View Poll Results: Would you buy an SUV

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 57.89%
  • No

    8 42.11%
Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 271

Thread: Why buy an SUV ??

  1. #226
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by crisis
    If functionality and effeciency were the only paramaters we would all drive Prius's. Karmann nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
    No sir, we would all be driving diesels!!!
    (Forgot to add: French diesels)
    Last edited by henk4; 08-05-2004 at 12:52 AM.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by crimefighter196
    So next time you see an SUV, don't be mad, there are reasons why people has one, same as people with small cars, or medium cars, or small cars with V8 engines.
    What reasons are there for owning a BMW X5 in the middle of London?
    There is no where to off road, so you don't need four wheel drive.
    Why not buy a 5 series. If you get the estate, there are 565 litres of space in the boot for your "equipment" compared to 465 litres for the X5, its a few thousand s cheaper, when you do find some open road you get an extra 45bhp and 5mpg less, and it handles significantly better than the X5

    Quote Originally Posted by crimefighter196
    The car that I think is most inefficient? Its those 2 door/ 2 seat with massive engines, like a Corvette, Porshe, etc, etc..

    Even a 2 seater Miata is just plain useless.

    If you spend 99% of your driving time on tarmac'ed roads, would you rather be driving round in something which was designed for use on the road, designed to give the best handling and best performance.
    Or would it be a lumbaring leviathan that threatens to fall over at the first hint of a high speed corner?

    I think that sports cars which are designed for the road, although they'll never be as efficient or as practical as a boring middle of the road car, have a more valid reason to be on the road than an off roader, which clearly aren't.

    You may think that the Miata is useless, but more rational people think that it is one of the best handling cars in the world. And with only a 1.8 engine, although it isn't as blisteringly fast as a Ferrari, it is more fuel efficient and less polluting than your Tundra.

    If there are only 2 of you, why not have a 2 seater car? 4 seats would be a complete waste, would it not?
    Thanks for all the fish

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    420
    What reasons are there for owning a BMW X5 in the middle of London?
    Even a 2 seater Miata is just plain useless.
    Arguments like this are exactly the reason that we must not continue down the slippery slope of making regulations, banning things like SUV's, etc.

    If person A says, "There's no reason for anyone to own an SUV, they should be made illegal. Everyone should drive a small, fun car like my Miata.", then let's say enough people say that and it is made law. So now SUV's are illegal. Then what? Person B comes along and says, "Miatas are not practical. They are too small and are only driven for recreation. They should be illegal." And they convince enough people of that (like 50.1%), and the law is made. Now Person A's beloved Miata is banned, and what right does he have to complain? Person B did the same thing that Person A did. Whether or not SUV's or Miatas are actually impractical or wasteful is irrelevent. Enough people believed it to be true that both are now illegal. Where does it stop? What will be illegal next? Alcohol? Red meat? Organized sports? Criticizing the government? Making more than X amount of money?
    Down this path lies totalitarianism and slavery.
    As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This must ring true for all other personal decisions as well, if we wish to live in freedom. As we have seen, our individual beliefs and desires, which make perfect sense to us, may confound all the other people are not us. This is true for everyone. We must respect the personal decisions of our neighbors, if we expect our own to be respected.
    "The good news is, not one of the 50 states has the death penalty for speeding....although I'm not too sure about Ohio."

    Sesquipedalian -- a really cool word. It means long-winded, polysyllabic, or verbose. See the word describes itself...isn't that neat?

    1988 Nissan 200SX SE V6

    UCP's most hardcore S12 fan!

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by cls12vg30
    Arguments like this are exactly the reason that we must not continue down the slippery slope of making regulations, banning things like SUV's, etc.
    Well in context it makes sense.
    If person A says, "There's no reason for anyone to own an SUV, they should be made illegal. Everyone should drive a small, fun car like my Miata.", then let's say enough people say that and it is made law.
    But the law would be banning SUV from small town and congested city centres.
    Then what? Person B comes along and says, "Miatas are not practical. They are too small and are only driven for recreation. They should be illegal." And they convince enough people of that (like 50.1%), and the law is made. Now Person A's beloved Miata is banned, and what right does he have to complain?
    Yep, Miata's are then banned from pedestrian areas and cuycleways and buslanes.
    Whether or not SUV's or Miatas are actually impractical or wasteful is irrelevent. Enough people believed it to be true that both are now illegal.
    Illegal in congested streets and illegal in designated zones.
    TOTALLY different from the suggestion yo've conjectured
    Where does it stop? What will be illegal next? Alcohol?
    It is if you're driving
    Red meat?
    hmm, probably some hippy veggie tree-hugger commune somewhere
    Organized sports?
    You can't play soccer in our planted borders in public parks.
    Criticizing the government?
    are we talkign otuside the US of A ?
    Making more than X amount of money?
    It's called the law of diminishing returns and a taxation system
    Down this path lies totalitarianism and slavery.
    But that is one of many along where there are advances and benefits.
    Why uproot the tree when only a branch needs pruned ?
    As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This must ring true for all other personal decisions as well, if we wish to live in freedom.
    No, there is a big difference between speech and action.
    Voltaire would not defend the right to rape someone so don't confuse philosphy in attempts to bolster weak positions !!
    As we have seen, our individual beliefs and desires, which make perfect sense to us, may confound all the other people are not us. This is true for everyone. We must respect the personal decisions of our neighbors, if we expect our own to be respected.
    Definately and they must do likewise. ( The part soem dont' acknowledge )
    IF they do liekwise then compromise is found and , to go back to our example, SUVers accept that they can't go into small villages and congested cities and all car owners accept they can't go in bus lanes and that it is all actually for a common good.
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    boostone mass
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    Well in context it makes sense.

