers expecting my vehicle to handle like theirs. I rarely have a problem with other trucks or SUVs. My problems typically are caused by smaller cars weaving in and out of traffic or expecting me to be able to take a curve at the same speed they can.

Conversely I have to remember than on rougher roads they will not travel as fast as I would. I'm not concerned about cruising over steel plates in construction areas where they need to think about ripping the front valence off or damaging their 13" wheels.

I know this was a question about vehicle saefty related to SUV size. I know we have to plan and design vehicles around the impact they will have on another in a collision but there should also be more emphasis put on how the vehicles are driven. This should be done without the "woman putting on make-up/talking on cell-phone" comments. I've seen plenty of that but I've also seen the "guys reading the newspaper/talking on the cell-phone/making entries in dayplanner/PDA" drivers.

__________________
So, what's your point?

It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.

rgr22j

Prince: As I understand, the term "Jap," is still considered a pejorative in this country. Not being Japanese, naturally I might be wrong, but to be safe let's both shy away from it. As far as I can tell, in no way did your post contain any hints of racism, but just in case let's play it safe.

-- Alvin