why do women drive jeeps

Rodney Trotter

Calibos wrote:

............................................. but then again I am a self confessed mysogynistic chauvinist bas***d

or just plain THICK, in summary!

Obviously with limited intellect and no knowledge about things motoring.

Calibos

I wrote the post with tongue slighty in cheek and maybe that didn't come across too well but what part of my post gives you the impression that A. I am thick and of limited intellect and B. Unknowledgable about things motoring? I could be a very intelligent car designing mysogynistic chauvinist bas***d for all you know! :D

iregk

Love the last post prospect, back in your box.

Me personally I have a huge problem with SUV's in the city. I have no problem if they are needed, i.e. farming etc... thats fine thats for a living and try driving a corolla across a field and you can see why they are needed.

However the whole live in tempelogue and drive Pajero into town I just do not understand. I hate 4x4's with a passion. Yes I'm an environmentalist, yes I care about our planet but honestly can someone tell me a valid reason for them? They have a delusion of safety. The center of gravity is much higher so if anything happens at speed its going to flip like it or not. They cost so much more, have higher tax, higher running costs and are quite frankly ugly things.

Save the money and get a good comfortable saloon. All the talk of jeeps being used for the school run is pants. Most of them only come with room for 5 these days anyway, so what difference than a normal car?

Sleipnir

Hey, why don't I just quote the Irish Independant's breaking news section from this morning?

LINK
"Controversial sports utility vehicles (SUVs) pose an increased danger to pedestrians, according to research conducted at Trinity College in Dublin.
The study found that a pedestrian was between two and four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured if they were struck by an SUV rather than a normal car.
Those behind the study have called for warnings on all SUVs to inform buyers of the risk they pose to pedestrians."
SUVs, which are hugely popular in the United States, have already been widely criticised due to the environmental damage they cause as a result of their massive fuel consumption.


So, they're more dangerous to pedestrians, more dangereous in a head-on collision (due to the higher bumper they negate the other cars crush zones and also "ride up" over the bonnet and into the passenger area) and they are also more damaging to the environment!

Sure, some people need them but I would say only about 1% of owners in total.

iregk

It basically comes down to ignorance and snobbery I think. I'd agree here is so far as 99% of suv's or 4x4's will never see anything other than a smoot tar mac road. So why have them?

You ingorant and dont care about the enviorment or what your 4lt engine is pumping out and couldn't care about the consequences of a collision. Yes I know all cars are damaging in both circumstances but not to the degree of these bad boys.

Secondly snobbery. I want everyone to see me in my big X5 or Pajero that and other reasons as well. A friend of mine bought a Cheroke recently, when i asked him why his response was classic: "because its a jeep" riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

Rodney Trotter

There really is so much ignorance and jealousy about SUV's it's incredible. And yet, with all the pontificating about pedestrian safety, not once has anyone mentioned the danger that is the Toyota Hiace, Ford Transit etc? They hare inherently much more unstable than any SUV, much more dangerous due to their flat or shallow fronts and lack of pedestrian crumple zones.

All the talk of roll-over dangers? Bull****. The chance of it occurring is so rare as to be insignificant. You will find ordinary saloons will turn over as often, if you look at actual accidents.

Not a mention that, inherently, SUVs will travel slower than regular cars, they are not as fast as regular cars.
No consideration that some parents actually consider their own child's safety a priority over other peoples' safety? Selfish? Not really. It's every parent's duty.

Economy, environment? The scanger tearing around the M50 at 11:00pm is wasting fuel on an unnecessary journey, but no critisism of him from the Environmentalist. No mention of the commuters, in their Ford Focus, driving 100 to 200 miles per day, to their 3 bed semi in Carlow, or Mullingar, who refuse to try to get a job where they live.
Dublin Airport is the biggest source of pollution in Dublin, but no mention of any of that. Any extra Tax paid goes to the exchequer, for the benefit of all. The Environmentalists wouldn't feed to many people, or build too many hospitals with their economic contributions.

In summary, it's a petty jealousy driven by non-sensical arguments.


BTW, If someone wants to buy a BMW, thay can buy a BMW, from a large choice. If someone wants to buy a Jeep, they have a choice of 3, the Cherokee being one.

jd

Whatever.

I wouldn't buy them cause they are naff.
End of story.

iregk

Well there you go lads, none of us have any valid points or reasons apparently for not liking suv's. We are all just a bunch of gelous gits!!!

dahamsta

Guess who drives an SUV...

alias no.9

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Not a mention that, inherently, SUVs will travel slower than regular cars, they are not as fast as regular cars.

