Rattle wrote:

] I am geek and I hate the whole anti-SUV thing. I own an SUV.
] I love my SUV. It gets better fuel milage then my previous
] car. It served my old office car pool very well. It also
] serves my friends interests very well, as I'm always moving
] stuff for them that they can't fit in their cars.
]
] I wish people would at least get specific with their bitching,

SUV's have been estimated to kill 30 people for every life they save due to their tendency to rollover in accidents and cause extra damage in "T-bone" crashes. Not only are they killing other's on the road at a higher rate, they're also killing their own drivers at a good clip.

Automobile manufacturers have known about the rollover danger of SUV's, which is caused by a higher center of gravity, since at least '96, and yet have continued to market them as safer vehicles. They have also blocked any atempts at regulating bumper heights which would give small vehicle drivers a fighting chance in end-to-end collisions.

In the time that the Firestone tire problem killed approximately 200 people, I've read that the SUV rollover issue killed over 8,000.

Furthermore, 20 MPG is crappy gas efficiency. My 1971 VW bus got 23 MPG 32 years ago. Automobile manufacturers, many believe, should be doing more to offer consumers more efficient choices. Consumers however seem happy with their SUVs.

Additionally, many get upset that SUV's have replaced the perennially nerdy Minivans. Minivans have the same large carrying capacity of SUV's but much better safety records. The difference is they're not macho. Of course, over 90% of SUV's are never driven off-road, but that doesn't make their drivers feel any less tough.

So basically, driving an SUV the trade off is you get to feel cool while increasing your chance of killing other people, killing yourself, destroying the environment, and contributing to Americas entangling relations with nations like Iraq.

Many view this as a typical expression of vain American consumerism, and a representative of everything that's wrong with what we do. Sure, driving an SUV may be selfish and illogical but screw you, I love my SUV. ie I'm willing to damage you for my own comfort and convenience.

SUV's have been credited with the singlehanded revitalization of the American car industry. 12 out of the largest 15 American companies by annual revenue are in the oil or automobile business. Driving up their revenues is seen as good for America. Buy bigger more expensive cars, and use more oil. To some this seems patriotic and good business, but to others it's unethical, shortsighted, and profoundly sick.

But lastly, most people who drive shitty old cars do so because they're broke and can't afford SUVs. There's definitely a class issue going on here between the have's and have-not's which is contrary to logic. People hate SUV's and still desire one at the same time. It's just good old fashioned jealosy at work.

It would be great to see some real innovation and competition in the person and stuff transportation business. In the time that we've seen computer and communications costs fall drastically, costs for transportation have stayed flat. This sucks. We should be able to do better than this. Where's my carbon-fiber hydrogen powered bubble car? I need somewhere to stick my "SUV's Suck" sticker.

Jello Biafra is personally responsible for all this non-sense. The point of origin for the Anti-SUV meme is a 3 CD set of rants that he put out about 4 years ago. I actually have it, but its in storage and I don't recall the name. Biafra talked about soccer moms buying SUVs so they could run down "urban predators" in the street if they felt threatened. It was very funny. It was a commentary on the attitudes that suburban baby boomers have toward urban generation Xers, with a little bit of frustration thrown in about dealing with big vehicles on the road. It was not serious. It was not literal. It was not really about SUVs. I doubt Biafra had any idea what he was giving birth to when he delivered that rant.

Biafra's frustration about SUVs is understandable. The guy lives in
San Francisco. Big trucks are a problem there. This is because San Francisco has, hands down, the worst transportation infrastructure of any place I have ever been on the planet. You want to talk about damaging people for your comfort and convenience? Tell that to the people who will drown in the Bay when that bridge isn't replaced before the next quake because the city couldn't decide on a solution which is pretty enough.

There are two problems with arguments about fuel efficiency, safety, and cost:

1. The left was pissed off about SUVs long before it really had any data on crash safety. The crash safety issue, in fact, has only really been understood recently. Anti-SUV rage has been going on for a while. So this cannot, in fact, be the real reason for all of this. The same is also really true of the other two arguments. The angst existed before the rationalization.

