RE: SUV Backlash Builds
Thursday 8th May 2003
SUV Backlash Builds
Is it too late for common sense? Do we need cars the size of Kansas?
Discussion
I thought the safety-scare-obssessed American consumer markets would be more likely to be swayed by the fact that the ungainliness, bad handling, woeful brakes and tank-like build of the SUV makes it possibly the most dangerous thing on the road. If they pursued this and stopped harping on about fuel economy (an important issue, but not high on the average American's agenda), then maybe something positive would emerge. I'm sorry if I come accross like one of the 'think of the children' lobby, but I think it's quite valid.
The message in the second ad' does sound confusing.
As potrayed it sounds more as if it has nothing whatsoever to do with gas guzzling bohemoth 4x4s per se, and everything to the anti-war looby of the US attempting to put a final boot in, while Donny and GW strugle to justify their recent actions in the middle-east.
True the massive vehicles put a strain on natural resources the the US doesn't have to spare, but SUV's are just a symbol of the over the overall overbearing attitude of America to insist the rest of the world plays fair while it gads about doing whatever it bally well wants...
The recent war is another example as, equally, is the Kyoto debacle.
Mouse
As potrayed it sounds more as if it has nothing whatsoever to do with gas guzzling bohemoth 4x4s per se, and everything to the anti-war looby of the US attempting to put a final boot in, while Donny and GW strugle to justify their recent actions in the middle-east.
True the massive vehicles put a strain on natural resources the the US doesn't have to spare, but SUV's are just a symbol of the over the overall overbearing attitude of America to insist the rest of the world plays fair while it gads about doing whatever it bally well wants...
The recent war is another example as, equally, is the Kyoto debacle.
Mouse
All the midget-car, enviro-nazis are coming out of the woodwork! There are several differences between most of the US (that excludes San Francisco and New York) and the UK. Firstly, it's bigger, but I'll bet you noticed that in Geography class. Second, parking in Montana and Kansas are generally not a problem. On a recent visit to London, I noticed those cute little Smart cars, bleecchh! I would rather ride in a tuna can! The Herr-Mini is suitably retro, and are a suitable alternative to a spare tire for Suburban owners. What's the big deal anyway? (And don't give me the "environment" baloney. US vehicles are much cleaner than they were 20 years ago, probably cleaner than all the diesels that run around the Old World.
It appalls me that in a straw poll survey of American car drivers one woman said "I drive an SUV because if I'm in an accident and I hit anything then it stays hit". 
This kind of "
you, I'm alright" attitude is what I find particularly disgusting.
And why is it necessary to drive a 4 ton truck to go down to your local supermarket?
You mention crossing large distances. A decent family saloon will do this too, and in arguably more comfort and with significantly less damage to your wallet compared with a gas-guzzling SUV.
Why expend energy lugging around unneccessary weight? Same goes for the lardy-arsed drivers too.
This kind of "
you, I'm alright" attitude is what I find particularly disgusting. And why is it necessary to drive a 4 ton truck to go down to your local supermarket?
You mention crossing large distances. A decent family saloon will do this too, and in arguably more comfort and with significantly less damage to your wallet compared with a gas-guzzling SUV.
Why expend energy lugging around unneccessary weight? Same goes for the lardy-arsed drivers too.
During the '90s the American concept car arena really diversified, producing alternative fuels, ultra-economical yet fast and stylish cars and genuine alternatives to SUVs. I've no idea why it stopped (recession probably had something to do with it), but now everyone - even Cadillac, for Chrissakes - has got an SUV in the market. I think it may be about corporations trying to keep their model range manageable and popular without spending anything on positive development of concepts, as is found in Europe (where would Renault be without concepts?). I think it's important to leave our perceived views of Americans and this infernal war out of this one, though.
v8thunder said: but now everyone - even Cadillac, for Chrissakes - has got an SUV in the market. I think it may be about corporations trying to keep their model range manageable and popular without spending anything on positive development of concepts, as is found in Europe (where would Renault be without concepts?). I think it's important to leave our perceived views of Americans and this infernal war out of this one, though.