Even a 1.3l suzuki jimny can break 80mph. They drive at similar speeds to the rest of the traffic. The problem is that many people driving SUV's treat them as if they are driving cars. They ignore the longer stopping distances and reduced agility. I would like to see a seperate dirving test for such vehicles because they require different driving skills.

Rodney Trotter wrote:

No consideration that some parents actually consider their own child's safety a priority over other peoples' safety? Selfish? Not really. It's every parent's duty.

It is every parents duty to consider their own child's safety a priority over other peoples' safety, however, when their actions become detrimental to the safety of others, particularly, other children, then they need to be called to account. The practice of bring an SUV on the shcool run so that they'll easily hop kerbs onto footpaths, thus avoiding the need to use pesky car parks which can often be as much as 5 minutes walk form schools, is reprehensible. It forces other children to go out onto roads to get past these SUV's, it reduces any visibility that other road users may have of these kids as they try to negotiate their way around thses chelsea tractors.

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Economy, environment? The scanger tearing around the M50 at 11:00pm is wasting fuel on an unnecessary journey, but no critisism of him from the Environmentalist. No mention of the commuters, in their Ford Focus, driving 100 to 200 miles per day, to their 3 bed semi in Carlow, or Mullingar, who refuse to try to get a job where they live.

There are lots of environmental factors that need to be addressed, that scangar on the M50 at 11 is probably doing 85mph in 5th gear, and while it is probably a pointless journey, the car will be running pretty efficiently. How many of the commuters you mention have reasoned with themselves that if they lived that little further away, say in carlow or mullingar rather than naas or maynooth, they could also afford the SUV? As for suggesting that people refuse to get a job where they live, poor economic and spatial planning has led to a situation where most economic activity happens in dublin, given a choice most people would skip the commute and work near home but it can often be impossible to get the right job.

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Dublin Airport is the biggest source of pollution in Dublin, but no mention of any of that. Any extra Tax paid goes to the exchequer, for the benefit of all. The Environmentalists wouldn't feed to many people, or build too many hospitals with their economic contributions.

In summary, it's a petty jealousy driven by non-sensical arguments.


BTW, If someone wants to buy a BMW, thay can buy a BMW, from a large choice. If someone wants to buy a Jeep, they have a choice of 3, the Cherokee being one.

People are entitled to buy whatever they want. Restrictions on certain types of vehicles in certain areas should however be considered.

Rodney Trotter

Rubbish.

When I hear calls about the safety of all the commercial vans, in proportionate measure, then I'll give them heed.

w.r.t. the survey about pedestrian safety? Hardy rocket science to say a bigger vehicle will do more damage, is it? And all the talk about pedestrian safety and not one single word about the recklessness of pedestrians and their jaywalking?


Get real lads, and lassies. Blaming the car is so pathetic it's laughable.


Take an X5 for a dirive and tell me how it's more dangerous than a saloon car. It's not one single bit more dangerous.

Futile and purile arguments go nowhere, and that's all I'm hearing. All specualtion and no facts.

Rovi

Here's an interesting little article-
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1805423,00.html

.

HelterSkelter

Rodney Trotter wrote:

There really is so much ignorance and jealousy about SUV's it's incredible. And yet, with all the pontificating about pedestrian safety, not once has anyone mentioned the danger that is the Toyota Hiace, Ford Transit etc? They hare inherently much more unstable than any SUV, much more dangerous due to their flat or shallow fronts and lack of pedestrian crumple zones.

I think you'll find most people drive a Hiace or Transit because they need it for work not because it looks good with their latest pair of Gucci shades.

HelterSkelter

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Futile and purile arguments go nowhere, and that's all I'm hearing. All specualtion and no facts.

What about the FACT that when I'm driving behind one of these SUV's my visibality is obscured, I can't see ahead of them and can't anticipate anything occuring further up the road??

CJhaughey

I drive a Landcruiser, 3 dr Commercial, is it right that I should be banned from driving it?
or is this an exclusively Dublin based rant?
Seems to me that the tall poppy syndrome is rife around here.

Rodney Trotter

HelterSkelter wrote:

I think you'll find most people drive a Hiace or Transit because they need it for work ...............

