We really have no business driving SUVs

[d3n]

Hmm, I use an expedition to haul around my little girls 400lb power wheel chair. The day the government comes for it is the day we have some problems. I would rather drive a minivan or if I could get one that wasnt a death trap a full size van with a decent tongue weight rating. If I can ever get a Sprinter van, that might work. Still. This trend of eco fascism is already having unintended consequences. Mal-investment in 'ethanol has pushed hundreds of thousands even closer to starvation in Africa. Subscribing to carbon credits puts every aspect of my labor under goverments scrutiny and even worse international bureaucrats that I've had no voice in electing

 

[BUTCH1]

Didn't know that full size vans had such a bad safety rating, but you wouldn't
be saving much on gas anyway, might as well keep driving the ford..

 

[HannibalX]

I took my family and some friends down to the lake yesterday along with my 15? boat. No problem launching or recovering the boat since my Explorer has 4WD-Low. Getting to and from the lake was easy as well. After that I went and helped my friend move a large wardrobe from the antique shop. With the rear seats folded down it slid right in the back with the tail gate closed. Later that evening I took a group of five adults out for dinner. I guess we could have taken two cars but that would have used more gas; since we live close I just drove everyone. After a nice evening I hit the sack, got up early and loaded about 500 lbs of concrete into the back of my Explorer and headed over to my friend?s house to help build a new foundation for his utility shed.

I can?t do all these things with a 2-door Focus hatch back. Sorry.

Yes, I love my SUV. Yes, I use my SUV. No, I'm not getting rid of it. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Oh and PS. If you don't approve of my "lifestyle", how I spend my time, how I spend my money or think that I don't "need" to do the things I do, I have just two words for you: Fuck off.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: senseamp


You can't go riding with three friends and 4 dogs in a 5 seater SUV either, Einstein.

Sure you can.

Two bikes on the roof rack, two bikes attached to the tailgate, four seats for four people, two dogs in the remaining seat and two dogs in the cargo area. Or if you have a large SUV like an Expedition or Tahoe all the dogs in the cargo area along with the cooler full of brew, charcoal grill, boogie boards, camping tent, etc, etc.

I take trips like this all the time with my buddies and our dogs.

I live in the mountains. My state has something like 50 state parks all with great hiking, climbing, lakes, camping, etc, etc.

 

[aphex]

What an amazingly ignorant thread topic.

</lawn chair>

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I took my family and some friends down to the lake yesterday along with my 15? boat. No problem launching or recovering the boat since my Explorer has 4WD-Low. Getting to and from the lake was easy as well. After that I went and helped my friend move a large wardrobe from the antique shop. With the rear seats folded down it slid right in the back with the tail gate closed. Later that evening I took a group of five adults out for dinner. I guess we could have taken two cars but that would have used more gas; since we live close I just drove everyone. After a nice evening I hit the sack, got up early and loaded about 500 lbs of concrete into the back of my Explorer and headed over to my friend?s house to help build a new foundation for his utility shed.

I can?t do all these things with a 2-door Focus hatch back. Sorry.

Yes, I love my SUV. Yes, I use my SUV. No, I'm not getting rid of it. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Oh and PS. If you don't approve of my "lifestyle", how I spend my time, how I spend my money or think that I don't "need" to do the things I do, I have just two words for you: Fuck off.

At least in you case, it's being used as it was intended. Getting rid of it would make no
sense all since it fits your lifestyle so well and trade-in on them right now is so low. I
guess it all comes down to personal choice, the do-it-all capability of the SUV vs the
extra $$$ it takes to run it. Possibly a situation where rental co's pick up on the need
of people for a large vehicle at times and have them available. I will be buying some
plywood this week so I'll rent a truck @home depot by the hour..

 

[rh71]

^ seriously who are you to say "at least it's being used" and deem it necessary? Should everyone stop, get out, and explain to you why they have one? You don't know jack about the SUV you were driving behind this morning. Should I bitch & moan about my neighbors who have a pool and never use it? How about the size of their house when there's only 2 people in it? What exactly is the word I'm looking for? I know it can't be jealousy that people think others shouldn't have what they do... what's the word here??? I'm at a loss for this phenomenon.

