SUV Scum

cancan

I don't own an suv you dope.

Anyway - there is work to be done - must kick some over mortgaged people out of their houses for the christmas.

Ho ho ho..

nytraveller

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Last night on my way home from work I was caught behind a delivery truck. The driver was driving extremely slowly looking for the address. Then the truck stopped and the driver carried out a package (that he could carry with one hand), left it at the front door of a house, and then drove off. Since I was stuck behind the truck, since I was not able to see in front of the truck, and since the driver was delivering a small package - I think all delivery trucks should be banned...especially since that package would fit in a Golf and the large, polluting truck that blocked my view was not necessary! What do you guys think?
.

:rolleyes:Someone should explain sarcasm to dodgyme

MCMLXXXIII

dodgyme wrote: »

This is what makes me laugh about you crowd. No spirit, no sense of shared existence. Everyone must be a begrudger with a miserable life. No mate you got it wrong. I dont need the oversized heap of junk to make me happy. You resort to talking about mortgages and 1L cars because you judge everybody and everything in the crass fashion that the minute someone gets the money to buy a bigger car or show off more they will do so. - My god you are insecure. All nice SUV owner traits

No sense of shared existance? SUV drivers share the road every single time they drive. SUV drivers aren't trying to ban small cars. SUV drivers aren't trying to tax small cars. SUV drivers have the same attitude of shared existance as any other driver on the road - not matter what kind of vehicle they are driving.

I am flattered that you think we are showing off, but the truth is - I just like SUVs.

dodgyme wrote: »

you didnt even get your own point. That you were annoyed because you were held up by unnecessarily by an unnecessary obstruction. Now on a scale of 1 to 10 how unnecessary is a Truck in comparison to the average SUV swaning around suburbia?

Thanks you make the point nicely

Check dodgyme's previous post.

MCMLXXXIII

Everyone-

I have bitter-sweet news. I just made the appointment. I am picking up my brand new Jeep tomorrow! I am taking my current Chrysler 300, which I love, back to the dealership. After 145,000 miles, it is starting to need things like new brakes, fluid flushes, and the like. Instead of paying for all of it, and still having an older car, I will pay about the same for the down payment on my new one.

300 Length: 5015mm
Grand Cherokee Length: 4750mm

300 Height: 1475mm
Grand Cherokee Height: 1740mm

Does the fact that I block less of a view from the portrait view make up for the loss of sight vertically?

littlejukka

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

my current Chrysler 300

you truly have no taste in cars.

astraboy

littlejukka wrote: »

you truly have no taste in cars.

Sorry what do you drive again? Heh Heh. Bet its nothing with the impact and power of a 300c

daRobot

littlejukka wrote: »

you truly have no taste in cars.

Looks like i've no taste either

astraboy

dodgyme wrote: »

and who is keeping to the topic now? You have zero credibility and lots LOTS to learn. You wouldnt know a gun if it came up and shot you on the arse.

Wrong again. I have been shooting since I was 16, and have shot firearms in various competitions in the reserve defence forces, as well as ranges in the U.S.

Now, back on topic. LittleJunka says he drives an MPV. So its basically a van with seats, yet he has the gall and nerve to give out about people in SUV's! They both take up the same space, and "obstruct" peoples views in a similar manner. What a hypocrite.

A side note, I was working as a car park attendant today in a supermarket for some part time work, old people in tiny cars caused far more obstructions then people in SUV's. Based on my experience alone today I have found SUV drivers to be very courteous, just regular people in fact! Imagine that, SUV drivers not being the spawn of the devil.:p

littlejukka

astraboy wrote: »

Now, back on topic. LittleJunka says he drives an MPV. So its basically a van with seats, yet he has the gall and nerve to give out about people in SUV's! They both take up the same space, and "obstruct" peoples views in a similar manner. What a hypocrite.

eh..no. i have the gall to wish that people wouldn't buy and use cars too big for their purpose. i use my car for sport, training and my involvement with special olympics teams where i need all the seats frequently to move people around.

astraboy

littlejukka wrote: »

eh..no. i have the gall to wish that people wouldn't buy and use cars too big for their purpose. i use my car for sport, training and my involvement with special olympics teams where i need all the seats frequently to move people around.