I think the main reason most manufacturers produce SUVs is that the profit margins on these vehicles is much higher than standard saloons.
..the ungainliness, bad handling, woeful brakes and tank-like build of the SUV makes it possibly the most dangerous thing on the road.
Except maybe for the small hot hatch or sportscar driven by the boy-racer high on drugs or alcohol or the small sedan driven by the OAP who can't see through his myopic eyes and has forgotten where the brake is.
No stereotyping there then.
It's interesting to hear of complaints about the increase of SUV's on US roads, but no-one said a thing when Johnny Six-Pack was driving around in his F150 or other large pick-up. That market has been around for years, and most of them are lifestyle sales anyway, so not really much different than SUV's in that sense. I know it's a tax thing, but there is a growing trend for pick-up's here as well, mostly Mitsubishi Double cab things and others of that ilk.
Detroit won't build family cars that can't go to war because not enough American buyers want them, except the anti-SUV brigade. When tastes in the USA change, so will the market.
I see one problem on the horizon, though. People like tall SUV's because of their good view of the road. If the guy in front has the same size of SUV, then the only answer is to get a bigger one, until it's too small to see over the guy in front....................
Detroit won't build family cars that can't go to war because not enough American buyers want them, except the anti-SUV brigade. When tastes in the USA change, so will the market.
I see one problem on the horizon, though. People like tall SUV's because of their good view of the road. If the guy in front has the same size of SUV, then the only answer is to get a bigger one, until it's too small to see over the guy in front....................
I think, John, that the original comment alluded to the vehicles, not the drivers. Therefore it was, IMO, perfectly valid and undeserving of your response.
JSG said: Except maybe for the small hot hatch or sportscar driven by the boy-racer high on drugs or alcohol or the small sedan driven by the OAP who can't see through his myopic eyes and has forgotten where the brake is.
No stereotyping there then.
The SUV is an entirely company sourced trend. Sports Utility Vehicles are exempt from mile per gallon law that american cars have had to adhere to since the 80's. Each year manufactures have had to produce cars that do X mpg. Each year this number gets higher, except for SUV's which are exempt. Its an amazing scam, the marketeers have manged to convince the public that SUV's are what they want and hey presto no need to spend R&D on producing more fuel efficient vehicles that don't have an en-suite.
The Europeans are more than bloody stupid though, there is no legislative reason behind the upsurge in 4x4 numptywagons this side of the pond. It appears to be a case of monkey see monkey do. If the yanks jumped off a cliff we would surely follow!
The Europeans are more than bloody stupid though, there is no legislative reason behind the upsurge in 4x4 numptywagons this side of the pond. It appears to be a case of monkey see monkey do. If the yanks jumped off a cliff we would surely follow!
What truly scares me here in Australia is the increase of urban SUV's. Don't mind them in the country, they're dead handy. But in towns, or ones that cover long distances and never see dirt under the tyres? *shiver*
I know most of these people don't know how to park, and they buy a barge. Car control isn't even a concept they understand let alone have some ability in. Australian drivers are woeful. They may be worse or better than the rest of the world but in general, compared to what they should be, they suck. In general they are timebombs. And they pack themselves with as much explosive power as they can.
The covering long distances arguement is the biggest lamer excuse I have ever HEARD. I owned an 84 accord and covered close to a 1000km a week in it. Mum used a little Daihatsu Pyzar 1.3 litre to travel to work when our Falcon was taken out of action for a bit. She said it was very relaxed to drive because it had a rather effective sitting position, yet it's fuel efficient and quick enough.
Yet Dad bought his Landcruiser to tow a boat and does a good job of carrying truck tyres and toolchests. So I understand people have a use for it. But more and more I'm coming across them in car parks in the middle of town. At schools. At universities for crying out loud. With all the poor maintenance that I see on an Excel only I know that the Escape with balding tyres is going to be more dangerous.