Save trees, you don't really need that plywood, do you?

Hell, everyone stop buying cars every 2-3 years while we're at it... these things last much longer than that. What a waste of resources. :roll:

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: rh71
^ seriously who are you to say "at least it's being used" and deem it necessary? Should everyone stop, get out, and explain to you why they have one? You don't know jack about the SUV you were driving behind this morning. Should I bitch & moan about my neighbors who have a pool and never use it? How about the size of their house when there's only 2 people in it? What exactly is the word I'm looking for? I know it can't be jealousy that people think others shouldn't have what they do... what's the word here??? I'm at a loss for this phenomenon.

Save trees, you don't really need that plywood, do you?

Hell, everyone stop buying cars every 2-3 years while we're at it... these things last much longer than that. What a waste of resources. :roll:

This topic always descends to that level, regardless of how many people state what you correctly state. Not much you can do about it, rh71.

 

[spaceman]

you drive what you can afford.
the more gas you burn, the more in taxes you pay. pretty simple.
if you dont care what fuel costs or dont need to care, rock on.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
As someone who's lived in Ohio their entire life, which has relatively temperate winters except for 2-3 days of blizzard:

SUVs are an investment for the days that you will need them. Of course, this isn't true everywhere in the country, but for me its a necessity. It's short-sighted and irresponsible to bet that I can just stay in those three days. Any number of things could happen (and have happened) that would require me to go out irregardless of the weather conditions.

You don't need an SUV for winter driving. I grew up in upstate NY and my first car was a SAAB 99LE with a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine. There is no better car in the snow that that car IMO. It is simply brilliant. Put snow tires on it and it's even better. You're high on fucking crack if you believe that you need a 4WD SUV to get you through the white stuff.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Taxes aren't killing this country. Inefficient government is and idiotic Americans who think only of themselves are killing this country. We actually have one of the lowest tax rates of any modern country.

So, by your logic, since our taxes are somewhat less ridiculous than most other countries, we should raise them? Just because other countries are worse than we are in terms of taxation does not mean that our taxes are not too high.

Yes, we are relatively better off than most countries from a taxation standpoint. However, in absolute terms, our taxes are still excessive. You can't use the fact that things are worse somewhere else to justify a bad situation here.

ZV

If taxes were "killing" this country then every other country with higher taxes would have been dead long ago. It's a stupid statement and one that needed to be put into context. Whether or not those taxes are justified or appropriate is another matter.

One could argue, and I would argue, that those countries _are_ effectively dead. Once an economic system hits socialism, it's dead. Innovation is stifled and overall progress grinds to a halt. The country, as a geopolitical entity, may linger and circle the drain for decades, even centuries, but that's just involuntary twitching.

ZV

I would argue that innovation is dead in this country. Look at stem cell research, look at hybrid and alternative fuel sources. We are way behind and it's because we've been led to believe that oil is the future and that ridiculous christian conservative thinking is what we should all believe.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
As someone who's lived in Ohio their entire life, which has relatively temperate winters except for 2-3 days of blizzard:

SUVs are an investment for the days that you will need them. Of course, this isn't true everywhere in the country, but for me its a necessity. It's short-sighted and irresponsible to bet that I can just stay in those three days. Any number of things could happen (and have happened) that would require me to go out irregardless of the weather conditions.

You don't need an SUV for winter driving. I grew up in upstate NY and my first car was a SAAB 99LE with a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine. There is no better car in the snow that that car IMO. It is simply brilliant. Put snow tires on it and it's even better. You're high on fucking crack if you believe that you need a 4WD SUV to get you through the white stuff.