2. The arguments aren't objectively applied. The left isn't opposed to unsafe cars in general. Only SUVs. The left isn't opposed to gas guzzling cars in general. Only SUVs. The left isn't opposed to expensive cars in general, only SUVs. Furthermore, the left opposes SUVs even when they aren't expensive, or unsafe, or particularly inefficient.

I recently had someone on the left try to explain to me that a late model Corvette gets better mileage then a Ford Explorer. According to the left, driving a Jeep Liberty says "I'm willing to damage you for my own comfort and convenience," but driving a much more dangerous car with much worse gas mileage which costs a lot more money, like a highly customized street drag honda, says "I like to drive fast and its my hobby."

] The difference is they're not macho.

This is the crux. The left doesn't like SUVs because they are macho. The left doesn't like macho. The left also basically hates successful people, but throwing macho in with the success is what took things over the top for them. SUVs are a focal point for this resentment because they combine success and macho (even when they aren't expensive, as they have become a symbol of what the left hates).

My problem with all of this:

] I'm willing to damage you ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Other than the fact that I basically found this whole e-mail overly aggressive and offensive I just want to point out a few things.

Decius wrote:
] Jello Biafra is personally responsible for all this non-sense.

That's a large claim to make. One I don't think you can back up. And the "evidence" you give is shakey at best.

] There are two problems with arguments about fuel efficiency,
] safety, and cost:
]
] 1. The left was pissed off about SUVs long before it really
] had any data on crash safety. The crash safety issue, in fact,
] has only really been understood recently. Anti-SUV rage has
] been going on for a while. So this cannot, in fact, be the
] real reason for all of this. The same is also really true of
] the other two arguments. The angst existed before the
] rationalization.

OK, here is the first major point, Dude. You use the terms "the left" as an epithet. From here on out "the left this," "the left that," and it's all basically assertions that A) aren't supported and B) I can disprove most of them by saying as someone who is in "the left" that they are incorrect for me. Which blows your whole categorical allegations out of the water. In fact, I can say that I even know other people in "the left" who can dispute your claims.

So starting here I would like to say that A) I'm not pissed off about SUVs, B) I wasn't pissed off about SUVs, and C) recent data seems to make it clear that there is cause for concern.

] 2. The arguments aren't objectively applied. The left isn't
] opposed to unsafe cars in general. Only SUVs. The left isn't
] opposed to gas guzzling cars in general. Only SUVs. The left
] isn't opposed to expensive cars in general, only SUVs.
] Furthermore, the left opposes SUVs even when they aren't
] expensive, or unsafe, or particularly inefficient.

This is another thing that burns me. Clearly "the left" isn't able to be "objective." "The left" that isn't opposed to unsafe cars in general is "the left" that pushed for laws enforcing seat belts, air bags, and better mileage. Oh gee, look, your argument just fell apart. Proving it here is the earlier transcript from the Frontline PBS special that specifically shows Ford, Iacocca, and Nixon bitching about "the left" (Nader specifically) pushing them on seat belts and airbags:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/nixon/

In 1972! And we *still* didn't see airbags for another 10 years. So "the left" appears to be opposed to unsafe cars in general. Actually, I'm sure it can be proven that this is true throughout the history of "the left." There might be more bitching going on about it now, but my guess is that it's because for a while in the 80s "the left" had actually succeeded in improving mileage, safety, and many other items.

I am also personally annoyed that you see fit to imply above that "the left" (m... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ]

Reknamorken wrote:
] Other than the fact that I basically found this whole e-mail
] overly aggressive and offensive I just want to point out a few
] things.

I'm obviously referring to the anti-SUV brigade. The anti-SUV brigade is obviously left. This does not mean that I am talking about you personally, or about everyone who expresses left wing views. I was making a generalization. And as most of the left does buy into the anti-SUV campaign, I think its a reasonable one. Similarily, you and yours often discuss the opinions of "the right" in a generalized way. I hope you don't beleive that your generalizations are universal.

Quoting you, "Chill Pill..."

] That's a large claim to make. One I don't think you can back
] up. And the "evidence" you give is shakey at best.

