BAN SUV's

H

hube1236

New member
A recent story posted in the Colorado Springs "Independant," stated that up to 2000 road deaths a year (in Colorado alone) are attributed to the sole fact that one party was driving an SUV. A car/SUV accident results in a 7x increase of death or serious injury to the driver of the car. The source was a "high ranking" DOT official using road death statistics.

I know a few people who own Excursions or Surburbans for the sole fact that if their spouse (wives) and children were in an accident, then they want the biggest car around to protect them. I guess this comes at the expense of increasing the chance of death on the other party.

Why is this different than the gun debate. Protection vs societal safety?

Why are city's not suing Ford, GM, etc because their products are unherintly unsafe?

I am not supporting litigation against SUV makers, but I think this is an argument that can be used in ANTI VS Pro debates. We license and register cars, no decrease in accidents, we force insurance, no decrease in accidents, we mandate training, no decrease in accidents.

I hope I am showing a parallelism here- or is just in my head and I am not connecting losses?

Since there is a higher chance of killing someone else in a car while driving an SUV, should SUV owners be held to a high standard? Is it a hate crime when a Navigator slams into a Ford Festiva?

[This message has been edited by hube1236 (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
Vote Gore - you can have both with his tree-hugging.

You can't ban cars because:

A: They weren't "designed" to kill (no logic here)

and most importantly, car-drivers/owners are not a minority.

Battler.
 
I really think they should be banned, except for off road use. Barring that, a special drivers license should be required to operate. The license should be limited to a specific model of vehicle, which would have to be used to take the driving test. The test should include 3 attempts at parallel parking, 2 of which have to be completed successfully in succesion. I'm tired of having some hotdog with a goatee and his hat on backwards practically run me off the road because he can't safely tell where the corners of his Urban Assault Vehicle are. Testing parallel parking ability would eliminate that.
 
BATFSUV's ????????!!!!!??????
"The pursuit of happiness does not mean 'happiness'."
"Yes, Control, this is Agent Johnson down here at the New Orleans Superdome Auto Show and Monster Truck Rally, please run these license plates and tell me if WE are going to let these potential criminals in!"

NBDIC (National Bad Drivers Insta-Check)
"Sorry Mr. Jones, you had thatmoving violation in '65- no Pathfinder for you today, maybe you can get your wife to buy one at an autoshow. They have not closed the Autoshow Loophole, yet."


[This message has been edited by hube1236 (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
Reader's Digest published a chart awhile back showing the close correspondence between fuel-economy laws and highway deaths. Forced by law to do so, the car companies have made cars ever smaller and increasingly dangerous (despite vaunted safety measures such as seat belts, better designs, and air bags).

SUVs should be banned because they make the tissue boxes on wheels get squished upon impact? Trees have the same effect on the flimsy little things.

Better to ban the dangerous tiny cars than the safe big ones. Or leave it to consumers to decide whether fuel economy is really a good trade off for safety.

pax

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." -- Douglas Adams
 
Yes, there is a parallels. There are things about SUVs that make them more dangerous in a road emergency.

1) High center of gravity.
2) Medicore handling suspension.
3) Bumper heights set at head level of cars.
4) Ability to roll up onto lower cars.

Of course, it's the driver who makes it safe.

I talked to one person who bought his wife an Excursion because she is "such a terrible driver," and he didn't want anything to happen to her. This is the equivalent of saying that you bought your husband a gun because he is "always pi$$ing people off" and you wouldn't want anything to happen to him.

Large vehicles don't make the roads safer. They just give people a false sense of security. Someone asked what do you think would make our roads safer, putting inflatable bumpers around the cars with anti-lock this and that, and 20 airbags, or putting a 6 inch spike right in the middle of the steering wheel?

I don't want the things banned, but they sure do bring out the worst in people.

They are fun to play with though. I had one sitting on my bumper while I was doing 15 over the limit in the right lane. I don't know what his point was. We were approaching an exit ramp, so I slowly accelerated knowing that the bozo behind me couldn't be "less of a man." I hit the turn on the exit ramp at 80. No problem. From behind me, all I heard were tires screaching. I don't know what happened to him, but I never saw him again. :)
 
While I don't think we should sue auto makers, you have to admit that using the contorted logic of the anti's and Socialists, this is as valid as the arguments made against gun owners.

You may be on to something here. And yes, if this is how you really want it to be, just vote for Gored. He hates your SUV as badly as he hates your .357.
 
Most fatalities are still caused by collisions with immovable objects off the roadway (about 70%, if I recall the latest studies correctly).

SUV's/Trucks have their own special set of risks. All the barricades, curbs, guardrails, ditches, etc. are designed around passenger cars. SUV's/trucks tend to flip when they encounter them, rather than be kept on the roadway.

SUV's are only safer in vehicle-vehicle collisions, not with collisions with roadside objects. A bigger, heavier vehicle collides with an immovable object harder than a smaller vehicle at the same speed, and they're usually built on a box steel frame, rather than designed with crumple zones. End result: More energy trasferred to the passengers.

For those of us who drive cars, our risk is greatly increased by the number of SUV's out there. I don't mind someone driving a bigger vehicle, but I think they have a bigger responsibility to pay attention to what they're doing, not chat on the cellphone, not tailgate, etc. - kinda like us car drivers should treat motorcyclists, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.

For what it's worth, I earn my keep by designing roads, so I'm not totally ignorant of these things.

[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited July 12, 2000).]
 