Truth. Some friends of ours who live in Toronto drive an Acura sedan. They just throw on some snow tires on every winter and get by just fine.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: rh71
^ seriously who are you to say "at least it's being used" and deem it necessary? Should everyone stop, get out, and explain to you why they have one? You don't know jack about the SUV you were driving behind this morning. Should I bitch & moan about my neighbors who have a pool and never use it? How about the size of their house when there's only 2 people in it? What exactly is the word I'm looking for? I know it can't be jealousy that people think others shouldn't have what they do... what's the word here??? I'm at a loss for this phenomenon.

Save trees, you don't really need that plywood, do you?

Hell, everyone stop buying cars every 2-3 years while we're at it... these things last much longer than that. What a waste of resources. :roll:

Pale Rider's post justified his own vehicle usage. It's not for me or anyone else to suggest what that might be. I guess it was
refreshing to this type of vehicle used for it's intended purpose instead of an ego-inflation tool that fetches groceries. Disgust
with waste is a completely different animal then jealousy, OK?.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

I would argue that innovation is dead in this country. Look at stem cell research, look at hybrid and alternative fuel sources. We are way behind and it's because we've been led to believe that oil is the future and that ridiculous christian conservative thinking is what we should all believe.

we don't have socialist spending for stem cell research (nevermind that lots of breakthroughs are being made without the assistance of the federal government), so that means we're not innovating? i'm sure boeing doesn't have a carbon fiber airliner anywhere. and there surely isn't tons of money pouring into alternative fuel sources in this country.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

I would argue that innovation is dead in this country. Look at stem cell research, look at hybrid and alternative fuel sources. We are way behind and it's because we've been led to believe that oil is the future and that ridiculous christian conservative thinking is what we should all believe.

we don't have socialist spending for stem cell research (nevermind that lots of breakthroughs are being made without the assistance of the federal government), so that means we're not innovating? i'm sure boeing doesn't have a carbon fiber airliner anywhere. and there surely isn't tons of money pouring into alternative fuel sources in this country.

We're way behind in this area though. Japan has had hybrids on the roads here for 10 years now and even longer in Japan. We are playing catch up and just beginning to embrace smaller more efficient cars which is something we should have been doing at least a decade ago. Hell, you would think we'd have learned this after the oil crisis of the 1970s.

High gas prices were inevitable and our economy is largely reactionary which means we are addressing the problem after it has already happened. This causes a lot of pain for a lot of people and it didn't have to be this way.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we don't have socialist spending for stem cell research (nevermind that lots of breakthroughs are being made without the assistance of the federal government), so that means we're not innovating? i'm sure boeing doesn't have a carbon fiber airliner anywhere. and there surely isn't tons of money pouring into alternative fuel sources in this country.

We're way behind in this area though. Japan has had hybrids on the roads here for 10 years now and even longer in Japan. We are playing catch up and just beginning to embrace smaller more efficient cars which is something we should have been doing at least a decade ago. Hell, you would think we'd have learned this after the oil crisis of the 1970s.

High gas prices were inevitable and our economy is largely reactionary which means we are addressing the problem after it has already happened. This causes a lot of pain for a lot of people and it didn't have to be this way.

ok, US manufacturers are behind on hybrids, but not by much. so is every other manufacturer but toyota (and at least i can go and buy a ford hybrid). what does that have to do with the US economic system? and what does that have to do with what you bolded?


yes, it did have to be this way, unless we were to tax gasoline at $4 a gallon, and you and i both know that wasn't going to happen.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The rest of the world doesn't appear to need them nor do they want them. I've spent the last week or so in Spain and now Portugal and you see very very few SUVs and almost no pickup trucks.

Wake up America, time to be reasonable and stop wasting the world's resources.

Don't you live in California? Do you know how much gas you wasted (at least contributed to) going to Europe for vacation?????