OK, its the absolute earliest reference that I have found, and a large number of people heard it because it does get fairly wide distribution. The CDs are basically a collection of political rantings which have a left perspective while also being humerous, and they typically appeal to left leaning people. (I quite enjoyed them personally, although there were a few perspectives offered that I do not agree with.) After the CDs were out for a few months, I started hearing people parrot them. Things seemed to snowball from there. I can't PROVE that this is the source by elminating all other possibilities. I'm making a fairly reasonable observation based on what I've seen. Do you beleive this stuff has a different origin? When did YOU first hear people express a problem with SUVs?

] OK, here is the first major point, Dude. You use the terms
] "the left" as an epithet. From here on out "the left this,"
] "the left that," and it's all basically assertions that A)
] aren't supported and B) I can disprove most of them by saying
] as someone who is in "the left" that they are incorrect for
] me. Which blows your whole categorical allegations out of the
] water. In fact, I can say that I even know other people in
] "the left" who can dispute your claims.

Yes, I was making a generalization. Sorry if I offended you.

] I am also personally annoyed that you see fit to imply above
] that "the left" (meaning ALL the left) is making these
] selective arguments. It's ridiculous and provably untrue.
] Organizations like Public Citizen (Nader) have been working
] actively to protect consumers for years and while I won't
] claim they don't have bias at times you certainly can't make
] an assertion like the above.

Taken out of context, my comments are obviously wrong. I apologize for any confusion. The left obviously has waged several important campaigns for automotive safety and for fuel economy over the years.

What I'm specifically talking about here is this campaign over SUVs. This campaign is not looking at the most dangerous cars or the most expensive... [ Read More (1.1k in body) ]

] Earlier you're not opposed to SUVs, now you are.

I will respond in full later, but as I said before regardless of all of this I want an SUV.

Regardless of that I'm really glad to see a REASONABLE response from you instead of the earlier anti-left diatribe that has no value.

And, more importantly, I would really appreciate it if you would look to what you did and do some self-introspection. In the same way that your largely emotional response had *some* value you should see that sometimes even when someone poses to you an emotional argument that it is not immediately wrong.

Probably, most importantly, we all need to realize that we are human beings and that emotional response is normal and also inherently not rational. However, even though the response might be emotional that doesn't mean it's wrong. Also, even if it's "logical" or "rational" that doesn't mean it's wrong. Or that either is right.

By taking a position that one method of "thought" is more righteous than another you are also engaging in a kind of moralism. The reality is that all of this thought happens in a more free-form and chaotic method than we all might like.

I am sure that the abolitionists were extremely emotional and very fiery in their beliefs. A 100 years later were they more wrong for their thinking?

Again, don't get me wrong, strong emotions are often wrong, but also sometimes strong intellectual or "rational" thought is often wrong. It's not as simple as people often draw it.

You recently lent me a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Khun. I have not read the entire book, but I will tell you one thing that is very interesting. Thomas observed that when the shifts occurred they had to do with someone completely contradicting what had gone before. It created a "paradigm shift."

I think that is an apparent and normal human function. And you might consider dissedents to be the social scientists.

But even if you don't I think the principle is there.

The reality is that people start dissenting this world will go to hell in a handbasket quickly. And by yelling about people expressing their opinion (even if you don't agree) it adds nothing. The reality is that your over-strenuous attack against proves nothing other than your own animosity.

You have still to disprove that the earlier statistics cited by Swater are incorrect, fallacious, or otherwise malicious.

Reknamorken wrote:
] You recently lent me a book called The Structure of
] Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Khun. I have not read
] the entire book, but I will tell you one thing that is very
] interesting. Thomas observed that when the shifts occurred
] they had to do with someone completely contradicting what had
] gone before. It created a "paradigm shift."
]

