SUV Scum

sneakyST

Orange69 wrote: »

I had an incident with a utter retard in a SUV today!

Was driving up a narrow street in Limerick. About 3/4 ways up this cnut in a honda "SUV" pulls on to the street and comes towards me. On my side of the street was a row of parked cars and on hers a 4 inch or so sidewalk.....

orange Im afraid you were in the wrong as the obstruction was on your side but if its true that she went off on a mad one then she would have done that no matter what car she was driving..p.s. Its an offence to drive on the foot path.

To Rs who says that they understand why people who buy performance cars and to everyone with their "what if" scenario's, I have a question. Would you rather be hit by an "SUV" at 30mph or a performance car at 130mph?

I got rid of my performance car as frankly the temptation to drive at silly speeds was too much. I got a jeep instead and have never been above 60mph on the m50 ....its a different vehicle and i know that. My theory is that driving a "boat" should make a driver safer as more caution is required...i know it does me. The fact is morons drive every type of car out there whether its your stereotypical attitude towards BMW drivers or whatever.
If you are driving behind a jeep and you cannot see ahead....you need to back off as you are driving too close. This distance will also help you react if something does happen. If tolerance is what you are expecting then its a bit rich that you drive too close to a vehicle and then moan you cant see.

I do voluntary work for a dogs charity and have occasions when I am transporting a few dogs so the jeep interior is big enough and also more rugged to take the punishment of several large dogs.

You are looking at people and without any information making judgements on that person. You dont know anything about them or what they do. Just because a jeep is in the city does not mean it does not get utilized.

As for the emissions rubbish my jeep gets put into four wheel drive when needed.....how many cars have permanent four wheeled drive spitting out more emissions.

And finally here's a width comparison
my jeep :1765mm
ford mondeo :1886

while my jeep is 5'6" high - hardly high and prone to roll over at the sight of a corner..which is 9 inches taller than the mondeo

nytraveller

sneakyST wrote: »

while my jeep is 5'6" high - hardly high and prone to roll over at the sight of a corner..which is 9 inches taller than the mondeo

The higher the center of gravity, the more likely a vehicle is to roll over. Your 'jeep' may not necessarily roll because you go round a corner fast but it definitely will if you have side impact collision or if you swerve suddenly, hit the kerb/hard shoulder.
Your 'jeep' being 9 inches taller than the mondeo makes the mondeo safer.

sneakyST

nytraveller wrote: »

Your 'jeep' may not necessarily roll because you go round a corner fast but it definitely will if you have side impact collision or if you swerve suddenly, hit the kerb/hard shoulder.
Your 'jeep' being 9 inches taller than the mondeo makes the mondeo safer.

Do you have facts and test results to show this....its an xtrail - if not its a wild statement

WHITE_P

Sorry for your trouble Orange69, but the fact remains that the problem lies with the driver and not the vehicle, not all SUV / BMW / Merc. etc. drivers are bad, but as you rightly say the ones that are get the rest a bad name.

I don't know if its just me but I find that women drivers in expensive cars tend to be some of the worst, most arrogant on the road.

WHITE_P

Point taken RS, but as long as there is going to be different size cars on our roads, there will always be an inequality in the risk. Small car versus big car is always going to be uneven in the outcome.

That doesn't give anyone the right to single out a particular style of vehicle for criticism.

If people learned to drive better, be more curtious on the roads and be more observant, the whole accident issue would be reduced.

coolbeans

First off I'll hold my hands up here and state that I'm anti SUV.
I think people who genuinely need these things for work purposes should go right ahead; no problem there at all. It's the casual I want one 'cause I can attitude that gets me.

I'd like to make a couple of points however.

1-People on this forum seem to think that SUVs are safer than normal cars. This is simply not true. It's due to the differences between passive and active safety.
Active safety is about avoiding accidents in the first place. Essentially this means that a car is less likely to be in an accident due to the fact that it is lower to the ground. Therefore in a sudden violent maneuvere the principles of physics come into play. This means that the lower you are to the ground the better chance you have of avoiding an accident and not turning over. The opposite is true for raised off the ground SUVs. In similar conditions a low to the ground car will ALWAYS outperform an SUV (provided they are of similar age etc) in accident avoidance and are less likely to topple over. No amount of electronic safety gizmos can get around the principles of physics.
In relation to passive safety it is true that SUVs are as safe as cars but in general no safer and in some instances in the past far worse. For every five star NCAP SUV you'll find on the market you'll be able to find a car with a similar safety rating. Combine that factor with it's inherently 'low to the ground nature' and you'll find cars are better at avoiding an accident and peform just as well when it comes to the crunch. (For the pedants lets say we compare a volvo estate with a land cruiser)
2-This screw everyone else as long as I'm safe argument is ignorant, selfish and shameful. Go on stick a bull bar on the damn thing just to make sure the poor bugger you hit is really done for.
3-What happened to the good old estate car? There are many out there that are very safe and DON'T OBSCURE THE VIEW AHEAD FOR FOLLOWING TRAFFIC. In fact this is a major bugbear of mine and it should be brought up more often. If someone is turning right the driver behind can't see ahead due to the height of these things. This is one of the primary causes of accidents on two lane roads in Ireland. And for what? The sake of vanity and "I like to see over everyone else".
And for those who are gonna say "but what about the vans and lorries, shur they're far higher". I shouldn't have to point this out but these are necessary for a functioning economy and therefore the tradeoff is worth it.
4-Begrudgery; the argument of the guy who doesn't have an argument to make in the first place. "He doesn't like me in my range rover and do you know why? It's because he's a begrudger. That's right." Shut the **** up and at least make a reasoned argument like the one above. You might not agree with me but the "begrudgery argument" adds nothing to a serious debate. Says a lot about you actually.

NB: Notice no environmental arguments - I'll save those for another day.:)

nytraveller

sneakyST wrote: »

Do you have facts and test results to show this....its an xtrail - if not its a wild statement

:rolleyes:

Are you really trying to tell me an xtrail has a less likely chance of a rollover than a mondeo????????


http://www.suvrollovernews.com

A vehicle's stability is measured by the formula---t/2h---where t is the 'track width' (center of the right front tire to the center of the left front tire) and h is the vehicle's center of gravity. When this number is 1.2 or greater, the vehicleis unlikely to roll. However, the further the ratio dips below 1.2, the greater the likelihood of rollover.

While many vehicles have safe ratios, the addition of passengers, cargo and a full tank of gas all occurs above the center of gravity, increasing the chance of a rollover accident. Given a real world scenario, the SUV would probably have cargo, multiple passengers, etc. This extra weight would definitely lower the ratio to dangerous levels if an accident were to occur at normal highway speeds.


I'll let you do the maths on this one!

coolbeans

First off I'll hold my hands up here and state that I'm anti SUV.
I think people who genuinely need these things for work purposes should go right ahead; no problem there at all. It's the casual I want one 'cause I can attitude that gets me.

I'd like to make a couple of points however.

1-People on this forum seem to think that SUVs are safer than normal cars. This is simply not true. It's due to the differences between passive and active safety.
Active safety is about avoiding accidents in the first place. Essentially this means that a car is less likely to be in an accident due to the fact that it is lower to the ground. Therefore in a sudden violent maneuvere the principles of physics come into play. This means that the lower you are to the ground the better chance you have of avoiding an accident and not turning over. The opposite is true for raised off the ground SUVs. In similar conditions a low to the ground car will ALWAYS outperform an SUV (provided they are of similar age etc) in accident avoidance and are less likely to topple over. No amount of electronic safety gizmos can get around the principles of physics.
In relation to passive safety it is true that SUVs are as safe as cars but in general no safer and in some instances in the past far worse. For every five star NCAP SUV you'll find on the market you'll be able to find a car with a similar safety rating. Combine that factor with it's inherently 'low to the ground nature' and you'll find cars are better at avoiding an accident and peform just as well when it comes to the crunch. (For the pedants lets say we compare a volvo estate with a land cruiser)
2-This screw everyone else as long as I'm safe argument is ignorant, selfish and shameful. Go on stick a bull bar on the damn thing just to make sure the poor bugger you hit is really done for.
3-What happened to the good old estate car? There are many out there that are very safe and DON'T OBSCURE THE VIEW AHEAD FOR FOLLOWING TRAFFIC. In fact this is a major bugbear of mine and it should be brought up more often. If someone is turning right the driver behind can't see ahead due to the height of these things. This is one of the primary causes of accidents on two lane roads in Ireland. And for what? The sake of vanity and "I like to see over everyone else".
And for those who are gonna say "but what about the vans and lorries, shur they're far higher". I shouldn't have to point this out but these are necessary for a functioning economy and therefore the tradeoff is worth it.
4-Begrudgery; the argument of the guy who doesn't have an argument to make in the first place. "He doesn't like me in my range rover and do you know why? It's because he's a begrudger. That's right." Shut the **** up and at least make a reasoned argument like the one above. You might not agree with me but the "begrudgery argument" adds nothing to a serious debate. Says a lot about you actually.

NB: Notice no environmental arguments - I'll save those for another day.:)

Orange69

sneakyST wrote: »

orange Im afraid you were in the wrong as the obstruction was on your side but if its true that she went off on a mad one then she would have done that no matter what car she was driving..p.s. Its an offence to drive on the foot path.

Its a bit of a grey area as to who was wrong, thats why i wouldn't move. The line of cars on my left were in designated parking (white boxes) so technically they were not an obstruction, they were off the road as such. If another medium sized car was coming against me we could pass each other no worries. What annoyed me about the whole thing, apart from the ignorance of the woman involved, was that she had an SUV which could easily mount the kerb but instead she chose to call the police and make 3 other divers back up 100 meters. Thats utter selfishness imo.. There was no one else around and the footpath was completely vacant..

For a woman like her an SUV is a pointless waste or resources, especially when she wont even use its strengths when an opportunity arises.. Also thinking back, it was a Hyundai not a Honda.. that fact speaks for itself..

Orange69

WHITE_P wrote: »

Sorry for your trouble Orange69, but the fact remains that the problem lies with the driver and not the vehicle, not all SUV / BMW / Merc. etc. drivers are bad, but as you rightly say the ones that are get the rest a bad name.

I don't know if its just me but I find that women drivers in expensive cars tend to be some of the worst, most arrogant on the road.

Tbh i have never had an issue with anyone driving an SUV, or a big car in general, until that incident today...

I do however think that SUVs (or more accurately those who drive then) have a bad name which is getting worse.. I also think that SUVs, from a purely practical standpoint, are a waste of resources.... There is no need for people to be hauling around all that metal just to go to the shop etc.. when a 1.0 Liter yaris would do the trick just as well. Also i think the "I feel safer in a SUV" argument is a pile of arse..

At the same time i can see how a powerful car can be alluring.. I almost bought a toyota supra a couple of weeks ago

cancan

craichoe wrote: »

Haha .. Dope filled room .. yeh .. everyone in Holland smokes dope .. what a small minded idiot you are..

I cant even think of a response, your that much of a tool

You probably can't think of a response cos the dope has fried your brain.

You must be the first irish guy EVER to live in Holland. Like there are NO irish there. Wow! Where do I send my medal.

littlejukka

i was passing by a primary school on the n11 during the week to see a woman drive out (at 9.15, presumably after dropping off her kid/kids) in a 1994 merc 300gd.

i'm not one to sneer generally but i was passing by, she was looking in my direction for a break in traffic and all i could do was laugh at her. it made my day.

honest to god, you wouldn't even ferry troops around in this thing.

Orange69

littlejukka wrote: »

i was passing by a primary school on the n11 during the week to see a woman drive out (at 9.15, presumably after dropping off her kid/kids) in a 1994 merc 300gd.

i'm not one to sneer generally but i was passing by, she was looking in my direction for a break in traffic and all i could do was laugh at her. it made my day.

honest to god, you wouldn't even ferry troops around in this thing.

How much does that thing weigh? I guess little Lorcan and Brittney need to be "safe"! That thing could probably take a rocket attack and keep going..

Stark

Orange69 wrote: »

Its a bit of a grey area as to who was wrong, thats why i wouldn't move. The line of cars on my left were in designated parking (white boxes) so technically they were not an obstruction, they were off the road as such. If another medium sized car was coming against me we could pass each other no worries. What annoyed me about the whole thing, apart from the ignorance of the woman involved, was that she had an SUV which could easily mount the kerb but instead she chose to call the police and make 3 other divers back up 100 meters. Thats utter selfishness imo.. There was no one else around and the footpath was completely vacant..

Tbh, I think it would be more ignorant of her to mount the footpath. Technically she had right of way, the obstruction being on your side, although common sense would dictate that since you were well into overtaking the obstruction when she appeared, that she should have held back until you were finished instead of thundering ahead like a mad bullish bitch.

littlejukka

Orange69 wrote: »

How much does that thing weigh? I guess little Lorcan and Brittney need to be "safe"! That thing could probably take a rocket attack and keep going..

the 2-door short wheel based version is over 2.1 tonnes. the 4 door LWB i saw is easily 2.5. they're used by armies all over the world, and to ferry sneachta and uisce to school in the morning in dublin 4.

Lord Nikon

I'm ignorant and selfish, but i dont drive an SUV.

sneakyST

nytraveller wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Are you really trying to tell me an xtrail has a less likely chance of a rollover than a mondeo????????

When did I say that?

sneakyST

coolbeans wrote: »

3-And for those who are gonna say "but what about the vans and lorries, shur they're far higher". I shouldn't have to point this out but these are necessary for a functioning economy and therefore the tradeoff is worth it.

Surely you are not saying that as long as you get your brennans bread delivered in a morning then accidents are ok


Seriously though I'm not sure what your point is with number 3

craichoe

cancan wrote: »

You probably can't think of a response cos the dope has fried your brain.

You must be the first irish guy EVER to live in Holland. Like there are NO irish there. Wow! Where do I send my medal.

Nah .. 40 % of the population are foreign nationals man

Capt'n Midnight

sesswhat wrote: »

Yes the Yanks invented the term jeep, and used it to describe certain types of vehicle BEFORE it ever became a Trademark.

General Purpose = GP = Jeep

for years jeeps were used as minibuses in Manila
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeepney


you can fit a lot more than a yummy mummy and a brat in the space that an SUV takes
and the original Jeeps were car sized with car visibility for the driver

MCMLXXXIII

jmayo wrote: »

Yes they might be worse for the environment, but they are a hell of a lot nicer to drive

OH...MY GOD! This is exact point us SUV-friendly drivers are trying to make! If you like to drive a Subaru better, then we aren't going to bother you about it - we like to drive Hummvee wantabees because we like them better than other vehicles. No, they don't handle as well, but we aren't interested in that right now - we want a nice, roomy vehicle that doesn't feel the bumps as much, with the capability of towing something (even if we don't tow but once or twice per year).

jmayo wrote: »

Having perused through this thread I never knew anyone could be so mad to drive a fecking Santa Fe.

Edit: Nobody should accuse Santa Fe drivers, Rav4 drivers etc of being status seeking.
That should be reserved for Range Rover (particularly the Sport), Land Cruiser Amazon/VX, Discovery 3, Defender, X5, Grand Cherokee, Ml drivers.
Hummvee wantabees are just sad.

Once again, you can't generalize all types of drivers into one category based on nothing besides size alone. Thank you for showing those that are also on your side of the fence that you can't generalize all jeep drivers into one group. Oh, by the way, I am getting a Grand Cherokee, but have no interest in even riding in a Hummer. So yeah, here we are back down to preference.

jmayo wrote: »

And to the poster that rates the Cadilac Escalade in the same sentence as an S class will you ever get real.
Next thing you will tell us is that an American car has good road holding.

Nope, American cars can't handle worth anything. Their cars are made to go like 70 MPH and that's it. The Germans cruise at 120, so their standards are higher, therefore their handling is better. But, once again, I do not buy my car to race around the motorway. I use it to go from one place to the other, but since I spend time in it at least twice per day I want something that I like and enjoy.

MCMLXXXIII

rs wrote: »

ok, please answer this question then.

Let's say you are driving along in your 206 and you are hit by another car. The accident completely not your fault. The driver or the other car is an idiot.

Do you think you would be safer if that idiot was driving another 206 or SUV?

In exactly the same accident at the same speed, a larger heavier vehicle with a higher bumper is more dangerous to whatever or whoever it runs into than a smaller lighter vehicle with a lower bumper.

What about when I am driving in my high-up SUV, and a small car hits me?

littlejukka

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

What about when I am driving in my high-up SUV, and a small car hits me?

what about it? in either case the smaller car will come off worse. this isn't acceptable even if it is that driver's fault.

nytraveller

sneakyST wrote: »

When did I say that?

You implied it in post 424

MCMLXXXIII

littlejukka wrote: »

what about it? in either case the smaller car will come off worse. this isn't acceptable even if it is that driver's fault.

Your are right, it's unacceptable either way. But, the safety arguements on this thread assume that a Hummer is hitting a Corolla. Sometimes the Corolla hits the Hummer, and then the Hummer's passangers are safer. I was just debunking all the arguements that an SUV is no safer than a car. When they test for passenger safety, it's tested using something that represents similar-sized vehicles. The side-impact pole-test uses the entire height of the vehicle. So a Hummer is just as safe as a car if it is hit by another Hummer, but it is obviously safer if a Corolla slides underneath it.

On another point, people argue that SUVs are unsafe to others because they are so large. Hey there pedestrian, if it is so large then you can see it coming from farther away! You can get out of the way earlier, thus avoiding an accident. You can see an SUV coming over a hill much before a low-riding saloon.

cancan

If you get so worried about a hummer hitting you, you must really be worried about all those 40ft artics on the road.

I am forever hearing about how dangerous suv's are, when they are tiny compared to a truck.

Basically, when you drive the smallest of cars, you are using your budgetery constraints put you and yours at a higher risk -there is NO DOUBT you are better off in a bigger car in an accident. I can get the stats, but if anyone has stats to disprove that, please send them on, to save me searching for the obvious yet again. Whether this is a 5 series or an X5 that hits the small car, it makes bugger all difference in reality - If either hits your econo box, the contents of the smaller car are going to be in a mess.

Think about that the next time you bring your family for a spin.

White van man has even less visibility that suv man, yet no one bats an eye lid.
If people were genuinely concerned about safety, SUV's and commerical vehicles would be getting the same grief. But since they are not, you know what that means.......


Any NCAP figures on what happens when you get hit by a truck?

Can anyone driving a smaller car catagorically state here and now for the record, that their family are safer in that, than an equivalent bigger car.
Keep that in mind when lecturing other people what they should drive.

Here's a novel idea - people are important - why not tax cars based on their ability to prevent injuries to its occupants in an accident. Encourage people to drive safer vehicles, instead of pushing people into small dangerous cars.
A low c02 level aint much good when you are dead.

If we are serious about the environment, attack the green house gas emissions at their main source - power generation and agriculture.
This tax changes will do nothing for irelands carbon footprint. Perhaps building crappy commuter towns was a bad idea, and building up in cities would have been better for the environmemt.

You force all these people to live in towns in the middle of nowhere, reap the stamp duty reward, and the minute you have them out there, you tax the life out of them getting to work - good planning there!

Last years flavor of the month was road safety - now we're gone all co2. Somewhere, Gay Byrne is crying.
The chattering classes have a new enemy. The newspapers are selling.

Stark

cancan wrote: »

If you get so worried about a hummer hitting you, you must really be worried about all those 40ft artics on the road.

I am forever hearing about how dangerous suv's are, when they are tiny compared to a truck.

Truck drivers receive more training than car drivers (full category B+full category C+certificate of professional competence). Someone looking to drive a car can just apply for their learner permit and be on the roads as soon as it arrives in the post.

cancan

Stark wrote: »

Truck drivers receive more training than car drivers (full category B+full category C+certificate of professional competence). Someone looking to drive a car can just apply for their learner permit and be on the roads as soon as it arrives in the post.

Seems to be an awful lot of trucks involved in collisions in ireland.
Another 2 people killed in limerick yesterday.
Training doesn't mean much when one is coming at you at speed.

Ever try and stop a 40ft from 60mph in a hurry?


Anyway this thread is about vehicle types - driver training is another issue entirely.

littlejukka

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Your are right, it's unacceptable either way. But, the safety arguements on this thread assume that a Hummer is hitting a Corolla. Sometimes the Corolla hits the Hummer, and then the Hummer's passangers are safer. I was just debunking all the arguements that an SUV is no safer than a car. When they test for passenger safety, it's tested using something that represents similar-sized vehicles. The side-impact pole-test uses the entire height of the vehicle. So a Hummer is just as safe as a car if it is hit by another Hummer, but it is obviously safer if a Corolla slides underneath it..

you haven'd debunked anything. your grasp of physics seems to be causing you no end of confusion.

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

On another point, people argue that SUVs are unsafe to others because they are so large. Hey there pedestrian, if it is so large then you can see it coming from farther away! You can get out of the way earlier, thus avoiding an accident. .

it's not up to the pedestrian to get out of the way, don't be ridiculous.

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

You can see an SUV coming over a hill much before a low-riding saloon.

you seem to suggest that the size and height of an SUV is actually of benefit to the overall safety of other road users. i am bemused and more than a little perplexed at the jump in logic.

Tomas_V

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

On another point, people argue that SUVs are unsafe to others because they are so large. Hey there pedestrian, if it is so large then you can see it coming from farther away! You can get out of the way earlier, thus avoiding an accident. You can see an SUV coming over a hill much before a low-riding saloon.

You've no idea about the reasons people object to SUVs. It's not that people can't see them coming, it's because the SUVs have blind spots. Have you not heard of the tragic accidents with parents running over then own toddlers in the driveway of their own home while driving SUVs? It's not the size, it's the shape that does the damage.

As to pedestrians getting out of the way, that's not what it says in the Rules of the Road. If a pedestrian has commenced to cross, a driver MUST give way.