 

[MixMasterTang]

The Boeing 777 consumes only 14.4 Imperial gallons per engine per minute. Assuming 12 hours in each direction the plane consumed 20,736 imperial gallons for the entire trip. That is ~25,000 US gallons. So assuming around 300 passengers and equal division for fuel consumption between all passengers, each person of your family that you brought along consumed around 83.3 gallons. If it were only you and your wife on the trip then that would be ~167 gallons. An SUV that averages 17.5 MPG over the course of a year would consume 685 gallons if a person drove 12,000 miles. A car getting 25 mpg would consume ab out 205 less gallons a year. So for your two week vacation you've used up the yearly savings of a normal person switching from a SUV to a mid-sized sedan.

(this post was meant to be humorous, so you can debate it all you want but it was meant in jest)

Edit: I also noticed that my math was based only on 1 of the 2 Engines of the 777, so most of my math can be doubled, but I'm sure you get the point from the initial numbers so I won't bother modifying them.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: dug777


Anything over 750kg has to be a braked trailer here, a

I wish it was like that in the States. Maybe it would keep some of the idiots off the road.

I'm not sure on the limit but I've seen people that push 8-10k loads with out trailer brakes.

Thats why the bigger truck is needed here. I don't see many trailers for sale unless they are heavy duty tandems or tri axles that have brakes.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The rest of the world doesn't appear to need them nor do they want them. I've spent the last week or so in Spain and now Portugal and you see very very few SUVs and almost no pickup trucks.

Wake up America, time to be reasonable and stop wasting the world's resources.

Don't you live in California? Do you know how much gas you wasted (at least contributed to) going to Europe for vacation?????

What it cost in fuel was more than made up for by the experience gained. Besides, the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria were in dry dock for maintenance.

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang
The Boeing 777 consumes only 14.4 Imperial gallons per engine per minute. Assuming 12 hours in each direction the plane consumed 20,736 imperial gallons for the entire trip. That is ~25,000 US gallons. So assuming around 300 passengers and equal division for fuel consumption between all passengers, each person of your family that you brought along consumed around 83.3 gallons. If it were only you and your wife on the trip then that would be ~167 gallons. An SUV that averages 17.5 MPG over the course of a year would consume 685 gallons if a person drove 12,000 miles. A car getting 25 mpg would consume ab out 205 less gallons a year. So for your two week vacation you've used up the yearly savings of a normal person switching from a SUV to a mid-sized sedan.

(this post was meant to be humorous, so you can debate it all you want but it was meant in jest)

Edit: I also noticed that my math was based only on 1 of the 2 Engines of the 777, so most of my math can be doubled, but I'm sure you get the point from the initial numbers so I won't bother modifying them.

More like 350 passengers. Besides, the plane would have made that trip with or without me, and if I wasn't on it, someone else would have been.

 

[hpkeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Bit trucks and SUVs are only safer at expense of others safety. They are not contributing to overall safety. Two Sierras colliding are not going to be safer for occupants than two Rabbits colliding, and I'd rather roll a Rabbit than have the weight of a GMC Sierra on top of me, especially since an SUV is more likely to roll in the first place.
Certainly most Americans don't care about anyone but themselves, which is why high gas prices are so precious. Economics is making people do what common sense couldn't. Sure there are still going to be people who can afford to drive trucks for daily driver, but they are going to be a minority, especially in the urban areas where I live. They are going back to the redneck vehicle status they had before the whole SUV and off roader craze. I hope you plan on keeping you SUV for a long time, or you are going to get hosed on trade in.

Well you got me... that's the full intention of my purpose in buying an SUV, I look for the trade in value( /sarcasm ). I don't know about you, but I buy my vehicle drive it. I couldn't care less about the trade value... and of course I plan on keeping my vehicle for a long time... which is why i WON'T get hosed in trade in because by the time I plan on trading it, my vehicles will owe me nothing... what I get for it beyond my payments is gravy in my opinion. I also don't like having a payment... so any time that my vehicle is running beyond my payments is also gravy.

MY safety is coming at MY expense... not the expense of others, are they making payments on my vehicle and I don't know it??? It's not my fault they opted to buy a smaller vehicle... their safety is at their own expense. You want to buy a small vehicle and get 40 miles to the gallon? that's fine, But you gamble with the inherent risk that someone bigger is going to clobber you in an accident.

