SUV Scum

prospect

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

Well seeing as I didn't quote any link, you're dead right, You Don't Get It

Oops, sorry, I mixed you up with craichoe.

prospect

craichoe wrote: »

Also to whoever said they don't speak dutch .. i don't speak frikkin dutch either, but it doesn't exactly take a lingua expert to figure it out.

That was me,

And from what i understand of it, that dutch website is basing its rates on either engine capacity or vehicle weight. Neither of which has anything to do with a vehicle being an SUV or not.

prospect

Has anyone else noticed that all the personal abuse and name calling has been coming from the Anti-SUV side of the debate.

Ironic, that they are accusing the SUV drivers of being arrogant and inconsiderate.

craichoe

prospect wrote: »

That was me,

And from what i understand of it, that dutch website is basing its rates on either engine capacity or vehicle weight. Neither of which has anything to do with a vehicle being an SUV or not.

I CLEARLY SAID IT WAS "FOR ROAD TAX" I'm was just pointing out how much it was alone before Conjestion and Green Tax.

Although i guess at this stage your just nit picking

lightening

Classic.

prospect wrote: »

The EU studies are wrong.

Even better!

prospect wrote: »

The Euro NCAP tests are wrong.

:D:D

prospect

lightening wrote: »

Classic.



Even better!



:D:D

Quoted out of context.

You guys are really reaching to make an argument.

First of all you cannot provide and proof or facts.
When you drag up a website link, it actually argues against your point.



Stop trying to distort the argument to make a case. Acccept the fact that not everyone shares your opinion and not everyone falls for misguided Green Party scaremongering.

craichoe

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54647549&postcount=260

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_trans...erm_review.pdf

EUROPEAN ENERGY AND TRANSPORT FORUM
FORUM EUROPEEN DE L’ENERGIE ET DES TRANSPORTS

SUVs: Given the much higher risk of pedestrian accidents with SUV vehicles, there is therefore a strong safety argument for moving towards preventing vehicles in this EuroNcap category from using public roads.

Consider and report on whether SUV vehicles should remain in the Class M1 motor car category and/or whether member states should be encouraged to charge higher vehicle excise duties on such cars to reflect their higher accident records;

Yes, they must be lying, or i must have faked it and put it up there somehow.

Cmar-Ireland

For those against them, please define an SUV.

lightening

Lets offroad!

prospect

craichoe wrote: »

Yes, they must be lying, or i must have faked it and put it up there somehow.

Fair enough,

now go to the EuroNCAP reports and look at the pedestrian safety figures for 4x4 vehicles. If you care to take some time and study the figures (alternatively you could read my post where i summarise them for you), you will see that the Small 4x4 class has the BEST rating for pedestrian safety, and large 4x4s are equaly to, or very close to most MPV's, Executive and large family cars.

prospect

Can those on the Anti-SUV side of the argument not concede that none of their arguments/points/grievances are specific to SUV's!

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

Can those on the Anti-SUV side of the argument not concede that none of their arguments/points/grievances are specific to SUV's!

why do you need an SUV?

MCMLXXXIII

craichoe wrote: »

Tell that to the kids that were shot during the Columbine Massacre.

Thats THE single most stupid remark ever.

Dude - do you think those guys would have gotten as far as they did if everyone else also had a gun to protect themselves?

lightening wrote: »

Heh.. good post. I'm a bit guilty of disliking them for those reasons! Fair play. I guess the people that like them, like them because they have no taste, no sense of style, no idea of vehicle performance. A bit like someone entering the tour de france with a mountain bike, silly, pointless and laughable.

Thats their perogative!

Alright, look - everyone has different oppinions, some like a conservative Burberry, while others like a flamboyant French Connection, they are opposite types of clothing, yet both considered fashionable by the mainstream. Same with cars. A Merc S or a Caddy Escalade are both nice, and it just depends on what you (personally) like more.

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

Just to add, it's probably safe to say that people that are spending anything from 60 - 120k on big SUV's are not going to give a damn about a few extra euro in taxes or fuel charges.

Incorrect. If I get my €75K Grand Cherokee, I could AFFORD a tax, but it would be the principle of the issue. I refuse to be taxed more than others because some think I have bad taste. Forget taxing fatties that walk slowly - let's tax people that have "bad" hair cuts or charge more for a yellow shirt than for a red shirt because "most don't like yellow as much as red." People that drive fast hurt pedestrians more than those that drive slow, so they should get a tax. People that drive slowly clog up all the roads so they should get a tax. Then we need to decide where we draw the line between fast and slow - and is there going to be a "regular" in between? What happens if you are a "regular" driver, but late for work one day so you go faster - is there a one-day-speed-tax?