This is way off topic, but if you are interested in Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, you may also be interested in reading Science as Social Knowledge by Helen E. Longino. There is a great debate going on about whether or not contextual values shape scientific research. Longino is a philosopher of science, and she has written this book in response to that debate, and has come up with the interesting persepective that, yes, contextual values do affect scientific research, but that without it, science wouldn't progress. In the book, she is a critic of Kuhn's philosophy about paradigms. Kuhn was one of the scholars who introduced theory-ladenness, basically that two scientists can take the same evidence and apply it to different theories because they have different perspectives of the evidence. Longino says that the consequence of theory ladenness is that two or more opposing theories accounting for the same phenomeena can't be compared with each other and against "the facts" in any way that enables us to determine which is false, and which, if any, is true. There is no neutral data that can serve as arbiter between theories because all evidence is given context by the theory it supports. Therefore, she makes the analogy that under Kuhn's view of science, people accept or reject theories not because of rational deliberation about evidential support, but more like people acquire and lose religious faith. To change ones paradigm involves changing one's world view.

Anyway....you may want to check out this book if you get the chance...I am reading it for my psych/philosophy class "Science Versus Pseudoscience" and I am really enjoying it. It is a very thought provoking book, and I think you may enjoy it.

What a great issue to talk about! It's certainly bringing out some emotions. :)

Here's a great article that presents the arguments against SUV's better than I can. I don't agree with them all, and can't vouch for their veracity, but it's an interesting summation:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14839

I think the heart of the issue is the question of where an individuals freedoms intersect with his/her responsibilities to the group. For companies, it's about where their mission to maximize shareholder value intersects with their duty to act "responsibly."

For the first question, it's important to understand that an individuals rights are basically unlimited, until they infringe upon anothers rights, both in person and property. When they do, we often make laws restricting that person's rights. For example, on your own land in the middle of nowhere, you can shoot your gun all you want. But if your property is in the middle of an urban area we restrict that right because it infringes upon your neighbors rights to use and enjoy their property due to the noise.

As this pertains to SUVs, it matters not at all if someone chooses to drive a vehicle that is prone to rolling over and killing them, but it does matter if that vehicle is more likely to kill others sharing the road with them. Their right to choose whatever vehicle they want may need to be restricted if it infringes on anothers right to live.

To what degree we balance these rights is a wide gray area that is rightly left up to the legislature and publicly placed ballot measures to decide. So long as accurate safety data is available, the public, or their representatives should be the ones to decide what is the proper trade-off between the individuals right to choose their form of transportation, and others right not to be unduly endangered by these choices.

I don't personally believe the arguments promoting safety above all else, because I don't think it serves the public good to force everyone to drive around in Nerf-mobiles at 15 miles per hour. I also don't agree with the trend to legistlate safety to minors in the form of mandatory helmet laws for skateboarders and bicyclists. My preference is more freedom and less law in this area, but it's only a preference.

The second question of companies sometimes antagonistic goals of maximizing shareholder value vs acting as a steward of the public good is even clearer. The Uniform Commercial Code sets standards for product safety and disclosure of information amongst other things. This is the product of the representative legislative process and reflects the peoples desire to regulate commerce for the common good, in compromise with businesses general desire for less regulation. "Acting repsonsibly" we're defined as meeting a certain level of expectations about safety and safety information disclosure. There is an argument that the automobile manufacturers have know of the increased ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Swater wrote:

Thank you for a cool headed post. I agree with almost everything you are saying here. There isn't much worth commenting on other then that safety data ought to be just as easily available as fuel effeciency data. Thats something I'd support. Furthermore, I think that any information that is required to be made available on a sticker price should be required to be made available on the internet if the car is advertised there.

I see the roof re-enforcement issue as being similar to that of roll bars, and they may not be an unreasonable requirement. Roll bars are required by law on Jeeps. Newer Jeeps have more complete roll bars then older ones because of legislative changes.

As far as the bumper issue is concerned, its worth noting that big cars/trucks are nothing new. This sounds good it theory but in application it could get messy. Do I have to comply for the F350 I use to haul stuff around my farm? Would this make it illegal for me to jack up my jeep and put big tires on it if I like to go mudding on the weekend? I'd support it if it made sense, but it has to make sense.

] Thank you for a cool headed post.

Yeah, quite a topic.