Sierra vs. Sierra
Sierra vs. Rabbit
Rabbit vs. Rabbit
Rabbit vs. Sierra

I like my chances in the big vehicle all the way around. I'll take the wrinkle room over MPG.

So what if Statistically SUV's have a higher roll over rate?

I hear this point a lot...

is there a statistically higher death rate because SUV's rolls over more frequently? or...? I mean bring a little more substance to your point if you're going to bring it up.

*knock on wood* mine never has rolled, or even approached two wheels... Nor have I ever seen an SUV roll. So the statistics may be higher, but in the grand scheme of things I believe that statistic to be rather negiligible if you're a driver that isn't an idiot. I just choose to drive my vehicle more efficiently and not go 90 around a corner, I'm aware of my vehicles capabilities and generally try to stay within them. Bigger may not be better for fuel efficiency, but I'm still going to take my chances in the bigger vehicle with safety.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

I would argue that innovation is dead in this country. Look at stem cell research, look at hybrid and alternative fuel sources. We are way behind and it's because we've been led to believe that oil is the future and that ridiculous christian conservative thinking is what we should all believe.

we don't have socialist spending for stem cell research (nevermind that lots of breakthroughs are being made without the assistance of the federal government), so that means we're not innovating? i'm sure boeing doesn't have a carbon fiber airliner anywhere. and there surely isn't tons of money pouring into alternative fuel sources in this country.

We're way behind in this area though. Japan has had hybrids on the roads here for 10 years now and even longer in Japan. We are playing catch up and just beginning to embrace smaller more efficient cars which is something we should have been doing at least a decade ago. Hell, you would think we'd have learned this after the oil crisis of the 1970s.

High gas prices were inevitable and our economy is largely reactionary which means we are addressing the problem after it has already happened. This causes a lot of pain for a lot of people and it didn't have to be this way.

I always thought that the vast majority of alternative fuel research has been coming out of this country, at least everytime I read an article on the subject they're always based somewhere in the US.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: hpkeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp

Bit trucks and SUVs are only safer at expense of others safety. They are not contributing to overall safety. Two Sierras colliding are not going to be safer for occupants than two Rabbits colliding, and I'd rather roll a Rabbit than have the weight of a GMC Sierra on top of me, especially since an SUV is more likely to roll in the first place.
Certainly most Americans don't care about anyone but themselves, which is why high gas prices are so precious. Economics is making people do what common sense couldn't. Sure there are still going to be people who can afford to drive trucks for daily driver, but they are going to be a minority, especially in the urban areas where I live. They are going back to the redneck vehicle status they had before the whole SUV and off roader craze. I hope you plan on keeping you SUV for a long time, or you are going to get hosed on trade in.

Well you got me... that's the full intention of my purpose in buying an SUV, I look for the trade in value( /sarcasm ). I don't know about you, but I buy my vehicle drive it. I couldn't care less about the trade value... and of course I plan on keeping my vehicle for a long time... which is why i WON'T get hosed in trade in because by the time I plan on trading it, my vehicles will owe me nothing... what I get for it beyond my payments is gravy in my opinion. I also don't like having a payment... so any time that my vehicle is running beyond my payments is also gravy.

MY safety is coming at MY expense... not the expense of others, are they making payments on my vehicle and I don't know it??? It's not my fault they opted to buy a smaller vehicle... their safety is at their own expense. You want to buy a small vehicle and get 40 miles to the gallon? that's fine, But you gamble with the inherent risk that someone bigger is going to clobber you in an accident.

Sierra vs. Sierra
Sierra vs. Rabbit
Rabbit vs. Rabbit
Rabbit vs. Sierra

I like my chances in the big vehicle all the way around. I'll take the wrinkle room over MPG.

So what if Statistically SUV's have a higher roll over rate?

I hear this point a lot...

is there a statistically higher death rate because SUV's rolls over more frequently? or...? I mean bring a little more substance to your point if you're going to bring it up.