    stuff
    stuff
    stuff
    stuff
    devil's advocate.

    how many cars do you own matra? Because for me, I own only one, and will own only one for many years into the future, simply because I cannot afford two. While I may need an SUV for all the things that I do, what sense does it make to limit where I can drive it? Or, let's say my father leaves me his old MGB, and I am too poor to afford anything else? Again I am limited to where I can go and what I can do with my car.

    Removing rights is NEVER a good option. There needs to be a limit. While I agree that oversize SUVs driven by one person who doesn't feel the need to use a turn signal certainly are annoying, they have the right to be on the road, just as any other car that has passed inspection and is street legal. It certainly would be easier if everybody drove mini's in and around cities, but that is just insane. Cars are as much a personal decision as one's haircut. It's like racism with cars.

    I would rather see better driver's courses than any limits on what I could drive. Maybe retesting every five years? I don't think the drivers in this godawful state could be any worse.....but they still have the right to drive what they want.
    And Iraaaaaaaaaaaan

    Iran's so far awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

    ROR

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by cls12vg30
    Arguments like this are exactly the reason that we must not continue down the slippery slope of making regulations, banning things like SUV's, etc.
    I never said the X5 should be made illeagal, just pointing out that there is little or no point in owning one in a big city.

    If people would rather be wasteful, and spend more of their money on an X5 when a 5 series would do the job better, then that is their decision.

    However, there is the argument of pedestrian safety.
    In cities and built up areas there are more pedestrians, and getting hit by an SUV at 30mph is much more likely to kill you than getting hit by a car at 30mph.

    That is the reason that bull bars:


    which became a fashion accessory during the '90s, were banned.
    They always caused serious damage to any adult who got hit by them, and there were a large number of children killed outright because the bars were at head height.

    The fronts of SUV's are still at child head height, and are much more prevelant now. The only reason that the people calling for the outlawing of bull bars then, aren't calling for the outlawing of SUV's now, is because that is what they ferry their children around in.

    C'est la vie
    Thanks for all the fish

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich
    how many cars do you own matra?
    OK, guilty, but they're all classics and 4 of the cars didnt' cost me what one new euro-box would.
    While I may need an SUV for all the things that I do, what sense does it make to limit where I can drive it?
    The ban for bannig SUVs is based on a simple fact. European cities were built 4-500 years ago. So narrow streets, complicated junctions, lots of windy twisty alleyways. An SUV takes up twice the space on the road as other vehicles. So some cities want to see them banned. Paris is well ahead and London is thinking about it.
    We need to cut the congestion, so how do we do it ? They've tried the congestion charge and it helped a little and then people jsut accept it now and those who could afford SUVs don't mind the charge. So it did NOT work as the planned disincentive. So banning is the next choice. They didnt'' self-manage so must be controlled.
    It's like a factory polluting a river. You hoep they have decent public concern but if they pollute you fine them, if they continue to pollute you take them to court and shut them down. Same for inconsiderate owners
    Or, let's say my father leaves me his old MGB, and I am too poor to afford anything else? Again I am limited to where I can go and what I can do with my car.
    No, the MGB will do great for you.
    On the odd occasion you need to take someting that doesn't fit, then hire a van for 1/2 a day
    Removing rights is NEVER a good option. There needs to be a limit.
    Agreed.
    But when persuasion hasn't worked and 'taxation' hasn't worked it has to become enforced.
    they have the right to be on the road, just as any other car that has passed inspection and is street legal.
    What of the common need ?
    This is where unbridled capitalism falls flat on it's face and destroys it's environment.
    People need to be considerate, if they're not then they need to be controlled.
    We share the world, we do NOT have the right to grab for oursleves and 'devil take the hindmost' !!
    It certainly would be easier if everybody drove mini's in and around cities, but that is just insane. Cars are as much a personal decision as one's haircut. It's like racism with cars.
    It's like slavery with cars !
    Slavery was finally recognised as wrong and not for the common good ( it was perfect for the "masters" )
    I would rather see better driver's courses than any limits on what I could drive. Maybe retesting every five years? I don't think the drivers in this godawful state could be any worse.....but they still have the right to drive what they want.
    Can you go out tomorrow and drive a 18-wheeler truck ?
    No the law prevents you. You have to take an additional license and pay additional costs to operate an 18-wheeler. So you don't have the right, you EANR ( and pay for ) the right

    Until you've tried to get through a Euroepan city in a car you'll never understand the need to reduce our car size, number of cars and single-use journeys
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    What reasons are there for owning a BMW X5 in the middle of London?
    While I agree, the father of all soft roaders , the ubiquitous Range Rover, emanated from the same country. Initially not as soft as it is today, it was designed for the well to do gentlemen who may wish to partake on the gentlemanly sport of fox hunting and the like. How many of these ended up doin gvery much what modern SUVs do now.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    However, there is the argument of pedestrian safety.
    In cities and built up areas there are more pedestrians, and getting hit by an SUV at 30mph is much more likely to kill you than getting hit by a car at 30mph.

