Stupid SUV's

[Pogo]

BTW, I'm not reading all your drivel. I find you long-winded, sanctimonious and painfully misinformed.

- and you left out .... "always correct".

 

[koshergrl]

That's me.

Not you.

 

[Ringel05]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

 

[Ringel05]

You could say the same thing about the large Mercedes sedans. Or full size vans.
Or classic cars from 60's. All heavy death dealers.
Sounds like the only acceptable vehicles in your book are one's like you drive or smaller. Or cheaper....but whatever.

I was thinking something along the same lines. Why am I to blame for him buying a short little car? Buy something bigger and you can see.

Also, shitty drivers are shitty drivers, regardless of what they drive. I put 5k miles a month for 12 years on full sized SUVs and pickup trucks without a single accident.

Seems to me what he's saying is more along the lines that using an SUV is a selfish act. Aside from being a poor automotive design.

Masturbating is a selfish, wasteful act but no one complains about it.........
I've been in three accidents, (none were my fault), one in a Pinto, one in a Chevy Luv and one in a Ford F-150. In the first two I was injured, fairly seriously in the Pinto, in the F-150 it turned the horizontal flat rear end of the Camaro that pulled across in front of me in to a vertical flat surface and sheared off the right rear tire. Later it was discovered the frame on the truck was bent but at the time I pulled out the side panel away from the tire and finished driving it to work. The responding officer at the scene to one look at the Camaro and my truck and literally said, "Ya gotta love a truck".

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.

I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.

I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.

See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks. Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you must also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous. That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it. There's no win there. You end up with a population of people driving tanks. It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you don't believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too. And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno. Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once). The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body). The deer came out of nowhere and was killed. I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on. More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I didn't hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them. Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.

"Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."

I do not purchase my car for "the collective". I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars. A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.

And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.

And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.

I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.

I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.

See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks. Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you must also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous. That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it. There's no win there. You end up with a population of people driving tanks. It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you don't believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too. And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno. Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once). The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body). The deer came out of nowhere and was killed. I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on. More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I didn't hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them. Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.

That saturn is likely to put a deer in your lap. Which will more then likely kill you.

 

[Pogo]

Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.

I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.

I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.

See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks. Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you must also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous. That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it. There's no win there. You end up with a population of people driving tanks. It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you don't believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too. And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno. Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once). The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body). The deer came out of nowhere and was killed. I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on. More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I didn't hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them. Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.

"Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."

I do not purchase my car for "the collective". I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars. A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.

And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.

And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass.

Just musing. But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?

See what I'm saying? We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative. If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?

"Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight. The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it. I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it. That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.

"accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely. Which is exactly why I want a smaller one. Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player. Who do you put your money on? It's like that.

"And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already happened; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.

This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened. Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means. Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.

 

[Pogo]

Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.

I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.

I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.

See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks. Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you must also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous. That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it. There's no win there. You end up with a population of people driving tanks. It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you don't believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too. And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno. Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once). The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body). The deer came out of nowhere and was killed. I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on. More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I didn't hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them. Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.

That saturn is likely to put a deer in your lap. Which will more then likely kill you.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember but when Saturn started, a big part of their ad campaigns was testimonials from drivers who were in accidents in them, and walked away unscathed. It was a big selling point.

 

[boedicca]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

Off topic, but I'm reminded of:

Yay, I win the special hate Olympics. I am awesome!

According To Hoyt | It's ALL In the Game

 

[Ringel05]

See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks. Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you must also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous. That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it. There's no win there. You end up with a population of people driving tanks. It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you don't believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too. And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno. Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once). The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body). The deer came out of nowhere and was killed. I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on. More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I didn't hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them. Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.

"Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."

I do not purchase my car for "the collective". I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars. A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.

And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.

And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass.

Just musing. But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?

See what I'm saying? We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative. If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?

"Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight. The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it. I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it. That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.

"accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely. Which is exactly why I want a smaller one. Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player. Who do you put your money on? It's like that.

"And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already happened; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.

This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened. Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means. Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.

Based in an ideal world where every driver drives responsibly %100 percent of the time........

That world doesn't exist and never will, people are involved. I'm on the road a lot I guesstimate (based on observation) that at least 70% of those driving around me are "distracted" in some form or another.

 

[Pogo]

"Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."

I do not purchase my car for "the collective". I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars. A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.

And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.

And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass.

Just musing. But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?

See what I'm saying? We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative. If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?

"Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight. The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it. I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it. That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.

"accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely. Which is exactly why I want a smaller one. Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player. Who do you put your money on? It's like that.

"And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already happened; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.

This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened. Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means. Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.

Based in an ideal world where every driver drives responsibly %100 percent of the time........

That world doesn't exist and never will, people are involved. I'm on the road a lot I guesstimate (based on observation) that at least 70% of those driving around me are "distracted" in some form or another.

I see the same thing.

