SUV Scum

Stark

Mr. mé féin arguing that if there's a chance that noone will be killed or seriously injured from his risky selfish behaviour, then he's free to do whatever he likes. The mere chance is all it takes to clear his conscience. That's a pretty damn big remit. If I was to follow his logic, I could do whatever I liked to someone, as long as I didn't make 100% sure they were dead.

Stark

astraboy wrote:

Please quote where I say that? :rolleyes:

I'm not talking what you said, I'm talking about what MCMLXXXIII said.

astraboy wrote:

By your logic I should never drive my alfa in case I hit some body and kill them? Because I MIGHT hit someone in my car means I should stop driving it? Just wondering where the buck stops with you and your logic, thats all.

Your car serves a purpose in getting you around. Bullbars don't.

astraboy wrote:

Plus, if your hit by a car how much give does the bonnet give in comparsion to a bullbar?

Depends on the car. Some cars are a lot safer in that regard that others.

astraboy wrote:

Finally, people should maybe watch when they are crossing the road then they would not have a problem with bullbars! I'm sick of drunken people walking out in front of me in town in moving traffic.

What about children? You don't need to be over 18 to be a pedestrian.

astraboy wrote:

If people take their lives in their hands what do you want, to strap fluffly pillows to the front of my car?

Not adorn your bonnet with fashion accessories than increase injury because someone forgot to make them illegal. Plenty of the sociopaths on this thread arguing that until something is illegal, then it's a god given right. As if we need the Government to make every moral choice for us.

astraboy

Stark wrote: »

I'm not talking what you said, I'm talking about what MCMLXXXIII said.

My bad, your post appeared under mine I assumed you were responding to me. Post duly edited!

Cmar-Ireland

This is what you need a bull bar for!!!


HUMMER in the city

Anan1

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

This is what you need a bull bar for!!!

You really are hell-bent on making a spectacle of yourself, aren't you?

Cmar-Ireland

Anan1 wrote: »

You really are hell-bent on making a spectacle of yourself, aren't you?

If ya can't beat them, join 'em

MCMLXXXIII

Stark wrote: »

Not adorn your bonnet with fashion accessories than increase injury because someone forgot to make them illegal. Plenty of the sociopaths on this thread arguing that until something is illegal, then it's a god given right. As if we need the Government to make every moral choice for us.

I don't think legalities have anything to do with God given rights. Is prostitution right? It's legal in many different parts of the world, and totaly against the law in others. Is it right to make women cover themselves completely while men can wear whatever they want? That would never fly in most of the world, but in some Middle-Eastern areas it's totaly normal. Why is it OK to go 120 MPH in Germany, but only 60 on the M50?

Governments don't make moral choices. Governments try to please everyone and it doesn't work. If they somehow find a way to tax an SUV, then the businesses will be angry. So then they will take it off if you use it for business purposes. Then people with SUVs will use the vehicle once or twice per year for something work-related (oh, I had to transport important documents from one office to another), and then claim it as a commercial vehicle. That is even if you are able to please people by drawing a line between cars, MPVs and SUVs, which you can see on here is not an easy task.

The point is (and I've made it before) that everyone is different. The SUV drivers don't bother the 1L, slow-driving vehicles...and the small-car-drivers should not nag the SUV drivers.

astraboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

The SUV drivers don't bother the 1L, slow-driving vehicles...and the small-car-drivers should not nag the SUV drivers.

Pretty much sums up my points. I'm sure there be more tales of "Some idiot in an SUV did such and such to me today", but lets be honest there are bad drivers in every type of car. As for the "please think of the children" scaremongers, please, not everything has to do with kids being run over. A careful driver in an SUV is far far safer to all then a poor unobservant one in a yaris.

Seth Brundle

should we end this on that note?

Anan1

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

The SUV drivers don't bother the 1L, slow-driving vehicles...

On the basis that nobody could possibly be this stupid, i'm assuming that you simply haven't read the thread. You might, however, consider doing so now.

dodgyme

astraboy wrote: »

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.

say if all the old people were driving SUV's? Would this be ok then? You said they were all in small cars, but say if they were all in SUVs? The fact that you call what you said a fact?

prospect

kbannon wrote: »

should we end this on that note?