NO - I will not be taxed because my taste in vehicles is different than others.

lightening

Lets SUV!

Bendihorse

What a can of worms...

'SUV's (when did we adopt that american phrase??) have grown in popularity here immensly over the past few years. My dad had a jeep when relatively no one had one, he bought his first one in roughly 1984, a red nissan patrol. Shortly after he bought his first of 7 isuzu troopers up to 2001 when he bought a toyota landcruiser.

Back then the jeep was used for farming, now we use them in the business. Last year we had 5 Landcruisers and 1 Discovery on the road. Everyone of them were used for jobs that a car or van would not be capable of doing.

Anyway, back in that day they were considered farmers trucks and it was solely used for towing trailers and trapsing around fields. I dont know where anyone got the notion that they are 'safer' and they were never considered economical.

The argument continues and im no eco warrior but, arguing that Jeeps are more enviromentally friendly than cars is silly. Im talking about real jeeps here, not Rav4s or Hyundai Tuscons.

Its up to the individial whether they care enough about the enviroment to drive one, even if they dont need it for its capabilits, but imo it is fair to expect them to pay higher tax for something that has a detremental effect that someone will have to pay for down the line. Its like smoking, smokers pay high taxes to cover the cost of medical bills should they fall ill from a smoking related illness (in theory anyway).

How or why they were adopted by city folk ill never know, perhaps its something to do with gansta rap image portrayed in the us. :rolleyes:

If yummie mummies are driving trucks (by that i mean 'big rigs' seen as american slang is creeping in here) -a vehicle that was designed for a totally different use- around cities in 20 years time will people think thats socially acceptable?

MCMLXXXIII

dodgyme wrote: »

why do you need an SUV?

Most don't need SUVs...we just like them. I think we already went over the "need" arguement earlier in the post. Do you need a mobile phone? Do you need to eat more than once per day? Do you need a bed, or can you just put your mattress on the floor? I like being higher up when I sleep, and when I drive. It's preference. The same as you might prefer a saloon over an estate, and a car instead of a jeep. I don't see the SUV drivers nagging the passenger car drivers about what they drive, whether it's a Merc A or a Merc S - so please stop bothering those that like an SUV.

lightening

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Alright, look - everyone has different oppinions,

Don't worry, I'm with you! I just think that SUV's are silly...

Anan1

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't see the SUV drivers nagging the passenger car drivers about what they drive, whether it's a Merc A or a Merc S - so please stop bothering those that like an SUV.

If you were driving it on your own private estate then you'd be right. But you're not, are you? As the saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

prospect

dodgyme wrote: »

why do you need an SUV?

Well, that is avoiding a direct question (a common trait of the Anti-SUV side), and I do not need to justify my decisions to you, that is because we live in a Democracy with freedom of choice.

However, in the interest of the discussion I will explain the reasons for my decision to buy an SUV. (Mine is a 2005 5 door 2LTD RAV4 which I bought used)

When bchoosing my new vehicles I considered the following details:

1. I live in a rural area and have suffered many a puncture and damaged alloy due to potholes.
2. I own a large trailer which I use as I do all my own DIY & gardening and out door work, and for my parents. I regularly visit the local quarry for collecting gravel/sand/stone & recycled cobble stones.
3. I suffer with a sore back, and suffered stooping to load & unload my daughter from her car seat.
4. I do care for the environment, so I wanted an Economical vehicle, and I wanted to buy used, as a massive amount of energy is used, and pollution is generated manufacturing new vehicles.
5. I refuse in general principle to pay extortionate delivery charges for large items, so I collect myself with my trailer.
6. I wanted a vehicle with Leather seats to make it easier to keep clean with a young child.
7. I wanted something that was reliable.
8. I am reducing my holidays abroad and want to be able to tow a caravan and stay in Ireland or use the ferry.
9. I wanted something fairly modern to availe of the cleaner & more economical modern engine, aswell as the more advanced safety features
10. I wanted a vehicle with IsoFix points.
11. My budget was €30,000.
12. Unlike some people, I don;t care what others "Think" of me or my vehicle.

So, the only vehicle that met all my criteria was the Toyota.

Also, I carpool with my wife rather than taking seperate cars.



Even though I am not a farmer or a builder, my SUV is far more valid than the 90% of single occupant 5 seat cars that share my commute every morning, even those few with engines half the size.

prospect

Opps, double post.

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

(Mine is a 2005 5 door 2LTD RAV4 which I bought used)

1. I live in a rural area and have suffered many a puncture and damaged alloy due to potholes.
.

the I live in a rural area is not valid. I am from a rural area originally and never needed an SUV. Perhaps its you driving?

prospect wrote: »

2. I own a large trailer which I use as I do all my own DIY & gardening and out door work, and for my parents. I regularly visit the local quarry for collecting gravel/sand/stone & recycled cobble stones.
.