I'm not sure about this as a forum for discussing really volatile issues. I don't think theres a problem with memestreams so much as with people's willingness to take a public stand, or abandon a public stand once taken. I probably don't understand how posting and replying really work here. But I do know that people, myself included, often abandon their rationality once they have put forth their opinion publicly. It's the same force in effect that makes people come up with rational explainations for their a-rational acts after the fact. So many times I've seen people, again myself included, defend statements they made way beyond the point where they would if they weren't involved personally. The issue and the person get intermingled too much, and what gets sacrificed is dispassionate debate.

I'm wrong a lot. I have many ideas and opinions and preferences in my head today that I'll disagree with tomorrow. Also many of my thoughts, maybe even most, are only half formed, fuzzy around the edges, hanging in space unsupported by logical argument, or have unexamined implications if extended. A lot are based on faulty or exaggerated data.

One of the reasons I enjoy talking with you so much is you bash me a bit on my ideas and make me reconsider them. That's great! But it's also really challenging.

I don't know if it's just the current conception or not, but most people confuse the ideas in ones head with the person, both in themselves and others. I think it's part of the reason we don't have very good debate on the really touchy issues like race. People are afraid to say what they think because they'll be labeled a Racist. So it's much easier and safer to just say nothing. But that's such a dead end! It seems rare that the ideas are examined separate from the person, without blaming the person for having those ideas and feelings. Have you ever heard a conversation about race begin with "Gee, I'm really afraid of Blacks, can we talk about that?" I haven't. Maybe they do happen, but I haven't been involved in one.

Anyway, one of the things I'm realizing more and more about myself is how unevenly I apply my scepticism filter. I have a bias, it's generally left leaning, and I examine data presented to me differently based on where I think it's coming from. I repeat rumors as fact too often, and exaggerate too often. I also tend to ignore or discount data that contradicts my general world view. I also think this is unfortunately the norm for most people.

But what I'm really interested in is debate that challenges my ideas, helps uncover their roots, and helps me form clearer ones. I'm also interested in more information to help me figure out the wold. I'm willing to get skewered a bit in the process because I value the goal: clearer thinking.

You commented one time on how the archival nature of the web preserves the things we say and do to ... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

] You commented one time on how the archival nature of the web
] preserves the things we say and do to a greater extent than
] before. That it's harder to hide or ignore our past. Do you
] think this makes it harder to move on or grow? Our society
] certainly has a fetish about unearthing dirt in peoples pasts.
] And it's often used against them. I feel the combination of
] these two things, combined with the idea/person intermingling,
] inhibit me from wanting to engage in a completely open
] discussion on-line.

This is an awesome post. I'm going to go back and edit this reply with some thoughts about this, but for now, I thought I'd pop it into my MemeStream so that others can take a look...

Decius wrote:
] This is an awesome post. I'm going to go back and edit this
] reply with some thoughts about this, but for now, I thought
] I'd pop it into my MemeStream so that others can take a
] look...

This entire thread contains some interesting points. That being said, I am lurking this one out.

I'm so tired of this anti-SUV stuff. You have _no_ idea how much. I can't tell you how many times someone has asked me what kinda car I drive for some random reason, then proceeded to bitch me out with the same damn collection of points I have heard 9,324,244,465,234 times. Most of them unequally applied and bent to fit someone's issue specific rage.

I'm tired of the whole thing. If you want to feel like you are oppressed, buy an SUV. Your friends, their friends, and random folks all over will bitch at you all the time. Really, no shit. You will get exposed to this wave of hatred unlike anything else.

If anything, this is the reason my next car will not be an SUV. I'm tired of being bitched out. There, the "community action" worked, happy folks? I will not buy another SUV. NOW PLEASE STOP BITCHING AT ME. (that comment is not aimed at any directly, rather, to the world at large.) I just want to get from point a to point b, be able to move what I need to move, still have room in my car for people, and have a little more control in bad weather conditions then a mini-van offers. LEAVE ME ALONE!!

As evidence of how impassioned people are over this SUV issue, I give you this thread. Currently the largest thread on MemeStreams (I think).

Decius wrote:
] Thank you for a cool headed post. I agree with almost
] everything you are saying here. There isn't much worth
] commenting on other then that safety data ought to be
] just as easily available as fuel effeciency data.
] That's something I'd support.