That's absolutely irrelevent to this debate. If a vehicle is unsafe, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, then it should be removed from the roads. If this was carried to it's logical conclusion, all Ford Focus should be banned, and drivers put in Fiestas, Corollas should be banned and drivers put into Yaris etc.

HelterSkelter wrote:

What about the FACT that when I'm driving behind one of these SUV's my visibality is obscured, I can't see ahead of them and can't anticipate anything occuring further up the road??

Oh my God, you want to see past cars in front? What about busses, vans, trucks etc? Another ridiculous argument. You are supposed to keep your distance, and if you do so you will see more than enough and you'll be able to stop in time. Should you be unable to stop, if required, then you are either driving too close or you are not able to drive properly..

HelterSkelter

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Oh my God, you want to see past cars in front? What about busses, vans, trucks etc? Another ridiculous argument. You are supposed to keep your distance, and if you do so you will see more than enough and you'll be able to stop in time. Should you be unable to stop, if required, then you are either driving too close or you are not able to drive properly..

Well in all the driving lessons I took as well as an advanced driving course I was told it is good practice to look two or three cars ahead in order to anticpate anything that may occur. So now you are saying the driving instructors as well as the Institute of Advanced Motorists are wrong???

As for buses, vans, tracks, etc they are NEEDED by the people who drive them. I agree, they are more dangerous but there is not much we can do about that. The majority of people who drive SUV's (Selfish User Vehicles as I like to call them) DON'T NEED them.

I never suggested banning SUV's by the way, I am just pointing out how selfish their owners are.

BTW, what do you drive?

iregk

Well I dont think its a dublin based rant. I dont live in dublin however where i do live i am surrounded by farms for miles in each direction. Needless to say a lot of rang rovers about but thats acceptable because they are a necessity for their living. Likewise as someone said about vans and hi aces. Anyone I know (not many to be fair) that have these are for work. They certinaly didn't go in and buy because it was a hi ace!!!

SUV's and 4x4's are a needless excess when all your doing is city driving. Likewise a lambourgini in my opinion is a needless excess as we dont have the roads for them over here but thats off the topic slightly but you get my point.

fits

At least somebody mentioned sports cars. I dont get why people have such a problem with 4x4s and none at all with 4 litre sports cars, that are pretty much useless in this country. There are an awful lot of people involved in outdoor pursuits such as horses, sailing etc, that have a requirement for 4x4s. I need one, cant afford it though.
Also another point, I'd say the modern x5 is an awful lot safer and more environmentally friendly than most classic cars.
People just get an idea/prejudice into their head and rant about it without really thinking....

Ann Elk

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
How did this turn from a woman bashing forum into an SUV bashing one? Women bashing is much more fun,

I regularly drive my woman to work and sometimes I park her on the pavement, i don't see anything wrong with it at all - except, of course, the astronomical running costs.

Sleipnir

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Rubbish.

When I hear calls about the safety of all the commercial vans, in proportionate measure, then I'll give them heed.

w.r.t. the survey about pedestrian safety? Hardy rocket science to say a bigger vehicle will do more damage, is it? And all the talk about pedestrian safety and not one single word about the recklessness of pedestrians and their jaywalking?


Get real lads, and lassies. Blaming the car is so pathetic it's laughable.


Take an X5 for a dirive and tell me how it's more dangerous than a saloon car. It's not one single bit more dangerous.

Futile and purile arguments go nowhere, and that's all I'm hearing. All specualtion and no facts.

There is an economic need for commercial vechicles, there is no economic need for a businessman or a mother to have an SUV.

Saying "jaywalkers are at fault" and placing absolutely no blame on the vehicle is laughable.
Are you therefore disputing the "facts" from TCD that SUV's pose more danger to pedestrians?
Where are your "facts" to defend this research?

Rodney Trotter

Sleipnir wrote:

There is an economic need for commercial vechicles, there is no economic need for a businessman or a mother to have an SUV.

Saying "jaywalkers are at fault" and placing absolutely no blame on the vehicle is laughable.
Are you therefore disputing the "facts" from TCD that SUV's pose more danger to pedestrians?
Where are your "facts" to defend this research?

Listen, if you want to debate, stick to the subject and don't change the subject.

1. Economic need for commercial vehicles? That's irrelevent to this debate. My point was highlighting the fact that such vehicles are inherently (dynamically and structurally) a hell of lot less safe than any SUV yet there is not one word against their safety. Why not? It's because of a stupid begrudgery and an obvious jealousy against certain types of cars.