Thats fair enough. SUV's mostly have 5 seats(I'm talking RAV4/santa fe here) and if there is a drive and 2/3 kids the car is well used IMO. Where I was working today littlejukka, you might know it, the shopping center in Douglas. I was outside all afternoon and I noticed many of the jeeps and SUV's had 2 child seats in them. Of course there were others with only a driver and 1 kid, but once they could park it ok in a space thats all that mattered to me at the time!

As for people buying cars too big for their normal use, I'm wondering why you single out SUV's instead of luxury saloons that often only have 1/2 people in them?

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

Thats fair enough. SUV's mostly have 5 seats(I'm talking RAV4/santa fe here) and if there is a drive and 2/3 kids the car is well used IMO.

I think to an extent we may be talking about different things here. The occasional RAV4 I can live with, it's when every fourth car seems to be a Range Rover/Cayenne/Touareg/X5 that my patience starts to run low. And I explained why I singled out large SUVs rather than large luxury saloons (one of which I drove until very recently), on page 1, I think.;)

astraboy

Anan1 wrote: »

I think to an extent we may be talking about different things here. The occasional RAV4 I can live with, it's when every fourth car seems to be a Range Rover/Cayenne/Touareg/X5 that my patience starts to run low. And I explained why I singled out large SUVs rather than large luxury saloons (one of which I drove until very recently), on page 1, I think.;)

All of the above are large enough in fairness, but the people that buy them pay more then enough to do so IMO, and granted most if any will never even see wet grass not to mind a muddy track, its peoples choice of what they drive and it should not really concern anyone not effected. I again realise there is the issue of crashes etc with other road users, but luxury saloons are hardly light either and a small car would come off worse in a crash with either!

Also, where I live every 4th car is not an SUV! I split my time between city and country and most SUV's in the country are workhorses.

littlejukka

astraboy wrote: »

Also, where I live every 4th car is not an SUV! I split my time between city and country and most SUV's in the country are workhorses.

workhorses are fine. horses, building, farming, lots of reasons make it perfectly acceptable to own and use an SUV. it's the glut of them that are used where a car would more than suffice that get me. a driver with 2/3 kids, as you mentioned, would be just as well served in a saloon or hatchback.

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

its peoples choice of what they drive and it should not really concern anyone not effected.

I completely agree. I'm a big believer in personal freedom, as long as it does not negatively affect others. The thing is, astraboy, I am affected.

astraboy wrote: »

Also, where I live every 4th car is not an SUV! I split my time between city and country and most SUV's in the country are workhorses.

I have no problem with SUVs where there is a genuine need - it's like delivery lorries, they're a necessary inconvenience.

astraboy

I do see your points lads honestly, I just do not make that much of a distinction between an SUV and a car, they are just raised up versions of road cars with 4 wheel drive sometimes! SUV is more a marketing term then anything, if someone buys a BMW x3 instead of a 3 series, IMO they got duped by BMW marketing and paid handsomely for it! Other then the crash risk, someone in a X3 hardly inconvenience you more then someone in a 3 series. Also, people in SUV's have the perception of safety, however true or untrue this may be depending on the vehicle. At the end of the day people will always put their own safety and that of their kids before random strangers, a simple fact of life that extends beyond the purchase of a car.

I also think your preception of who exactly uses SUV's may be colored. Anywhere outside the upper middle class areas of the main cities 4x4's are used for their design purposes mainly, as workhorses. To implement taxes etc based on the use of SUV's by a small number of the population would only hurt the majority.

Stark

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Oh, and Camar-Ireland isn't scum, he's just not dropping to your level. So I will stick for him. If he hasn't killed any pedestrians or rammed other vehicles with his bull bars (he probably hasn't, and you can't prove he did), then you have no place to make fun of him. He has the free choice and he made it...and so did the person that bought it from him. I would have probably done the same.

Please return from your high horse down to your Yaris and stop trying to attack the freedom of everyone in this country.

I thought the EU made bullbars illegal?

SUVs I'm fine with, in that I don't consider them any different to large saloons. However, I've a name for someone who would fit something to their vehicle, the only purpose of which is to inflict extra injury on others in the event of an accident. I'll leave it up to people to guess.

dodgyme

astraboy wrote: »

Wrong again. I have been shooting since I was 16,

probably around the age I last fired a gun, ironic?

astraboy wrote: »

old people in tiny cars caused far more obstructions then people in SUV's. p

your not making a point with this, just making up one.

astraboy

dodgyme wrote: »

probably around the age I last fired a gun, ironic?

your not making a point with this, just making up one.