There is a scientific-method kind of problem with such extensive reuse of "safety data" based on "real world" incidents rather than lab testing, particularly for specific vehicles or classes of vehicles.

The problem is that when using such data, you cannot decouple the driver and the vehicle. As a result, you cannot use this data to make general statements about the safety of the vehicle itself (such as a legislator might do in an attempt to outlaw sales/use of the vehicle).

If the population of SUV owners (or even specific vehicle models) is biased relative to the general population (such as by gender, race, age group, personality, temperament, driving skill, tendency to use cell phones while driving, etc.), then any field data you collect about it is also biased.

Consider the simultaneous introduction of a new SUV model, the Galaxy, in two parallel universes, Alien and Blob. In Alien, the marketing focus group determines that today's teenagers will flock to the Galaxy in droves as a great first car. In Blob, the ad wizards select rich, retired, politically conservative men as the Galaxy's primary target market. In both universes, the unstoppable engines of marketing quickly construct a loyal community of drivers around the Galaxy. The retirees of Blob mostly haul around golf bags and bicycles, rarely exceeding 25 mph as they amble through the wide lanes of the country club, enjoying the leather accoutrements of the Galaxy. However, the poorly trained, easily distracted, risk-taking Alien teenagers quickly earn the Galaxy a bad reputation among lawmakers, who cite sharply above-average accident rates as rationale for banning the vehicle.

Here we have the same vehicle, driven by two different populations, generating dramatically different "real world" safety data which is subsequently used for various purposes.

If we're talking about setting insurance rates, the data may have some value, as long as it can be offset by a driver's personal safety history. Consider the spotless record of the married, middle-aged Alien who enjoys going camping and kayaking on the weekends.

If we're talking about restricting the general sale of the vehicle, then we have a problem. You shouldn't be using biased data to set policy for the entire population.

Swater wrote:
] Rattle wrote:
]
] ] I am geek and I hate the whole anti-SUV thing. I own an
] SUV.
] ] I love my SUV. It gets better fuel milage then my previous
] ] car. It served my old office car pool very well. It also
] ] serves my friends interests very well, as I'm always moving
] ] stuff for them that they can't fit in their cars.
] ]
] ] I wish people would at least get specific with their
] bitching,
]
] SUV's have been estimated to kill 30 people for every life
] they save due to their tendency to rollover in accidents and
] cause extra damage in "T-bone" crashes. Not only are they
] killing other's on the road at a higher rate, they're also
] killing their own drivers at a good clip.
]
]

Ya know, if everyone drove an SUV, everyone would be alot safer. I feel that if I was in an accident, I would rather be in an SUV then some little coffin like a Mazda Miata any day of the week. People who drive SUVs know that the center of gravity is higher....you can feel it when you are driving the car. If they so choose to put their life and others in danger by turning a corner like they are in a bloody ferrari, then they shouldn't have a licence to begin with. Personally, I just don't get this SUV versus Anti-SUV war going on. SUVs are just another choice in car. There are other cars on the road that are just as unsafe and much more impractical, and yet the SUV keeps getting all the attention. Personally, my family has an SUV, and I like it alot. I feel much safer in it then my sports car, especially in times of snow and ice (since nobody from the south can drive in it). If someone is Anti-SUV, thats fine as well...you don't have to buy one. I think its humorous that all these people have SUV's who will never go offroad. But at the same time, I don't blame them for driving them....they are very useful for hauling things and getting around in bad weather when you have to be somewhere, and my family's SUV has come in handy more than a few times in that respect.

Nanochick wrote:
] Swater wrote:
] ] Rattle wrote:
] ]
] ] ] I am geek and I hate the whole anti-SUV thing. I own an
] ] SUV.
] ] ] I love my SUV. It gets better fuel milage then my
] previous
] ] ] car. It served my old office car pool very well. It also
]
] ] ] serves my friends interests very well, as I'm always
] moving
] ] ] stuff for them that they can't fit in their cars.
] ] ]
] ] ] I wish people would at least get specific with their
] ] bitching,
] ]
] ] SUV's have been estimated to kill 30 people for every life
] ] they save due to their tendency to rollover in accidents and
]
] ] cause extra damage in "T-bone" crashes. Not only are they
] ] killing other's on the road at a higher rate, they're also
] ] killing their own drivers at a good clip.
] ]
] ]
]
]
] Ya know, if everyone drove an SUV, everyone would be alot
] safer. I feel that if I was in an accident, I would rather be
] in an SUV then some little coffin like a Mazda Miata any day
] of the week. People who drive SUVs know that the center of
] gravity is higher....you can feel it when you are driving the
] car. If they so choose to put their life and others in danger
] by turning a corner like they are in a bloody ferrari, then
] they shouldn't have a licence to begin with. Personally, I
] just don't get this SUV versus Anti-SUV war going on. SUVs are
] just another choice in car. There are other cars on the road
] that are just as unsafe and much more impractical, and yet the
] SUV keeps getting all the attention. Personally, my family has
] an SUV, and I like it alot. I feel much safer in it then my
] sports car, especially in times of snow and ice (since nobody
] from the south can drive in it). If someone is Anti-SUV, thats
] fine as well...you don't have to buy one. I think its humorous
] that all these people have SUV's who will never go offroad.
] But at the same time, I don't blame them for driving
] them....they are very useful for hauling things and getting
] around in bad weather when you have to be somewhere, and my
] family's SUV has come in handy more than a few times in that
] respect.

What do I like about my SUV? Lots of things. What do I not like about my SUV? The gas mileage. Allow me to qualify my remarks.

I move around the country on an average of every 6-7 months. My employer pays me 95% of what they would pay a moving company if I move myself. I make money on the deal. My SUV, 1999 Jeep Cherokee Classic 4x4 with a 4.0L straight 6 engine, has a rated towing capacity of 5000 lbs. My Class 3 tow hitch allows for 3500 lbs with a tongue weight of 350 lbs. This allows me to move myself with a medium-sized U-Haul trailer.

Parking at some of my job sites is sometimes "off-road" in a muddy field, where I have to drive over a curb to get through a drainage gully and then up a mild embankment to the muddy field. I park in the field, go to my job, and then drive out when the day is over.
Before I bought my Jeep, I owned a 1986 300ZX. I damaged my front airdam, along with a driving light when I tried to move from the asphalt to a field similar to the one I park in right now.

What does this have to do with anything? I'll admit, not a whole lot. I'm one person in the crowd. My Cherokee gets about 20mpg highway, which allows me to drive 400 miles on a tank of gas. The Cherokee's nickname in some circles is the "Iron Deuce." It's been around since the early 1980's. It got that nickname back then, I didn't give it. City-wise, I get about 12-14mpg due to the gearing of the vehicle. It's pinion-gear is set for towing power and torque, not highway mileage.

If you wish to increase the mileage of an SUV, cut it's balls off and gear it for highway driving, i.e. a more conservative gear ratio. It'll allow the engine to turn at lower RPMs while at highway speed. It should also theoretically increase the top-end, not taking into account aerodynamics. Cherokees are basically shoe-boxes with a big 6 crammed under the hood.

It's the shoe-box design that I really love the most though. I drive an SUV that's smaller than a Ford Ranger pickup truck derived Ford Explorer, and I get more benefit from it. I like the ride height, I like the fact that blown tire treads laying in the middle of the interstate will pass under the vehicle without causing damage to the undercarriage.

I've rambled enough though. Let's get down to brass tacks. Do I feel concerned about rolling my Jeep? No. I took a driving course for Jeep products before I bought my vehicle, and I know it's limitations. I also know I can't take turns like I did in my 300ZX. I recognize the fact that it's big, ugly, and uses more gas. My point is: I don't give 2 shits what the left-winger in his Yugo is thinking about me. I take great comfort in knowing that I have a better chance of surviving a crash in this thing. In a world where a crackhead would sell her own child to buy some more rock, I must admit, it's better him than me in a wreck. My driving style makes it almost 100% certain the wreck is caused by the poor schmoe in the Yugo. I don't take wil... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]