For the most part, SUV's are about being exempt from certain taxes in one hand, high positions at the expense of others visability, and people not actually being all that safety or environment conscious. Or all that competant behind the wheel, nor technically minded.
Oh, and too SUV drivers... Remember, don't try and force past a 94 Scania 144h like an 84 Honda Accord. It doesn't work. All it did was annoy the guy who owns the semi. Score: Semi - Needed new guards all the way down the trailer. 4x4 - Writeoff. I bet the cars behind had a good laugh though.
I know most of these people don't know how to park, and they buy a barge. Car control isn't even a concept they understand let alone have some ability in. Australian drivers are woeful. They may be worse or better than the rest of the world but in general, compared to what they should be, they suck. In general they are timebombs. And they pack themselves with as much explosive power as they can.
The covering long distances arguement is the biggest lamer excuse I have ever HEARD. I owned an 84 accord and covered close to a 1000km a week in it. Mum used a little Daihatsu Pyzar 1.3 litre to travel to work when our Falcon was taken out of action for a bit. She said it was very relaxed to drive because it had a rather effective sitting position, yet it's fuel efficient and quick enough.
Yet Dad bought his Landcruiser to tow a boat and does a good job of carrying truck tyres and toolchests. So I understand people have a use for it. But more and more I'm coming across them in car parks in the middle of town. At schools. At universities for crying out loud. With all the poor maintenance that I see on an Excel only I know that the Escape with balding tyres is going to be more dangerous.
For the most part, SUV's are about being exempt from certain taxes in one hand, high positions at the expense of others visability, and people not actually being all that safety or environment conscious. Or all that competant behind the wheel, nor technically minded.
Oh, and too SUV drivers... Remember, don't try and force past a 94 Scania 144h like an 84 Honda Accord. It doesn't work. All it did was annoy the guy who owns the semi. Score: Semi - Needed new guards all the way down the trailer. 4x4 - Writeoff. I bet the cars behind had a good laugh though.
CarZee said:I think, John, that the original comment alluded to the vehicles, not the drivers. Therefore it was, IMO, perfectly valid and undeserving of your response.
JSG said: Except maybe for the small hot hatch or sportscar driven by the boy-racer high on drugs or alcohol or the small sedan driven by the OAP who can't see through his myopic eyes and has forgotten where the brake is.
No stereotyping there then.
Yes, but the vehicle itself is not dangerous if it is driven in the manner for which it was designed. Therefore if someone drives a SUV with regard for its higher centre of gravity, its length, braking capability etc it's no more dangerous than any other vehicle driven according to it's limitations.
Most of the issues arise when the knobheads drive a SUV like it is a sports car or 5 series BMW, therefore my point was that any car driven badly is dangerous.
Oh and for the record I can't see the point of all these Lexus, BMW, Volvo etc tarmac 4x4s - they can't go off road. look shite and just advertise the fact that you have a small willy or no tits. (PH owners excepted).
JonRB said: It appalls me that in a straw poll survey of American car drivers one woman said "I drive an SUV because if I'm in an accident and I hit anything then it stays hit".
This kind of "
Especially when combined with airbags in cars designed to fire as if you weren't wearing a seat belt that actually makes it more dangerous for those of us perhaps shorter than the average that actually does wear a seat belt.
If people want to drive SUVs then as far as I'm concerned let them, providing they are not actively endangering anyone else. Fit a spike on the steering wheel rather than an airbag, that'll encourage road safety..
If they just dropped the goddamn tax breaks and drained the pockets of the owners (as if the fuel bills don't already), unless you can provide a legitimate reason for owning one (you live on a farm, you do a job that requires you lug the kitchen sink over long, off-road distances). This would result in less people owning them, surely. More diesel SUVs need to be brought into the market, as they use less fuel, have marginally more off-road torque and therefore make more sense. Of course this won't happen in the good ol' US of A as the SUV manufacturers probably paid Bush to implement the tax breaks anyway. Oh, and he owns a whole motorcade of the bastards.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff