SUVs, what are they good for?

...see you and I have something in common - predictability.

True...

Obviously, we need more advertisements decrying SUVs.
Higher taxes at the gas pump might fund more research, but what we need is proper behavior. Better living through advertising.

From http://salon.com/news/col/huff/2002/10/22/oil/index.html

Last week, talking to my friend Scott Burns, co-creator of the "Got Milk?" campaign, I was delighted to hear that he already had two ad scripts ready to go. The first one feels like an old Slim Fast commercial. Instead of "I lost 50 pounds in two weeks" the ad cuts to different people in their SUVs: "I gassed 40,000 Kurds," "I helped hijack an airplane," "I helped blow up a nightclub," and then in unison: "We did it all by driving to work in our SUVs."

The second, which opens on a man at a gas station, features a cute kid's voice-over throughout: "This is George." Then we see a close-up of a gas pump. "This is the gas George buys for his car." Next we see a guy in a suit. "This is the oil company executive who makes money on the gas George buys." Close-up on al-Qaida training film footage: "This is the terrorist organization supported by money from the country where the oil company does business." It's followed by footage of 9/11: "We all know what this is." And it closes on a wide shot of bumper-to-bumper traffic: "The biggest weapon of mass destruction is parked in your driveway."

Remember when SUVs used to be called mini-vans?

The funny thing about the cartoon (above) is that it's not too far off the mark. Shortly after 9/11, a NY Times reporter had the temerity to interview people checking out the news SUVs at a lot in New Jersey. She asked them about gas consumption, and the response from one guy was the it was his patriotic duty to consume a lot of gas. Especially after 9/11...

To ride a motorcycle i need a special class endoursement on my license. Why not do the same for SUVs? SUVs are vehicles with alot of weight, power, and breaking distance and not alot of manuverability. I think that SUVs like the ford expedition, Lincoln Navigator should require a licence endourcement to operate. The same could be said for large pickup trucks too. Although large pickup trucks server more of a purpose than large SUVs, special training should be taken for those who want to operate them.

Not a bad idea and welcome, blubomber. Certainly you know how to drop a bomb. McGentrix isn't considering the thousands of these vehicles I see every day speeding along Orange Country highways with one person in them. I have clients who have them -- they do not go hunting and camping in them, their kids are grown up and gone -- they buy them as a status symbol. Keeping up with the Joneses and burying us deeper into the dependency on foreign oil.

Blubomber: because most SUVs aren't THAT big, and take no additional skill to drive, like a motorcycle. They Do have different license classifications, and SUVs don't fall into a different class than a passenger car. Besides, they make certain passenger cars that weigh as much as a standard SUV.

I have had a lot of cars in my life, since I was slow to catch on that buying lots of cars wasn't wise, and buying some real estate could be...but never mind, most of my cars are or would have been in deep trouble in any accident with the big ones now, suvs, trucks, humongous sedans.

Here's an article in today's NYT you guys might enjoy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/business/media/15ADCO.html


"S.U.V. Owners Fight Back
By FARA WARNER


LEDGLING association of owners of sport utility vehicles is taking aim at their critics with a swipe at anti-S.U.V. advertising campaigns.

The Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America began running an ad yesterday in regional editions of USA Today titled "What Does Jesús (Rivera) Drive?" The ad is intended to increase the membership of the owner's group and promote its Web site, www.suvoa.com, which offers facts and figures in support of S.U.V. ownership. The Web site carries ads from automakers including the Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, but the group says it does not otherwise accept money from the auto industry.

The black-and-white ad, which features a middle-aged man who happens to be named Jesús, grinning as he leans against an indistinguishable brand of S.U.V., is a direct hit at a campaign created by 90 religious leaders last year called "What Would Jesus Drive?" "

This closing paragraph comes shortly after the newspaper noted that SUVOA does not, in its advertising campaign, address the issues of vehicle performance and safety. And, of course, no one is telling Mr. Vines what kind of car he can drive. A classic conservative defense of selfish behavior--his rights are infringed because someone is "telling" him what kind of car he can drive. No, Mr. Vines, others are simply pointing out what an idiot you are for driving what you choose to drive--a perfectly normal and very American activity.

At least they have a choice. We dont have a choice in the air we breath or a choice of vehicle in a road accident.

You cant deny the fact people are dying from the carcinogens found in the air we breath.

You cant deny the fact people are more likely to die in crash with a SUV. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows that when a car is hit by a SUV, the car is the loser. A UMTRI(University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute) study shows that when an SUV strikes a passenger car in a frontal crash, there are five fatalities in the car for each fatality in the sport utility vehicle; and when an SUV strikes a passenger car on the side, there are 30 fatalities in the car for each fatality in the SUV.

Although i'm certain that Frolic does not mean me in the constant use of you in that last post, i am curious at such passion about SUV's emanating from Flanders' fields--not taking offense, just wondering.

By the way, i drive a '95 Jeep Cherokee. The jeep is the original "SUV." My Ol' Bessie gets excellent gas mileage with her four-cylinder engine, and she weighs about as much as a mid-sized passenger car, and considerably less than a large passenger car. Because her center of gravity is higher than most sedans, one does want to avoid sudden, sharp cornering, although i've never felt the least inclination in her to roll over. I've noted many times how the Ford Explorers of ten years ago are only slightly larger than my Bessie, but that they've gotten insanely large since then. Fot this, i blame the Cadillac Escalade, which upped the ante--and made sheer size an ego trip for the SUV owner. And, of course, as so many here have noted, almost none of these behemoths ever has a speck of mud on them, because their owners dont' buy them for offroading, or because they will be driving on unimproved roads. They buy them, plain and simple, for show.

Slap is absolutely wrong to say that anyone who wishes to be sitting up higher to see traffic is tail-gating. I've had pick-ups, vans or jeeps for years. Given that most drivers are thoughtless idiots, i appreciate being able to see several vehicles ahead and behind because i sit higher off the pavement. It affords me more time to react to the inevitably reckless stupidity of my fellow drivers.

Remember when SUVs used to be called Jeeps?

Most of your arguments are not compelling. SUVs are no worse, in gas mileage than many other cars . The resurgence of the muscle car is showing the world what wasting fuel is all about. (And the leader of fuel wasting muscle cars are the Euriopeans , not the US) A Frerrari Enzo gets about 4 mpg. (Its reason for being is?).

The argument that , it is immoral to own a car thats more survivable than another , is totally bogus. If you wish to drive at breakneck speeds in a pocket rocket that will certainly entomb you when you plow into someone in an SUV, is not the fault or moral shortsightedness of the SUV driver. I try to be a good defensive driver. I find that the Avoidance of impacts is always a preferred condition.
If one occurs, I want to be in the most survivable of the two vehicles. This is not jousting , wherein we must be evenly accoutered

Actually, I never said that. I'm laughing at people who complain they can't see around SUVs on the road. My point is if you can't see around the car in front of you, then you're tailgaiting them. On the other hand, I think people who feel they are "safer" from sitting up high like you pointed out, have a false sense of security, because a vehicle with a higher center of gravity is NOT safer. So when you actually have to stop in an emergency, your SUV/truck takes longer to stop, and doesn't handle as well as most cars. I've never had a problem, because I couldn't "see far down the road." If you give yourself enough room between the car in front of you, then you'll be ok.

And I've driven pretty much every kind of vehicle....I'm not a fan of SUVs, but the whole argument against them is kind of ridiculous.

How about these arguments (made earlier in this thread): They use too much gas and they're dangerous in crashes--both to the occupants of the SUV and the poor fools in the other vehicle?

"They use too much gas."
That's too general of a statement. A Honda CRV or Toyota RAV-4 are "SUV's," and they get the same fuel economy a mid sized car gets. And what's "too much gas???"
Are you against people driving Ford Mustangs, Camaros, BMW 540's, 740's, M-B V8 models, pickup trucks, vans, ect, ect, ect.....there's so many non-SUVs that get terrible gas mileage too.

And dangerous in a crash. So are little sh!tbox Kia/Hyundai economy models. So are motorcycles. Should we ban those, too? Maybe everybody should be allowed only to drive a Toyota Camry?

There's so many different models/styles of vehicles. Nothing wrong with constantly improving economy of all of them, but you're NEVER going to crush America's love for 4X4's. As long as there's demand, they'll produce them. And like I said earlier, the trend is going towards SUVs that are more carlike, with lower bumpers and better crash rating. So they do keep improving. No matter what, you're always going to find people complaining about what they don't agree with.