But that doesn't mean an impact is inevitable, nor that we should just give up and cocoon ourselves in tanks and brace for impact.

And this is personal preference too; I'm firmly on the side of active participation in my own driving rather than sitting in an isolation chamber. When they offer me tires that will give me a "softer" ride I wonder, "why would I want to not feel the road?" And A/T (autonomic transmission I call it) is out of the question.

Bottom line, we each drive what works for us...

 

[Ringel05]

Just musing. But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?

See what I'm saying? We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative. If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?

"Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight. The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it. I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it. That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.

"accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely. Which is exactly why I want a smaller one. Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player. Who do you put your money on? It's like that.

"And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already happened; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.

This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened. Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means. Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.

Based in an ideal world where every driver drives responsibly %100 percent of the time........

That world doesn't exist and never will, people are involved. I'm on the road a lot I guesstimate (based on observation) that at least 70% of those driving around me are "distracted" in some form or another.

I see the same thing.

But that doesn't mean an impact is inevitable, nor that we should just give up and cocoon ourselves in tanks and brace for impact.

And this is personal preference too; I'm firmly on the side of active participation in my own driving rather than sitting in an isolation chamber. When they offer me tires that will give me a "softer" ride I wonder, "why would I want to not feel the road?" And A/T (autonomic transmission I call it) is out of the question.

Bottom line, we each drive what works for us...

True. I've actually managed to avoid at least ten accidents in my lifetime, four of which were serious and a few I was wondering how I was able to avoid being involved, especially when I was driving my old F-100 without power steering.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks. Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you must also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous. That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it. There's no win there. You end up with a population of people driving tanks. It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you don't believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too. And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno. Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once). The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body). The deer came out of nowhere and was killed. I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on. More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I didn't hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them. Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.

That saturn is likely to put a deer in your lap. Which will more then likely kill you.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember but when Saturn started, a big part of their ad campaigns was testimonials from drivers who were in accidents in them, and walked away unscathed. It was a big selling point.

A deer coming through the windshield is a whole different kinda accident and I dont care what kinda car you're driving. If it's low to the ground there is a very high likely hood it's gonna end up in your lap. It's still just glass.
And I've seen the aftermath,and it ain't pretty. The deer ended up in the back seat because it had collapsed the front seats. Killed two people.
When we bought our property in the Hill Country I made the wife sell her Accord for that very reason. It wasnt a month later she hit a deer.

 

[g4racer]

The engine of the Smart car is a Mistubishi. I never said they made them. In the same class as the Isetta made bt BMW (I believe for that was made bt BMW) It is strange for German manufactures to have engines built by others. MB Race engines are made in England as are the better Porsche engines. Check out Illmore and Judd. The women putting on makeup and trimming their hair isthe worst I've seen. Not even using the visor mirror, which would be bad enough; she had tipped the rear view so it was parallel with the windshield then stretched to use it. My best estimate is her right cheek was on the handbrake her left foot braced at the corner of the floor and left side of the footwell. That would have limited the motion of the right leg.

 

[WinterBorn]

See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks. Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you must also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous. That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it. There's no win there. You end up with a population of people driving tanks. It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you don't believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too. And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno. Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once). The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body). The deer came out of nowhere and was killed. I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on. More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I didn't hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them. Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.

"Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."

I do not purchase my car for "the collective". I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars. A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.

And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.

And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass.

Just musing. But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?

See what I'm saying? We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative. If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?

"Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight. The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it. I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it. That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.

"accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely. Which is exactly why I want a smaller one. Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player. Who do you put your money on? It's like that.

"And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already happened; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.

This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened. Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means. Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.

There is less difference in the responsiveness between an SUV and a sedan than there is difference between the protection offered by the extra bulk and height. Once a driver learns how his vehicle will respond, he can be almost as agile at avoiding accidents as a sedan driver. And the ability to see in better allows an earlier reaction.

I get what you are saying. But I prefer a bigger, roomier vehicle. I also like a decent ground clearance for my forays off the road.

 

[Ringel05]

"Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."

I do not purchase my car for "the collective". I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars. A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.

And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.

And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass.

Just musing. But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?

See what I'm saying? We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative. If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?

"Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight. The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it. I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it. That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.

"accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely. Which is exactly why I want a smaller one. Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player. Who do you put your money on? It's like that.

"And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident. So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already happened; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.

This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened. Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means. Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.

There is less difference in the responsiveness between an SUV and a sedan than there is difference between the protection offered by the extra bulk and height. Once a driver learns how his vehicle will respond, he can be almost as agile at avoiding accidents as a sedan driver. And the ability to see in better allows an earlier reaction.

I get what you are saying. But I prefer a bigger, roomier vehicle. I also like a decent ground clearance for my forays off the road.

You would have hated my wife's old CRX though even muscle cars had a hard time keeping up on twisty turny mountain roads........

 

[Pogo]

The engine of the Smart car is a Mistubishi. I never said they made them. In the same class as the Isetta made bt BMW (I believe for that was made bt BMW) It is strange for German manufactures to have engines built by others. MB Race engines are made in England as are the better Porsche engines. Check out Illmore and Judd. The women putting on makeup and trimming their hair isthe worst I've seen. Not even using the visor mirror, which would be bad enough; she had tipped the rear view so it was parallel with the windshield then stretched to use it. My best estimate is her right cheek was on the handbrake her left foot braced at the corner of the floor and left side of the footwell. That would have limited the motion of the right leg.

If we're discussing handling and safety, what difference does it make who supplies the engine?

My MINI has an engine from Brazil and a transmission from Germany. The engine is underpowered but neither of those have anything to do with how it handles a curve or brakes. And man, does it handle. I have to keep getting out of the car to confirm that it's not actually riding on rails, it's that good.

You are correct on the Isetta, it was also a BMW product:

There used to be (it's been sold off now) a "Microcar Museum" east of Atlanta. Here's a couple of shots from my visit there - the yellow one is electric and more recent (2001), like the Isetta, a three-wheeler ...

 

[Missourian]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.

The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.

What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.

So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.

Dude, you sooooooo need XM...

25% loaded is MUCH higher than I would have expected.

Most of the time I only haul one way...and I don't haul something every time I go out.

I can't be without a truck.

Whether it's taking the riding mower to my other property...picking up a load of drywall...bringing an engine block back to the machine shop...towing the boat to the lake...getting a load of mulch...taking the deer to the processor...try doing any of those things with a smart car.

You know where I find that Smart Car owner when he/she need to do those things?

On my doorstep on my day off, begging to borrow my truck.

What? Those branches from the windstorm need to go to the city compost heap? Well, I reckon you should stick 'em in the back seat.

 

[Pogo]

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.

I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.

The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.

What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.

So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.

Dude, you sooooooo need XM...

25% loaded is MUCH higher than I would have expected.

Most of the time I only haul one way...and I don't haul something every time I go out.

I can't be without a truck.

Whether it's taking the riding mower to my other property...picking up a load of drywall...bringing an engine block back to the machine shop...towing the boat to the lake...getting a load of mulch...taking the deer to the processor...try doing any of those things with a smart car.

You know where I find that Smart Car owner when he/she need to do those things?

On my doorstep on my day off, begging me to borrow my truck.

Actually I have XM. I may even keep it. It takes my mind off the fact that I'm driving a behemoth.

I wouldn't have either a pickup or a Smart, because they're designed for different things that I don't need. I don't live in a city, so there goes the Smart, plus as noted earlier it's just not fuel-efficient enough. And the few times I ever need a truck are few and far between enough that it's much more economical to rent one. Certainly they have their market, and always did. What I was mainly saying a while back is that that (true) market does not jibe with the sales figures; that there must be another element in play.

 

[Missourian]

I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day. That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested. Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty. If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything. Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.

The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere. Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.

What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds empty.

So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to. There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing. Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid? Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they can.

Dude, you sooooooo need XM...

25% loaded is MUCH higher than I would have expected.

Most of the time I only haul one way...and I don't haul something every time I go out.

I can't be without a truck.

Whether it's taking the riding mower to my other property...picking up a load of drywall...bringing an engine block back to the machine shop...towing the boat to the lake...getting a load of mulch...taking the deer to the processor...try doing any of those things with a smart car.

You know where I find that Smart Car owner when he/she need to do those things?

On my doorstep on my day off, begging me to borrow my truck.

Actually I have XM. I may even keep it. It takes my mind off the fact that I'm driving a behemoth.

I wouldn't have either a pickup or a Smart, because they're designed for different things that I don't need. I don't live in a city, so there goes the Smart, plus as noted earlier it's just not fuel-efficient enough. And the few times I ever need a truck are few and far between enough that it's much more economical to rent one. Certainly they have their market, and always did. What I was mainly saying a while back is that that (true) market does not jibe with the sales figures; that there must be another element in play.

I've had XM since it first came out...back then you could get a lifetime subscription (they consider three radios a lifetime) for $300.

Wish I would have bought it. My folks have my first radio...still working, and I'm using my second...it's been probably 10 years.

Anyway, I smacked my antenna on a tree limb and it stopped working...let me tell you, I've been climbing the walls without it.

It might be a little better for me than it is for you...I can listen to Fox News most of the day, Car Talk in the afternoon, some Mark Levin and then some Cardinals Baseball...my day is complete.

Headline news has the murder mysteries on the weekends and C-Span give ya MTP, Talk of the Nation, Fox News Sunday, ABC Snuffluphugus Show and CNN State of the Union back to back on Sunday at noon.

How is the Lefty channel?

P.S. the good antenna is $25 a Walmart site to store... as opposed to $69 at the T.S.