I here 4x4's are the business in quarry esp when pulling crap, but how often is that to justify buyin one?

prospect wrote: »

3. I suffer with a sore back, and suffered stooping to load & unload my daughter from her car seat..

not being smart but maybe you should leave the quarry work outta it if you have a bad back?

prospect wrote: »

4. I do care for the environment, so I wanted an Economical vehicle, and I wanted to buy used, as a massive amount of energy is used, and pollution is generated manufacturing new vehicles...

A mute argument. If you bought new you can say well the vehicle was already made. If you care for the env you'd borrow the 4x4 and buy a small car that is a bit higher up for your back e.g a panda.

prospect wrote: »

5. I refuse in general principle to pay extortionate delivery charges for large items, so I collect myself with my trailer....

Think of the savings if you bought a panda

prospect wrote: »

6. I wanted a vehicle with Leather seats to make it easier to keep clean with a young child.....

Your really milking the child. Very SUV driver?

prospect wrote: »

7. I wanted something that was reliable......

ok not a panda but a corolla?

prospect wrote: »

8. I am reducing my holidays abroad and want to be able to tow a caravan and stay in Ireland or use the ferry.......

have you done this yet?

prospect wrote: »

9. I wanted something fairly modern to availe of the cleaner & more economical modern engine, aswell as the more advanced safety features.......

car?

prospect wrote: »

10. I wanted a vehicle with IsoFix points........

good for you

prospect wrote: »

11. My budget was €30,000.
........

great

prospect wrote: »

12. Unlike some people, I don;t care what others "Think" of me or my vehicle.
........

mmm democracy. everybody gets along better when you do care about other people??????.

prospect wrote: »

Even though I am not a farmer or a builder, my SUV is far more valid than the 90% of single occupant 5 seat cars that share my commute every morning, even those few with engines half the size.

Well I spent my youth doing hay, knocking trees and transporting them, doing turf and we never needed an SUV? a hitch and a cortina if I remember

BnA

dodgyme wrote: »

Maybe your ignoring of the other opinions bar the ones that you think are begrudgery says more about you then anything else. If is not begrudgery ...ah ... oh..?

I can afford an SUV but dont want one, for the reasons I gave in the post. Human nature is sometimes steadfast and standup-ish. It not always as course and crass as the SUV lobby. People in urban areas who drive unnecessary SUV tanks are as scummy to me as the hoodies hanging around corners.

of Course if I couldnt afford an SUV ye lot would just be saying I was too poor to get one and was jealous.?:rolleyes:

Thankfully I try to cycle , maybe you could give it a go.

What are you on about ?

Where did I say that everyone who disliked SUV's is because of begrudgery.

I simply said that the stuiped post about 120k sports cars which was being hearlded as utter proof that begrudgery was not the main cause of people disliking SUVs was utter bullsmap.

Stark

dodgyme wrote:

A mute argument. If you bought new you can say well the vehicle was already made. If you care for the env you'd borrow the 4x4 and buy a small car that is a bit higher up for your back e.g a panda.

You might as well tell a vegetarian that the meat is already dead by the time it reaches their plate. They'll tell you that by eating it, they're still fuelling demand. Buying a big car and a small car is worse for the environment than driving the big car all the time due to the environmental costs of manufacturing and transport.

dodgyme wrote:

not being smart but maybe you should leave the quarry work outta it if you have a bad back?

Sure why doesn't he just sit at home all day altogether and claim the dole due to his sore back. That will make him a better person.

dodgyme wrote:

I here 4x4's are the business in quarry esp when pulling crap, but how often is that to justify buyin one?

Why not. He lives in a rural area, he's hardly contributing to traffic congestion in the cities.

How many people choose to drive in the city, when they could easily cycle the distance? It's another case of putting a dangerous vehicle onto the road in order to favour one's own personal safety over others. You can argue that SUV owners are scum all you like, but the fact is most of the arguments carry over to motorised vehicles in general.

prospect

dodgyme wrote: »

the I live in a rural area is not valid. I am from a rural area originally and never needed an SUV. Perhaps its you driving?

I here 4x4's are the business in quarry esp when pulling crap, but how often is that to justify buyin one?

not being smart but maybe you should leave the quarry work outta it if you have a bad back?

A mute argument. If you bought new you can say well the vehicle was already made. If you care for the env you'd borrow the 4x4 and buy a small car that is a bit higher up for your back e.g a panda.