Mikul,

That's a good trick. Used to know a guy who did something similar. He drove like an old lady and babied his car. Anyway, his slow driving ticked someone off in a lifted truck. He was tailgated for a good ways and thought that the guys in the truck were probably waiting for an opportunity to jump him. He took a right at higher than average speed and the truck tried to follow. Bad mistake, they ended up in oncoming traffic. No serious injuries but I believe all involved learned a lesson.
 
I drive an SUV at least partially because of safety concerns. I consider myself to be a responsible (read: timid) driver, who hasn't had an at-fault accident or ticket EVER, and I've had a licence for over 25 years. (God...I'm starting to feel old!) BUT if I'm ever in a serious collision I'd rather protect MY self and MY family by driving a larger, more crashworthy vehicle. And I'm NOT going to sacrifice OUR safety in a collision to make things easier on some stranger driving an itty-bitty car built on a unibody that, in a collision, will have all the structural integrity of an empty pop can. Especially when the odds are HE caused the collision!
 
I drive a SUV, a Suburban in fact. I don't speed, I use my turn signals, the last accident I had was when I was rearended while stopped at a light in a Chevy Luv PU, and I can't remember when I got my last ticket exactly but it was in the early '70's.

I have had more problems with young women driving little bitty cars cutting me off than I have had with other SUV drivers. Perhaps they think they are a protected spiecies.

You don't think that the feds will not be after SUV's? "We have to make everyone the same and it is for the children."

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Good replies,

But it is interesting to note that a few of the more stingent of you 2A people, would like to see a ban! Those dangerous assault vehicles!

Just kidding- no flames. I understand one is a right, one a privilege (economic), but why do you feel justified in banning something because you think it is unsafe?

For the record, I akin SUV to Greatful Dead music. I do not necessarily dislike the vehicle or music, I really would like to slap some of the people who drive/ listen.

I think the market is going to determine the future of SUV's, especially because Bill asked for high prices and got them. They are here to stay- at least for the medium future. I do not think the average joe can afford the $60 fillups. The soccer mom will continue, but they (he or she- yes soccer mom's are men also), will probably fade from importance, esecially after emission controls hit SUV's.
 
In October of 1998, my wife and I purchashed a Ford Explorer Sport. As we are now retired, and out children are scattered from hell to breakfast, we wanted a vehicle for travel that would be reasonably comfortable, and basically one that would be able to continue on regardless of most weather conditions. Our Explorer meets thse needs.
BTW. We use this rig for trips only, with only a short, less than 20 mile run once a month to keep the battery charged and the oil stirred up. We haven't quite reached 12,000 miles on it yet, but we will.
As to fuel economy? In town it sucks, but on the open road, we get 23 MPG.
I agree that my SUV is politically incorrect. So what? I'm a politically incorrect sort of guy, and I'm too darn old to change my ways. Anyway, political correctness is an oxymoron, promulgated by morons. Nuff said?
Paul B.
 
While we're at it - Can we ban houses over, say, 2,000 sq. ft. because of the extra pollution created by heating and cooling them? People are dying from respiratory problems due to these mansion builders. John
 
Let's ban all buses and commercial trucks too, including the dreaded large capacity 18 wheelers. After all, in accidents they do more damage those little sh** box economy cars than any assault SUV ever could.
 
I asked a question about the ability to point out a flaw in an anti's argument logic, but this is getting cool :cool:

I like the wish list. Keep them coming.

Remember- all for the Children and the grasshoppers- screw the ants.
 
I suppose the auto makers are going to be in litigation, because of their marketing strategies. After all, if they weren't selling these things to so many people in urban areas, there wouldn't be som many attributed deaths, would there?

I can just see it now. The real effort here os to take everyone's iron chariot away. Because stats can be shown the so many people are killed each year in a this, or that, flavor of auto. Hell why stop there. Why not shift the blame upon the tire manufacturers? If thy made a tire that would stop a vehicle better, in all condition of course, there would be fewer wrecks, thus fewer injuries, and deaths too. Just makes sense.

The petrol producers are already doing their part to curb this though. Thay've been making an inferior grade of fuel for years, to reduce the potential power any given vehicle ban produce. Accordingly, they are shown to be exempt from criticism here.

Ohh, what about the yards where the concrete, and aggregrate for the asphalt comes from. Aren't they in line for a litigation here as well? After all, if they had sold a better grrade of material to the road builders, we'd be safer as well. Mark them up on the hit list!

And we can't possibly leave off the makers of the glass of the vehicles. If they had made a better, not necessarily safer, glass product, there'd be fewer injuries also. They should be making every auto with bullet resistant material, therefore the glass would be less likely to shatter, and injure people. Let's make a law!!


This will never end, until we're all waking the whatever doem a dirt road again. We won;t be able to use ANY, because that would be cruel, and unjust to the animal's feelings. We couldn't use any form of assisted motivation, because we'd be causing some harm to the ozone, or atmosphere.

The net result..

You will pay companies because they can no longer produce a product. Because you once used a product, that has now been considered illegal. And the law was retroacticve, to a point before you were born. So that you're going to pay a fine for your doing, or not doing something.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
-----------------
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.

John F. Kennedy
 
Personally I think we should ban stupid drivers and let the rest of us drive whatever the hell we want. If I could afford an SUV I would buy one. My biggest concern in not with running off the road and hitting a guardrail designed for cars, or smacking into a 200 year old oak tree, but rather the a$$hole talking on his/her phone who runs a red light and smacks into me. I think of it this way. I want an SUV so I can protect myself and my family from the acts of another driver. I carry a gun cause I want to protect myself and my family from the acts of another person.
 
You can have my GMC Yukon when you pry it from my cold dead hands. And if you try I'll squash your Toyota like a bug. :mad:

RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top