Again, you make absoutley not contribution to the thread, or the debate. What exactly is your point about shooting??? And what does it have to do with the current debate. Feel free to start another thread on the subject, I'm sure I have more experience and knowledge of my hobby then you do. I'm sure you'll more the likely dodge the question as you have many of my others. :rolleyes:

As for the point about old people in small cars causing obstruction, it is fact. I was standing in a car park for 12 hours today. I could count probably 1 or 2 incidents of someone in an SUV/MPV causing a hold up in the whole day. The number of small cars causing obstruction by the poor driving of their owners was certainly 2/3 per hour, and I could only see a small part of the car park. So now, please refute my point with more of your appallingly flawed evidence.

cancan

If one were to define the difference between MPV's and SUV's, where would one draw the line?

Like why would a nice looking woman dropping her kids to school in this cause hatred:


and yet this would not:



I'm confused - cos one makes people cross and one inspires music of birds singing, even though they are the same thing.

Hence our confusion with the anti SUV brigade....
Some here think the are the second coming of all gore cos they are missing a bit of body cladding and a couple of inches (The old story eh!)

Because your common Last Word caller does see a difference between the above, when most logical people just hear another idiot on the airwaves...

MadsL

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Oh, and Camar-Ireland isn't scum, he's just not dropping to your level. So I will stick for him. If he hasn't killed any pedestrians or rammed other vehicles with his bull bars (he probably hasn't, and you can't prove he did), then you have no place to make fun of him. He has the free choice and he made it...and so did the person that bought it from him. I would have probably done the same.

Please return from your high horse down to your Yaris and stop trying to attack the freedom of everyone in this country.

Would you support his right to stick a set of sharpened points on the front?

The EU has banned these on new vehicles, as have Australia. The whole point of the things was to fend off kangaroos and the like. They became a fashion accessory, and a deadly one at that. A small child getting hit a 25mph with solid bull bars has an almost zero chance of survival.

I'll finish your sentence for you ..."If he hasn't killed any pedestrians", yet.

Take them off. Leave them off. I'd love to see these fail an NCT in future, and the Gardai imposing fixed penalties for having them fitted unless the vehicle has a permit for contruction (heavy machinery) or agricultural use.

Oh, and I'm not making fun. These things are unfortunately deadly serious.

astraboy

MadsL wrote: »

Would you support his right to stick a set of sharpened points on the front?

The EU has banned these on new vehicles, as have Australia. The whole point of the things was to fend off kangaroos and the like. They became a fashion accessory, and a deadly one at that. A small child getting hit a 25mph with solid bull bars has an almost zero chance of survival.

I'll finish your sentence for you ..."If he hasn't killed any pedestrians", yet.

Take them off. Leave them off. I'd love to see these fail an NCT in future, and the Gardai imposing fixed penalties for having them fitted unless the vehicle has a permit for contruction (heavy machinery) or agricultural use.

Oh, and I'm not making fun. These things are unfortunately deadly serious.

While I agree bullbars are dangerous, I would like to see evidence of the "zero chance of survival" comment. Also, there are many types of bull bars. A simple A bar with spotlamps is not that dangerous, as how many pedestrians anre hit head on? Many are struck by the side of the vehicle, ie near the headlamp, and A bars do not have protection there.

Also, there are plenty of reasons for bull bars other the construciton. What if the owner Off roads quite a bit?

Stark

astraboy wrote: »

Also, there are plenty of reasons for bull bars other the construciton. What if the owner Off roads quite a bit?

Why would you need bullbars for off-roading?

Rovi

Stark wrote: »

Why would you need bullbars for off-roading?

To keep the bodywork from getting too badly mangled.

Same goes for external rollcages, rock sliders, and limb deflectors.
/waits for antis to find out what these are and go apoplectic

astraboy

Stark wrote: »

Why would you need bullbars for off-roading?

Protection of the front of the vehicle in case you hit something like a tree, also mainly to protect the underside and front when you are going up or down a steep slope. If you look at the A bar on Camar-Ireland's toyota(its not specificly a bullbar, his just has the 'A' frame) the bars stretch under the bumper, protecting the engine and oil sump on a slope.

Stark

If you hit a tree at high speed, the tree's not going to give, in which case one of two things has to give: the front of the car or the occupant inside. In that case, you'd prefer the front of the car to get mangled.

I also like the way people are prepared for the possibility of hitting a tree, but not a pedestrian. Fair enough if the vehicle is used exclusively off roads and not in urban areas.

astraboy

Stark wrote: »

If you hit a tree at high speed, the tree's not going to give, in which case one of two things has to give: the front of the car or the occupant inside. In that case, you'd prefer the front of the car to get mangled.

I also like the way people are prepared for the possibility of hitting a tree, but not a pedestrian. Fair enough if the vehicle is used exclusively off roads and not in urban areas.

First of all, most off roading is done at slow speed, so if you loose grip and slide into a wall/tree at 10mph, the bullbars protect your bumpers. If your going fast they will be the least of your worries. TBH I rarely see bullbars on 4x4's anymore, unless its a workhorse. Even then its an A bar and not a full frontal bullbar that is far more dangerous.

MCMLXXXIII

MadsL wrote: »

Would you support his right to stick a set of sharpened points on the front?

The EU has banned these on new vehicles, as have Australia. The whole point of the things was to fend off kangaroos and the like. They became a fashion accessory, and a deadly one at that. A small child getting hit a 25mph with solid bull bars has an almost zero chance of survival.

I'll finish your sentence for you ..."If he hasn't killed any pedestrians", yet.

Take them off. Leave them off. I'd love to see these fail an NCT in future, and the Gardai imposing fixed penalties for having them fitted unless the vehicle has a permit for contruction (heavy machinery) or agricultural use.

Oh, and I'm not making fun. These things are unfortunately deadly serious.

Sharpened points are slightly different than a rounded bar, so no - I would not support it.

Why do you think he is eventually going to kill someone? How are you so sure? Do you know his driving habits? Do you know where he drives? Does the fact that he has bars make it a for-sure thing that he will kill someone, or can drivers without bullbars also cause a deadly accident?

I know bullbars are now illegal, and it doesn't really matter what the intended use was. I'm sure the owner will take them off because of fear from the government, even though they might have never even had an accident ever. I think it is very serious, as is driving any kind of vehicle. However, I don't think that just because someone put a bar on an SUV means that the death rate will rise.

pburns

Yummy mummies get a lot of blame for driving SUVs but in my experience it is usually pudgy, fat 30/40 year old lads who love these. I think their choice of cars reflect their 'body-image' i.e.

'Deep down, I know I'm a fat-head but sure wimin love a bit of bulk and anyway, me macho torso fits easier into a jeep, I'm too much of a man for a mere car'

(Danger: amateur psychologist at work!:D)

Stark

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Sharpened points are slightly different than a rounded bar, so no - I would not support it.

Why do you think he is eventually going to kill someone? How are you so sure? Do you know his driving habits? Do you know where he drives? Does the fact that he has bars make it a for-sure thing that he will kill someone, or can drivers without bullbars also cause a deadly accident?

I know bullbars are now illegal, and it doesn't really matter what the intended use was. I'm sure the owner will take them off because of fear from the government, even though they might have never even had an accident ever. I think it is very serious, as is driving any kind of vehicle. However, I don't think that just because someone put a bar on an SUV means that the death rate will rise.

So just because there's a chance someone with bullbars might not kill someone, that makes it okay? Sure why don't you just let someone shoot you and take the chance that they miss an major organ. No guarantee that it will kill you.

astraboy

Stark wrote: »

So just because there's a chance someone with bullbars might not kill someone, that makes it okay? Sure why don't you just let someone shoot you and take the chance that they miss an major organ. No guarantee that it will kill you.

Stretching the point a bit I believe. If you shoot someone you KNOW you are going to injure and possibly kill them. You put bullbars on your jeep(and some do have genuine reason as I've explained) there is no guranate you will hurt anyone, because you might never get in a crash. It also works both ways, people driving regular cars, believe it or not, cause accidents too, so the person with the bull bars is better protected in this case if hit by one of these. For the most part anyway, I agree bullbars are often unnecessary, I just felt you were taking an analogy too far with the last comment!;)