2. Jaywalkers? Look at what I said. Then tell me if jaywalkers should be responsible for damage caused by their stupidity? Where did I place "NO" blame on anyone else?

3. Of course getting hit by a bigger vehicle will, invariably, cause more damage. As was said on the news today it's like saying a kick from a horse will hurt more than a kick from a donkey. How about this? Getting hit by a Yaris will do a hell of lot more damage than not getting hit by a Range Rover. (I'm stooping to your level of logic here.)


As I pointed out previously, small cars will do less damage than big cars. Hardly rocket science. But blaming car types, when the real culprits are bad drivers, is absolutely stupid and thick.

The problem is when some people claim to have an open mind, they , in reality, have an empty head.


SUV's, roll on.



How about highlighting the actual vehicles you have trouble with?

I'll start

HIACE, TRANSIT, H100, All ISUZU trucks, all Luton Bodied vehicles, Artics and all busses.

Big Nelly

My point...no references or anything....just a personal view....

HATE with a passion SUV's and all those other stupid big things(watever new cool name they have put on them to make them fashionable) that the soccer moms drive around in.....reasons:

1. It is a known fact the majority of woman cannot reverse a Micra let alone a SUV.....if you want evidence to this....go to any shopping centre in the coountry and you will see.....

2. Half of them are stupid looking

3. Ruining the enviroment with there big engines

4. Putting pedetrians at risk, news this morning in UK they are talking of putting a cigarette like warning on SUV, not sure if this has been mentioned but it is being discussed in UK

Can think of many more but cant be bothered typing them all......also in case you are wondering I drive a Passat myself.....big enought car I agree but I need the space....at weekend and on second job I drive a 05 Izuzu D-Max 3ltr but this is required for pulling power and for storage space when moving between jobs!! an SUV with mammy in the front with sun glasses on and a 2 year old kid lost in the back somewhere that you need binoculars to see them from the front seat is not required!!

My 2 cent!!

HelterSkelter

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Listen, if you want to debate, stick to the subject and don't change the subject....

And if you want a debate then answer other people's points and don't cherrypick the points you want to respond to...

...what is your response to my post here

magpie

I find a Hummer to be the ideal school run / quick nip out to Dundrum Town Centre vehicle.

I am woman, hear me roar etc.

Rodney Trotter

HelterSkelter wrote:

And if you want a debate then answer other people's points and don't cherrypick the points you want to respond to...

...what is your response to my post here

Again, twisting a point to suit.
It's, of course, helpful to be able to see as far ahead as possible, but not essential and it is not necessary. Keep an appropriate distance behind any vehicle and you'll see enough to allow you drive safely. After all, what do you do when you're behind a lorry, bus, van etc? Cry?

What I drive is irrelevant.


BTW, nobody has pointed out how dangerous it is to have your children in the back of a Toyota Yaris, or similar. About 12 inches between you and the outside and precious little protection should someone hit you from beind. (But rest assured the gob****e who walks out in front of you will fare better than if you were driving a much bigger vehicle.)


As regards driving a vehicle that you "NEED"? You could put any solo driver into a mini car, carrying that logic to it's end, but then that wouldn't suit your argument.

HelterSkelter

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Again, twisting a point to suit.

How is that twisting a point to suit? That is what I was told by an advanced driving instructor. It's a fact, not a twisted point.

Rodney Trotter wrote:

It's, of course, helpful to be able to see as far ahead as possible, but not essential and it is not necessary. Keep an appropriate distance behind any vehicle and you'll see enough to allow you drive safely. After all, what do you do when you're behind a lorry, bus, van etc? Cry?

Yes it is helpful and safer. I like to be able to see as much as possible when I am driving and see any hazards well in advance. If I am behind a bus I just have to deal with it as the size of the bus is necessary. However most Selfish User Vehicles are not.

Another point is if a car is at a set of traffic lights behind an Selfish User Vehicle, the lights turn green, the Selfish User Vehicles pulls off, the car didn't have any view of the lights cos the big Selfish User Vehicles was blocking the way so valuable time is wasted cos the car driver has to release the handbrake and get in gear. If it was a normal car on front the car driver would have been able to see the lights change and be already in gear ready to move.

Rodney Trotter wrote:

What I drive is irrelevant.

Just interested, do you drive an Selfish User Vehicle? If so is it necessary for your job or what is the reason you bought one?

Rodney Trotter wrote:

BTW, nobody has pointed out how dangerous it is to have your children in the back of a Toyota Yaris, or similar. About 12 inches between you and the outside and precious little protection should someone hit you from beind. (But rest assured the gob****e who walks out in front of you will fare better than if you were driving a much bigger vehicle.)

You moaned in an earlier post about people making points with no facts, you said "Futile and purile arguments go nowhere, and that's all I'm hearing. All specualtion and no facts". Where are your facts about how dangerous the Toyota Yaris is? Or are just you speculating now?

Rodney Trotter wrote:

As regards driving a vehicle that you "NEED"? You could put any solo driver into a mini car, carrying that logic to it's end, but then that wouldn't suit your argument.

I have no arguments with that.

ambro25

I think you all need to cool it for a minute, and perhaps just look at the economics and each situation: SUV in town, SUV mixed-use and SUV 'working for a living'.

The for/against '4WD' arguments are IMHO pretty redundant.

My wife drives a 4WD: a Scoob Impreza. It's no bigger than a 3-series or a Mondeo, but it's 4WD (permanently, btw - a lot of SUVs aren't quite 4WD, or not permanently).

It has the perceived/actual advantages of 4WD motoring (in terms of road manners, say), and not many of the stated inconvenients of SUVs (in terms of pedestrian impact, onwards visibility for followers, height, weight, consumption, emissions, etc.).

So much so that the debate should really be centered upon the size and the use made of those boxes-on-wheels. Or go back to the OP: women driving them

Wibbs

Rodney Trotter wrote:

My point was highlighting the fact that such vehicles are inherently (dynamically and structurally) a hell of lot less safe than any SUV yet there is not one word against their safety.

Just my two cents here. Being hit by a high flat fronted vehicle such as a van is a lot less damaging than being hit by a car(SUV or no) with a projecting bonnet, as there are less torsional stresses on the body. The head will hit the windscreen with less force to boot. In that case a van hitting someone at the same speed will cause less injury. Something low slung such as a sports car will cause the most injury by extension of that. The higher unladen weight of an SUV will make it more dangerous in an accident, both for those it hits and indeed for those in the vehicle itself.

Dynamically a van is no worse and in some cases would be better than any SUV as the center of gravity(unladen) is much lower. Engines and running gear in a van tend to be much lower than 4x4s as the latter need much higher ground clearance for their intended roles. Lower center of gravity=better stability. Hence 4x4s are more likely to roll over at lower speeds than other vehicles. How do you make a dynamically efficient sports car? get the CoG as low to the ground as possible. Simple physics.

In any case as was pointed out a van is a commercial vehicle needed for a specific purpose, so using those vehicles as a debating point is on a hiding to nowhere. If your profession or particular lifestyle choice(horse/boat/caravan etc) requires a 4x4 then the same would apply. I've driven a Land rover in such a capacity myself.

In many cases of 4x4 ownership this would not be the case and this I think is where some of the objection comes from. I myself know some women and men who basically are incapable of handling the extra weight and size of their 4x4's and as such are a danger on the roads. I think that there should be seperate test for cars(all cars) above a certain size. It doesn't need to be too detailed, just enough to find out whether you know where your car ends and the rest of the world starts.

The emisions thing is overblown as we're not dicussing huge Yank tanks here. Some smaller cars out there have hideous fuel consumption figures. Plus every tree hugger I know drives a 10 yr old deisel thinking it's good for the environment. :rolleyes:

Why not? It's because of a stupid begrudgery and an obvious jealousy against certain types of cars.

Personally I don't care what anyone drives within reason(always fancied a sherman tank myself), but there is a certain amount of snobbery on both sides of this debate. The "look at me, I've done well and my fake gucci wife drives my fat kids around in a biiiiiiig car and you're all soooooo jealous", opposing the "won't somebody think of the children/trees/seals/ozones/vegans whatever....MKay". I'm not sure which side I find the more stupid.


Oh and pajero in Spanish means w*nker.

mike65

Jasus, I'm getting a headache just reading this thread.

Rodney Trotter, take a chill pill or leave the thread. Everyone else cool your jets.

Mike.

Rodney Trotter

Sorry Mike, but care to explain why I have been singled out to leave the thread?

If you were moderating correctly you would see it's nothing more than lively debate, but then, this is boards!

vannistelrooy10

thanks for kicking his condasending ass out.
he thiks dublin airport is aproblem with pollution
can he get 100+ into hes jeep
does his jeep create jobs??
and for god sake wat happens if you are behind a commercial vehicle... so ****ing what the poor bloke is trying to make a living doing a service
the only service jeeps do to me and from what i can see here most of ireland is piss me right off.
he(trotter) is a prime example of a jeep driving wanker.
maybe he should get the reliant back!!!

BrianD3

One annoyance about SUVs that I didn't see mentioned - high set headlights blinding other motorists at night. The headlights in jeeps are often higher set than those in vans, trucks and buses.

I am not opposed to jeeps per se but I think extra training/licensing should be required to drive one of the big jeeps. I would have the same feelings about high performance cars. This would be especially important in somewhere like Ireland given the crapness of the standard driver training here.

I actually drive a couple of jeeps myself Landcruiser and Mitsi L200 crew cab. They are needed for towing and off roading. The L200 is an appalling vehicle, anyone who buys one for safety is an idiot. Suspension on them is crude and crap (cart springs at the back) Handling, grip, stability and brakes are all terrible. Feels like it would turn over very easily and if it did I doubt that the puny roof pillars would support the weight of the vehicle. Also, based on my knowledge of safety engineering I'd say the passenger compartment would collapse like tinfoil in a serious head on crash with a solid object. Of course, in a crash with a smaller. lower vehicle the L200 will just ride up and over it and crush it :rolleyes:

One thing that worries me is the attitude fo many SUV drivers. A bit like the old Volvo Tank mentality - "I'll be OK if I have a crash". Note the wording "if I have a crash" not "if some lunatic crashes into me". IOW they are buying the vehicle to protect themeselves if they have a crash *which is their own fault*. I find with these people that they regard crashes as something that happen due to fate/luck/magic and that the only way they can protect themselves from these random events is to buy the biggest tank of an SUV possible :rolleyes: Funnily enough many of the people I know with SUVS have a history of crashing and writing off cars in accidents which were their own fault.

So they go and buy a Landcruiser and everything is grand until they wipe out a family in a Yaris.

Anyhow, to protect myself in case I "have a crash" with a Range Rover I'm off to buy one of these. :rolleyes:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AEC-Reliance-Plaxton-Panorama_W0QQitemZ4579521567QQcategoryZ108850QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Rovi

BrianD3 wrote:

Anyhow, to protect myself in case I "have a crash" with a Range Rover I'm off to buy one of these. :rolleyes:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AEC-Reliance-Plaxton-Panorama_W0QQitemZ4579521567QQcategoryZ108850QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

HA!
I'll see your puny AEC Reliance Plaxton Panorama, and raise you...... the Kenworth Pilgrimage!
Bow down before its mighty awesomeness!



Or, more realistically (as in, this thing REALLY exists :eek: ), the International CXT!
7.6 litres of turbo-diesel power, 6.5 tonnes weight, 6.5 meters long, 2.7 meters high, 5 speed automatic transmission (+high/low range), air brakes with ABS, air conditioning, polished aluminium wheels, etc, etc.

Oh, tow hitch available at extra cost.



.

joolsveer

If someone is going to collide with me I wouldn't like it to be one of these monsters.

BrianD3

If someone is going to collide with me I wouldn't like it to be one of these monsters.

You'll find that the SUV drivers need those bullbars so they can bludgeon their way into an out of parking spaces without causing any damge to *their* vehicle :rolleyes: :mad:

Rodney Trotter

vannistelrooy10 wrote:

thanks for kicking his condasending ass out.
he thiks dublin airport is aproblem with pollution
can he get 100+ into hes jeep
does his jeep create jobs??
and for god sake wat happens if you are behind a commercial vehicle... so ****ing what the poor bloke is trying to make a living doing a service
the only service jeeps do to me and from what i can see here most of ireland is piss me right off.
he(trotter) is a prime example of a jeep driving wanker.
maybe he should get the reliant back!!!

I love you too. You know, an attitude like that will make me definitely trade in my Golf and get an SUV come change-time. It's great to know, when you are driving your SUV, that you can really get up the nose of so many small minded people. Thanks.

NISSAN Patrol it is. If it's good enough for Kofi Annan, it's good enough for me!


(So, if something causes intolerable pollution or inconvenience, it's OK because it's providing jobs? Great. Just the thinking in Bejing at the moment too, coincidentally.)

mike65

Rodney you caught my eye especially but you're are not the only one, vannistelrooy10 you are on thin ice too. I'm happy to hand out bans if you're not willing to moderate your attitude.

Please do not mistake this forum for a school playground or pub carpark.

Mike.

Capt'n Midnight

markkilpatrick wrote:

They feel safer when there higher up for when they crash into something. But they dont realise that there more of a danger to everyone else.

They are NOT safer.
As posted before the risk of rolling over is far heigher
More importantly if they are in a collision they are no safer than in a car in the same price bracket
SUV's are about 6 times more dangerous to other road users than ordinary cars when in a collison

Capt'n Midnight

BrianD3 wrote:

prospect, the trailers don't have to be very large if it's a big jeep that's towing them.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI352Y1999.html

(a) in category B where the drawing vehicle is in category B and the design gross vehicle weight of the trailer does not exceed the unladen weight of the drawing vehicle and the total design gross vehicle weight of the combination does not exceed 3,500 kg,

(b) in category B, C1, C, D1 or D where the drawing vehicle is in category B, C1, C, D1 or D, respectively, and the design gross vehicle weight of the trailer does not exceed 750 kg,

Rodney Trotter

Look at this beauty!



Coming to annoy you in 2007!

Wibbs

Maybe it's just me, but 4x4 debate aside that's just hideous. The grill/lights are a design nightmare. Cover the front up with your thumb and you'll see what I mean. There's no flow to the shape at all. It looks like it's sunk in the middle. The roofline where it meets the windscreen makes it look like it has a squint. Compare and contrast to the Range Rover and see the diff(no pun intended ).

Nelo86

Couldn't be arsed replying to half of the stuff written in this thread.

@Rodney, you made the point that people should have an open mind and be reasonable, yet you fail to accept any of the points that are made. Some even backed up with hard and documented research/evidence. You also seem to think that people hate the people that drive SUVs rather than the vehicles themselves. This may be true in some cases, but not all. This isn't a Socio class war we're having here. It's a (half arsed) debate.

At the end of the day, you can summarises this 5 pages thread into one sentence. If the Jeep does not have a towbar equipped to it, 9 times out of 10 the owner should not be driving it. Simple as.

The reason these blocks of crap even came into prominence in the US was because of tax exemptions brought about under Bill Clinton.

Taken from axisoflogic.com:

---

From Arthur Campbell, Williamsport, PA

Dear Axis:

SUV tax break - Ask Your Tax Accountant

Do you know that you and I are bankrolling about $900,000,000 every year to pay for fat cat’s SUVs? Umhmmm: Landrovers for $72K with the worst gas mileage on the planet and Cadillac Escalades…Hummers. Yep, you, regular Volkswagon-driving, tax-paying dudes. First I’ll explain how it works, and then I want you to write your congressman and senator and get this loophole sealed shut. Deal? And spread the word.

A long time ago, a tax credit was set up with the aim of helping farmers accelerate the depreciation on their pick-up trucks. That’s cool. But this was back when a pick-up truck was actually used for something and was not equipped with air-conditioning., leather seats, or entertainment centres. Heck, we threw stuff in the back and rolled down the windows, staying off the highway as much as possible.

Seems that today’s SUVs are classified as trucks even though we all know that they are just a bloated commuter vehicles. And so long as you are a business owner and buy one that weighs at least 6000 pounds, you are entitled to an immediate write off of as much as $24,000. Are you listening to me? Add to that a bonus deduction of 30% of the rest of the cost until 2004. This is all on top of the regular 5-year depreciation schedule. And that’s current law. Under the new tax code, the write off has been cranked up to $100,000. Ant luxury tax that you an I would pay? Nope, doesn’t apply.

You think I’m kidding don’t’cha?

But it’s true: if you are a business owner, you could easily deduct more than $30,000 this year for a vehicle for which you "paid" $40,000. Uh…the rest of us tax payers make up the difference. The raw facts are that the deduction for driving a dangerous (to all the rest of us) gas-hog is significantly higher than the tax credit allowed for hybrid vehicles -a mere 2-grand.

vannistelrooy10

Rodney Trotter wrote:

Look at this beauty!



Coming to annoy you in 2007!

cant wait to be the first cyclist to scrach the piece of monkey crap at least i know what you will be driving.
whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

i hate 4x4s but your ignorance has just made me hate all ppl in jeeps fair play

mike65

And on that bombshell....

Mike.