Think of the savings if you bought a panda

Your really milking the child. Very SUV driver?

ok not a panda but a corolla?

have you done this yet?
car?

good for you
great

mmm democracy. everybody gets along better when you do care about other people??????.



Well I spent my youth doing hay, knocking trees and transporting them, doing turf and we never needed an SUV? a hitch and a cortina if I remember

You asked the question, I am only answering.

How do you know it is not valid? Is there some rule I don;t know of that says all rural roads are identical in width and surface quality?

I visit the quarry about once a month in the autmn/winter months and more often in the summer, is that enough to meet your non-defined criteria?

My bad back is probably a result of the quarry work.

Not a mute argument, have you heard the phrase, Reduce Reuse Recycle

Panda is not powerful enough to pull a trailer of gravel, or a caravan, also the boot is too small for our needs.

Children are messy, and milk soaked seats in the summer are less than plesant.

Like the Panda the boot in the corolla is not big enough and the seats are too low.

Yes I have.

Thanks.

And you care so much about others you are willing to argue against their freedom of choice because you don't like/are jealous of their Choice of vehicle.

prospect

@ Dodgyme,

Seeing as you are so interested in me, and willing to chastise my choise of vehicle and lifestyle, maybe you would be willing to furnish us with some information on your CAR(s).

MCMLXXXIII

Anan1 wrote: »

If you were driving it on your own private estate then you'd be right. But you're not, are you? As the saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

No, I'm not driving on my own private estate, and neither are you. I am driving on public roads - the roads that everyone in the country pays to use, including me. Like I said, I am not bothering you about your car, so please stop bothering me about mine.

Also, taxing people based on type of car does not work, because a Merc S is a whole lot longer than a Toyota Rav 4. Besides, I think it is the frequency of use that also needs to be considered. I use my car (currently in a saloon, want a jeep before the end of the year) to go to work and back, and to go out on the weekend. If I need to go to the market, I will stop on my way home from work. I usually drive my vehicle twice per day, while some others drive everywhere all the time whenever they feel like it. Bring the kids to school is one trip. Going to work is another trip. Going to market is also a seperate trip. Why should I be condemned for using a (sometimes) larger vehicle to go one place per day, while others make three times as many trips in their tin-can-sized cars?

I don't think the more frequent users should be taxed more (can't help it if you have kids in school), but the point is that we all pay taxes and everything else so that anyone can use any road as often as they want. If you want it based on size, low-to-the-ground Merc S would be taxed much more than the "obtrusive" Hyundai SUV. Toll roads work if you want to base income on frequency of use - but it would just make the roads even more clogged than they already are. Taxing fuel is fine, but once again - the people that make 6 trips a day still fill up more often than those making 2, and it's not fair to tax people that require more trips so their kids can go to school.



I don't mind when people complain, as long as they have a viable solution ready. There is no reason to moan about something if you have no ideas for improvement.

prospect

Stark wrote: »

You can argue that SUV owners are scum all you like, but the fact is most of the arguments carry over to motorised vehicles in general.

That is my main point also, thanks Stark.

Every argument here so far can be applied to most types of Vehicles, not just SUVs.

The exception is the "I just don't like them" argument, which is I believe is the underlying reason for the 'SUV Scum' statement.


Maybe the Moderators will set-up a 4x4/SUV sub-forum where we villians can exist in peace, and prevent the mis-informed do-gooders blowing blood vessels every time the words, SUV, Jeep & 4x4 are mentioned.
I volunteer to be a Mod

BnA

Prospect

You are a pure Marytr (with too much time on your hands)

You have answered every single dumb a55ed unresearched assumption\bare faced lie thrown at you with simple researched facts and figures.

You have had to repeat many of your answers numerous times, as despite you posting very clear answers with facts to back them up, you get the same lies thrown back at you 3 or 4 posts later.

I do not know how you are still sane. I have just read this thread and I am ready to throw my monitor out the window onto the poor people on Cecil Street below with frustration at the ill informed moronic bile coming from the anti-suv twits.

More power to you (but I feel you are wasting your time)

lightening

Stark wrote: »

You can argue that SUV owners are scum all you like

You can think people here are calling SUV owners scum all you like, but your wrong.

The OP's post was about someone scraping SUV scum on someones vehicle. Nobody on boards thinks that all SUV drivers are scum, its in your heads.

prospect

BnA wrote: »

(but I feel you are wasting your time)

I know I am, but it entertains me.
I feel like I am educating the masses, and it is obvious they need ALOT of educating.

Either way, it is nearly 5pm on a Friday, and I am off soon (I am car pooling in a CAR today!!).

I hope EVERYONE has a lovely and stress free weekend.