Oh please do,

How many times can dodgyme re-hash the same argument in one thread :rolleyes:

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

Oh please do,

How many times can dodgyme re-hash the same argument in one thread :rolleyes:

as long as it keeps shining a light on the Contemptuous characters populating the big overswelled view blocking SUVs and their sad old tired arguments. No other group are as disliked on the road and they cant get it?

prospect

Dammit,

I was hoping kbannon would get in there and close the thread before another wonderfully researched and scientifically accurate asseveration was thrown.

You just keep projecting your insecurities onto those to whom you aspire to be. If that keeps you happy in this season of goodwill, fire away.

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

You just keep projecting your insecurities onto those to whom you aspire to be.

I dont have an SUV so I must want one to deal with my insecurities. Ye really do make a show of yourselves.

Anan1

prospect wrote: »

You just keep projecting your insecurities onto those to whom you aspire to be.

Still beating on the 'you're all jealous' drum, are we? You crack me up, prospect, you really do!:)

prospect

dodgyme wrote: »

I dont have an SUV so I must want one to deal with my insecurities. Ye really do make a show of yourselves.

There is your problem:
I am an individual. I do not speak for, or represent everyone who drives a vehicle vaguely similar in style to my own. What I say or do is not representative of a large number of road users from all walks of life. Similarly, what each of those others do is nothing to do with me.

To be fair, anyone who makes such outrageous sweeping generalisations cannot expected to be taken seriously.

You seem to be fairly stubborn and unwilling to accept obvious facts that do not suit your arguments. So, by your rationale I should apply these personality traits to EVERYONE who owns a car, but uses a bus when possible!!!! (it is ridiculous, I know, but that is basically what you are doing to people who drive 'SUVs')

Also, re-read my last post, as you have grossly misinterpreted a fairly simply point.

prospect

Anan1 wrote: »

Still beating on the 'you're all jealous' drum, are we? You crack me up, prospect, you really do!:)

Well, every other reason given has been fairly easily and conclusively dis-proven, so I cannot see any other reason for the 'dislike' shown.

Anan1

prospect wrote: »

So, by your rationale I should apply these personality traits to EVERYONE who owns a car, but uses a bus when possible!!!! (it is ridiculous, I know, but that is basically what you are doing to people who drive 'SUVs')

Is he? My understanding was that we were all fine with SUVs in cases where there is a genuine need for them.

Anan1

prospect wrote: »

Well, every other reason given has been fairly easily and conclusively dis-proven

In your head, perhaps. Not in this thread, though.;)

prospect

Anan1 wrote: »

Is he? My understanding was that we were all fine with SUVs in cases where there is a genuine need for them.

And who decides someones genuine need? Is your real name Mussolini?

Nobody genuinely needs a car with an engine bigger than 1.8L.

Nobody genuinely needs a Television.

Nobody genuinely needs Christmas Decorations.

Nobody genuinely needs fizzy drinks.


Really, this has all been covered already, it is a poor sign when you have to keep going back to the same points over and over again, just to keep your argument alive.

Is there a snoring emoticon?

prospect

Anan1 wrote: »

In your head, perhaps. Not in this thread, though.;)

Yeah, ignore the FACTs and they might go away..... :rolleyes:

Anan1

prospect wrote: »

Yeah, ignore the FACTs and they might go away..... :rolleyes:

Ah, now it's in block capitals! Must be true so.

Cmar-Ireland

Boo Hoo... Please make the big scary SUV's go away


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


[IMG]http://jeanies_home_studio.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/smiley-violin-playing-arms.gif[/IMG]

dodgyme

Prospect whether you like it or not! you share something in common with other SUV drivers. i.e. you drive/or ar pro SUV. Society is about the sum of masses, much to the annoyance of the "freedom" seeking SUV driver!. You are in the pro-SUV side of this argument meaning you are part of a number of individuals who have contributed to a side of the argument which is in fact a collective. I am in the anti-SUV side and am an individual also but have agreement with most if not all the points made by the anti-SUV side and am thus part of a collective. Interesting that you skoof and bring up that fact that I should not be taken seriously because I judge you all (as a group) as selfish individualist and your reply "I am an individual" exactly proves the point of why ye are collectively selfish and arrogant. Also if all you can do riddle with language, which is what you now want, you may as well lift the white flag beside you and admit your wrong and our points are more righteous.

prospect

dodgyme wrote: »

Prospect whether you like it or not! you share something in common with other SUV drivers. i.e. you drive/or ar pro SUV. Society is about the sum of masses, much to the annoyance of the "freedom" seeking SUV driver!. You are in the pro-SUV side of this argument meaning you are part of a number of individuals who have contributed to a side of the argument which is in fact a collective. I am in the anti-SUV side and am an individual also but have agreement with most if not all the points made by the anti-SUV side and am thus part of a collective. Interesting that you skoof and bring up that fact that I should not be taken seriously because I judge you all (as a group) as selfish individualist and your reply "I am an individual" exactly proves the point of why ye are collectively selfish and arrogant. Also if all you can do riddle with language, which is what you now want, you may as well lift the white flag beside you and admit your wrong and our points are more righteous.

Nothing to do with anything....

Anan1

This baby says boring, this baby cries for the mods, and all the while this baby just can't help keeping the thread alive!:D

dodgyme

prospect wrote: »

Nothing to do with anything....

Pictures now. Bit like the books read by the typical SUV moron. Have you moved off pop up books yet. ?

MCMLXXXIII

I took my mom out in my new SUV last night. We came to an intersection at the same time as someone else...My mom just went forward (both cars were turning onto the same road) and said "I have a bigger car, so I'm going first. I told her she wasn't allowed to drive my car anymore.

Anan1 wrote: »

On the basis that nobody could possibly be this stupid, i'm assuming that you simply haven't read the thread. You might, however, consider doing so now.

I have been reading since the thread was only one page, and have been replying just about as long as you have. Besides, I didn't mean bother as in irritate and block view - I meant that (most) SUV drivers do not nag the drivers of small cars, and I have never heard of any small cars being vandalized due to size or engine.

dodgyme wrote: »

say if all the old people were driving SUV's? Would this be ok then? You said they were all in small cars, but say if they were all in SUVs? The fact that you call what you said a fact?

Point in case: It's not the car that people drive, it's the people that drive the car. It doesn't matter if old people (assuming they are all horrible drivers?) are in a small car or a large SUV, they will have the same driving habbits no matter what.

Anan1 wrote: »

Is he? My understanding was that we were all fine with SUVs in cases where there is a genuine need for them.

I need it to transfer Christmas presents to my parents. Imagine that...a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad SUV driver actually caring and giving to others. Anyways, I need the space to do it.

dodgyme wrote: »

Prospect whether you like it or not! you share something in common with other SUV drivers. i.e. you drive/or ar pro SUV. Society is about the sum of masses, much to the annoyance of the "freedom" seeking SUV driver!. You are in the pro-SUV side of this argument meaning you are part of a number of individuals who have contributed to a side of the argument which is in fact a collective. I am in the anti-SUV side and am an individual also but have agreement with most if not all the points made by the anti-SUV side and am thus part of a collective. Interesting that you skoof and bring up that fact that I should not be taken seriously because I judge you all (as a group) as selfish individualist and your reply "I am an individual" exactly proves the point of why ye are collectively selfish and arrogant. Also if all you can do riddle with language, which is what you now want, you may as well lift the white flag beside you and admit your wrong and our points are more righteous.

Socioety does not have to be about the sum of the masses. Everyone can live hapily together, even though they are different. If socioety was about voting and the sum of the masses, everyone in the US would probably be forced to drive an SUV. SUVs and MPVs are popular and are driven by at least one person per family. Should the US have a vote? Should they force 300,000,000 people to decide if they want either a car or SUV, and then only sell which vehicle wins? The SUV side would win, because families use them to cart around kids (which no one has a problem with), and store their "stuff," and the people like "stuff." They like things to be big, and they also like wide open space...including the interior of their vehicle. There is also an attitude of "better too much, than too little," which I kind of agree with. That is not the case in Ireland. Just as many people in the US would be upset if they were forced to drive an SUV instead of their regular car, there would be many people in Ireland that would be angry because a majority half of the population decided that they weren't allowed to drive the vehicle of their choice.

dodgyme

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Socioety does not have to be about the sum of the masses. , .

yes it is. the clue is in the word society. The reason for this debate proves this. i.e. what is acceptable or not acceptable to society. this constantly shifts and moves depending on the society. You mention the US as an example. Well nice of you to choose the most individualist country you could think of? Our society doesnt have to be a replication of the US. We decide what we want for our country and moving toward further taxing unnecessary SUV is a good thing in my opinion. Unfortunately in Ireland clientalism is the rather warped way of societies views getting to the policy table. Another way was the greens getting to power which reflected another groups opinions and hence why the 'gas guzzlers' (image or reality) maybe having further punitive measures placed on them. And I certainly hope so.!