    That is the reason that bull bars:


    which became a fashion accessory during the '90s, were banned.
    They always caused serious damage to any adult who got hit by them, and there were a large number of children killed outright because the bars were at head height.

    The fronts of SUV's are still at child head height, and are much more prevelant now. The only reason that the people calling for the outlawing of bull bars then, aren't calling for the outlawing of SUV's now, is because that is what they ferry their children around in.

    C'est la vie
    Of course being hit by a passenger sedan is like being hit by a pillow. I witnessed the results of someone riding a bike being nailed by a sedan . The impact of the bike into the side of the car was enough for his (unhelmetted) head to put a dent in the roof of the car. If the impact doesnt get you al la head hight, the effect of being thrown into the air will ensure you land on the road from a great height. Which is what happened to this poor individual next. After the initial impact he was launched about 8 feet into the air (all this from an impact of less than 50kmh) and landed horizontally on the road slinging his head into it on impact. Lights out. I dont think he recovered. So while bull bars are hard and unforgiving, so is everthing else in an impact. They will remain a contetious issue for those who have them to protect themselves from pesky varmits (me) and those who dont have them and dont think anyone who has something they have no need for has any need for it either.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by crisis
    Of course being hit by a passenger sedan is like being hit by a pillow.
    I didn't say it was, but there are probably many statistics out there proving how much more likely you are to be killed by an SUV than a car.

    A 2.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the abdomen/thorax region is going to do more damage than a 1.5 tonne slab of metal hitting you in the legs.
    True, you are probably more likely to hit the windscreen/ roof with your head, if hit by a car. New legislation from the EU is addressing that issue.
    Would you rather go over a car, or under an SUV.

    The best option is to try and avoid contact with any vehicles at speed.

    Sincerest apologies to anyone who might be offended by my slightly glib descriptions of getting run over.

    Stay safe.
    Thanks for all the fish

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by crisis
    witnessed the results of someone riding a bike being nailed by a sedan . The impact of the bike into the side of the car was enough for his (unhelmetted) head to put a dent in the roof of the car.
    Why in Europe the law REQUIRES proper safety equipment is worn and helmets are mandatory.
    2 reasons
    - saves lives, even the stupid ones deserve it.
    - reduces costs to emergency services and insurance companies
    90% of bikers in UK also wear full leathers with approved safety panels which absorb impact and redice friction wear. Full boots and gloves usually with lots of kevlar in all the necessary places. Having come off twice I wouldn't do anything BUT protect myself to the utmost !

    Mainly because although I can do everything to ride safely I can't avoid the dozy git coming out of side roads etc I once got run into at a roundabout whilst stationery waiting to enter
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    boostone mass
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    Until you've tried to get through a Euroepan city in a car you'll never understand the need to reduce our car size, number of cars and single-use journeys
    bingo- diffrent strokes for diff'rent folks.
    And Iraaaaaaaaaaaan

    Iran's so far awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

    ROR

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich
    bingo- diffrent strokes for diff'rent folks.
    yep, as I've said before I'd not want to drive a lightweight higly tuned car at 55 mph for 8 hours !!
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    boostone mass
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    Stay safe.
    Big SUV, big sedan, small sedan, I think the arguement is pretty moot. Getting hit is getting hit, whether you have one contact (bumper) or two (bumper, street) there is no good alternative. I guess crumple zones offer the only solution, but you can't put crumple zones on everything, including some sedans. Many of the "estates" as you call them are just as tall as some suv's. That may not make sense, but when you see two cars pulled up to a stoplight and they are the same height, it will. Hell, I've heard the Scion Xb called a compact, it's easily as tall as a minivan.

    However, I can understand the desire to remove bullbars. The bumpers are there on a reason, and the bars serve no purpose in a city. In the bush, fine, offroading, fine, even in a less populated area, fine, but I can fully understand the ban in an urban environment.
    And Iraaaaaaaaaaaan

    Iran's so far awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

    ROR

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
    Why in Europe the law REQUIRES proper safety equipment is worn and helmets are mandatory.
    2 reasons
    - saves lives, even the stupid ones deserve it.
    - reduces costs to emergency services and insurance companies
    90% of bikers in UK also wear full leathers with approved safety panels which absorb impact and redice friction wear. Full boots and gloves usually with lots of kevlar in all the necessary places. Having come off twice I wouldn't do anything BUT protect myself to the utmost !

    Mainly because although I can do everything to ride safely I can't avoid the dozy git coming out of side roads etc I once got run into at a roundabout whilst stationery waiting to enter
    You misunderstand me. I was talking about a push bike. We have similar laws here including for pushys, still see people on pushbikes not wearing them. that incident changed me for bike helmets forever.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •