| Author |
Message |
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
five years in the US. ;)
|
Are we in smallish vehicles going to end up like this?
"Why do we owners of smallish vehicles have to dig through local
landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to
up-armor our vehicles?"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
| Quote: | SUV's are legal in the US but if I felt about them as
you do I would not buy one, as he suggested. However according
to the NHTSA SUV's are the safest vehicles in which to transport
you children, if you have any
|
How 'bout the children of others? Or they others don't deserve to live?
Oh, I know, collateral damage. :( |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.H.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:44 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:34:09 -0800, DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
[SUV-Endorsement]
I am not in favor of a SUV endorsement, but of much stricter standards for
driver training and test standards. Also certain distractions
(cellphones, non-belted-in kiddies) need to be illegal and punishable by
losing one's license and having to go through training again.
Chris
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:39 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
Because you light weight transport vehicle was not designed with
'armor.' That is why they make the
'tanks' which are much safer in which to ride. If
you want the extra safety of the larger vehicle buy
one, WBMA ;)
mike hunt
DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
| Quote: |
BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
five years in the US. ;)
Are we in smallish vehicles going to end up like this?
"Why do we owners of smallish vehicles have to dig through local
landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to
up-armor our vehicles?" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:46 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
No, upgrade the lighter vehicle with another 4,000 pounds of
armor to make it safer, like they are doing with the lightweight
HUMVE. Surely you are not suggesting is they make fewer tanks
that are much
safer?
mike hunt
DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
| Quote: |
BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
SUV's are legal in the US but if I felt about them as
you do I would not buy one, as he suggested. However according
to the NHTSA SUV's are the safest vehicles in which to transport
you children, if you have any
How 'bout the children of others? Or they others don't deserve to live?
Oh, I know, collateral damage. :( |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:01 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
Don't you believe that should apply to the drivers of ALL
vehicles? I do. Many SUV's are basically just cars with a body
that is a few inches taller, to begin with. Should the driver of
a RAV4 be any better trained than a Corolla driver when they are
basically the same vehicle. Others are simply trucks with a cargo
box cover. Should the driver of an Expedition be trained any
better than an F150 driver, when they are basically the same
vehicle.. Why not better training for the driver of a Sienna, it
basically a Camry. The problem is we allow people that do not
know how to drive to teach others how to drive. Bad drivers are
not exclusive to SUV's
mike hunt
"C.H." wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:34:09 -0800, DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
[SUV-Endorsement]
I am not in favor of a SUV endorsement, but of much stricter standards for
driver training and test standards. Also certain distractions
(cellphones, non-belted-in kiddies) need to be illegal and punishable by
losing one's license and having to go through training again.
Chris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Z. Helm
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
On 20 Dec 2004 20:34:09 -0800, "DonQuixote-v-Windmills"
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>
| Quote: | Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers.
|
Agreed, but we also need tougher licensing requirements for everyone in
general.
| Quote: | They are the ones causing the
mayhem!
|
They do cause more than their share.
| Quote: |
They need an SUV endorsement!
Let's listen to what this man got to say...
"There are no unsafe vehicles. Only unsafe drivers."
|
Whatever
| Quote: |
Well, that's stretching it a bit, but I think you catch my drift.
I'm fanatical about safety. Been to 12 driving schools, and have
certain
habits I think all SUV owners should develop.
|
12 driving schools? What did you learn?
| Quote: |
1. Of course, seatbelts. Not only for your own protection, but for
everyone else's. An SUV can throw you far enough to be nowhere near
the
controls while still being *in* the vehicle.
|
Chance are, if you are thrown that far, you weren't in control of the
vehicle to begin with.
| Quote: |
2. I always ride the right edge of the lane I'm in, since most folks
can't
see around me. And if someone's trying to get a look around me for
passing
on a two-lane, I put the right side onto the shoulder so they can see.
|
Driving on the shoulder or crowding anyone who happens to be on your
right is not the answer. Most SUV drivers have a hard enough time
keeping their car in their own lane anyway.
| Quote: |
3. This one's my favorite, and I was a strong advocate of it for
motorcycles, to no avail: Tiered Licensing.
Basically, require a special license for driving certain vehicles, and
make
the test tough, including emergency handling, safe following distance,
ultra-conservative passing practices, etc.
And give tickets for SUV's not riding the right edge of the lane. And
suspend the license's SUV endorsement for especially dangerous
activities
like speeding (speed doesn't kill -- differences in speeds kill. 90mph
isn't dangerous unless you're passing someone doing 70 or there's
oncoming
traffic) and tailgating. And like I think we should do with all
vehicles;
mandatory long jail time for DUI (attempted manslaughter, in my book).
|
Interesting that you equate DUI with attempted manslaughter.
But we do need to reform DUI laws. Currently, you don't even have to be
under the influence in some states to be convicted of DUI.
| Quote: |
4. Tack more onto the price of these things to discourage some of the
pretenders. And use that money to fund 3rd-party attempts at making
them
more efficient and safe.
|
Bad idea. Very bad idea. Who the heck would this "3rd party" be? The
gov't? Private companies that lobbied for their share of the pie?
| Quote: |
5. Mandatory impact heights. The technology exists (for a price -- oh
well) to let these things ride at a nice low level while still allowing
for
increased clearance when needed. Their mass is still a problem, but if
they don't ride up over the passengers of other cars, the people in
those
other cars have a much better chance of survival if they're belted in.
Perhaps a "cow-catcher" type of arrangement that deploys only under
heavy
braking.
|
Interesting idea - it doesn't sound too bad until you think about
practicality and effectiveness.
| Quote: |
Personally, the people who buy these things just for looks tick me off
enough that it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if we had to demonstrate
a
need for one of these vehicles before being allowed to buy them.
|
Another bad idea. I wish people wouldn't buy them when they don't need
them, but I still believe in freedom.
| Quote: |
And, as tired as I am of dirty looks and occasionally being flipped off
when mine's loaded full of lumber and hauling an equally-loaded
trailer,
|
Maybe you drive like an asshole? There are simply too many SUVs on the
roads for more than a handful of nutjobs to go around flipping off every
single one they see.
| Quote: | I'm even more tempted to flip off the guys and gals talking on their
cell
phones while blasting past my mud-encrusted Sub in their
never-seen-dirt
versions while tailgating Metros at high speed.
The people are the problem; not the vehicles.
|
Let's ban people!
| Quote: |
And if knowing that they're paying $50k for a $30k vehicle doesn't
discourage them, there need to be other ways to deal with the problem.
|
Summary execution?
| Quote: |
The automakers have a right to a profit, and they owe it to their
shareholders to make as much as they can. I have a right to buy as
much
vehicle as I need. However, others have a right to not be in danger of
my
killing them with my monster ute.
|
And if you didn't drive like an asshole, we wouldn't be.
| Quote: |
I don't think all of these rights are mutually exclusive if enough
thought
is put into the problem.
I'm very much a tree-hugger myself ("Mother Earth News", "Home Power",
40
acres, most of which is very actively managed as wildlife habitat,
etc),
but the rights of the more radical of my ilk aren't more important than
my
rights and mine aren't more important than theirs.
|
Yeah, I'm a tree-huggin' dirt worshipper too, but I'm also pro-freedom.
--
"Freedom is not always a good thing." -- P.R. Smith, a self-described conservative and Bush supporter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.H.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:14 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:01:37 -0500, IleneDover wrote:
| Quote: | Don't you believe that should apply to the drivers of ALL
vehicles? I do.
|
If you read my posting again you will find that I _said_ that I was for
stricter standards for driver training and tests and of course that covers
all vehicles.
| Quote: | Others are simply trucks with a cargo
box cover. Should the driver of an Expedition be trained any
better than an F150 driver, when they are basically the same
vehicle.. Why not better training for the driver of a Sienna, it
basically a Camry. The problem is we allow people that do not
know how to drive to teach others how to drive. Bad drivers are
not exclusive to SUV's
|
Again, read my posting before drawing your conclusions. I find the driving
test in California ridiculously easy (never took a test in another state
but I think they are not much better) and stricter standards would do more
for safety than crying the blues over SUVs.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iggy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:18 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
"DonQuixote-v-Windmills" <nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103649698.227640.211560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | H.B. Elkins wrote:
I am in favor of an SUV endorsement.
If someone will pay me to endorse an SUV, I will. ;-)
Do you look dumb?
|
No, but you do....posting the same thing twice.
Then again, you always look stupid crossposting your SUV bullshit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bowman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
C.H. wrote:
| Quote: | Also certain distractions
(cellphones, non-belted-in kiddies) need to be illegal and punishable by
losing one's license and having to go through training again.
|
I'm in favor of making all kiddies illegal, belts or no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bowman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
Mike Z. Helm wrote:
| Quote: |
Chance are, if you are thrown that far, you weren't in control of the
vehicle to begin with.
|
Never slid across a nice slippery vinyl seat in a pickup, did you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Why not make the bumpers higher on the small cars? After all a
small vehicle is the more dangerous vehicle
in which to ride according to the NHTSA. Properly belted
passengers in a large vehicle, like an SUV, have a much greater
chance of surviving a collision. I is that fact the more
children are riding in larger vehicles that has resulted in the
sharp decline in injuries and deaths among children over the past
five years in the US. ;)
|
Bumper height isn't the only problem.
A while back, I took my camera out, crouched down to bumper height and
snapped a picture of my Toyota Landcruiser, Mazda RX-7 and Porsche 928.
The bumpers all line up perfectly (within an inch).
What is different about all three vehicles is that this 'standard bumper
height' falls on different points of each occupant's body. In the sports
cars, bumper height is about mid-torso. So, no matter what I get hit
with (another car or an SUV), its going to hit be right in the middle of
my body. On the other hand, 'standard bumper height' in my Landcruiser
is down below my feet. So if I get hit while sitting in that, most of
the damage is going to miss me.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
C.H. wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:34:09 -0800, DonQuixote-v-Windmills wrote:
[SUV-Endorsement]
I am not in favor of a SUV endorsement, but of much stricter
standards for
driver training and test standards. Also certain distractions
(cellphones, non-belted-in kiddies) need to be illegal and punishable
by
losing one's license and having to go through training again.
Chris
|
OK, twice the punishment for SUV drivers. They represent more than
their fair share of the general risk. They should not be on welfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote:
| Quote: | Because you light weight transport vehicle was not designed with
'armor.' That is why they make the
'tanks' which are much safer in which to ride. If
you want the extra safety of the larger vehicle buy
one, WBMA ;)
|
OK, after assessing the general risk on the roads, I've concluded that
small vehicles are at big disadvantaged and that we need some
government attention to our plight.
We feel we should not drive a Hummer to be safe from a Hummer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DonQuixote-v-Windmills
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:49 am Post subject:
Re: Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement? |
|
|
IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote:
| Quote: | No, upgrade the lighter vehicle with another 4,000 pounds of
armor to make it safer, like they are doing with the lightweight
HUMVE. Surely you are not suggesting is they make fewer tanks
that are much
safer?
|
I mean, are we at peace or are we not? Why do we need a tank under
peace? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in