*knock on wood* mine never has rolled, or even approached two wheels... Nor have I ever seen an SUV roll. So the statistics may be higher, but in the grand scheme of things I believe that statistic to be rather negiligible if you're a driver that isn't an idiot. I just choose to drive my vehicle more efficiently and not go 90 around a corner, I'm aware of my vehicles capabilities and generally try to stay within them. Bigger may not be better for fuel efficiency, but I'm still going to take my chances in the bigger vehicle with safety.

Yes, there definitely is.

SUV WARNING LABEL

-Manufacturers are required to place this warning label in each sport utility by the driver, usually on the driver's visor.

"This is a multipurpose passenger vehicle which will handle and maneuver differently from an ordinary passenger car, in driving conditions which may occur on streets and highways and off road.

As with other vehicles of this type, if you make sharp turns or abrupt maneuvers, the vehicle may roll over or may go out of control and crash. You should read driving guidelines and instructions in the Owner's Manual, and wear your seat belt at all times."

Why do you suppose they are required to place these warning labels in them?

Sport utility vehicles have the highest rate of deaths occurring in rollovers.

Text

By far the deadliest risk facing SUV, minivan, and truck occupants is a rollover accident. According to NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), more than 280,000 rollover accidents are reported each year, claiming more than 10,000 lives annually.

Because of a higher center of gravity, SUVs are more prone to rollover accidents than typical sedans.

In 2003, 35.7 percent of fatal SUV crashes resulted in a rollover. That same year just 15.8 of fatal passenger car accidents resulted in a rollover. What this statistic points out is the fact that SUVs are much more likely to rollover in a serious accidents. Compounding the issue is the fact that SUVs often carry heavy loads with make them even more top-heavy and thus are more likely to be involved in rollover accidents.

Text

People believe that the bigger their vehicle, the safer they are. That perception has propelled the SUV industry into one of the fastest growing car markets in the United States. Unfortunately, that perception is not correct. SUV's, have a disturbing tendency to roll over which results in more serious accidents. Just about every make and model of SUV's have this problem.

The government requires SUVs to display a warning label telling drivers that the vehicle may rollover when they make a sharp turn which is exactly the type of a maneuver a driver may take in order to avoid an accident. According to the National Highway Safety Administration, SUVs roll over more than twice the rate of other vehicles. Warning drivers that their vehicle may rollover if they make a sharp turn is not enough, the basic flawed design needs to be changed.

What causes SUVS to flip and rollover? SUVs have a higher center of gravity because they are taller, have higher ground clearance and a narrower distance between their wheels. This higher center of gravity makes it easier for SUVs to tip over. In fact, the heavier the vehicle, which SUVs tend to be, the more likely the vehicle will tip over. A roll over bar provides some protection in the event of a roller yet many SUV manufacturers have taken them out of the SUVs since they are predominantly driven by families.

Don't be fooled by ratings given to SUV. The tests provided by the manufacturers were conducted by professional drivers with lightly loaded SUVs which have little to do with how an ordinary driver with a car full of kids would react in the same situation. Even an SUV with a five-star crash rating still has a 10% chance of rolling over in a single-vehicle crash. When drivers of SUVs lose control their vehicles, their vehicles tend to flip over more often than passenger cars; their passengers can be ejected which likely results in death. More than half (53%) of passenger deaths in SUVs occurred in rollover accidents.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
As someone who's lived in Ohio their entire life, which has relatively temperate winters except for 2-3 days of blizzard:

SUVs are an investment for the days that you will need them. Of course, this isn't true everywhere in the country, but for me its a necessity. It's short-sighted and irresponsible to bet that I can just stay in those three days. Any number of things could happen (and have happened) that would require me to go out irregardless of the weather conditions.

You don't need an SUV for winter driving. I grew up in upstate NY and my first car was a SAAB 99LE with a 2.0L 4 cylinder engine. There is no better car in the snow that that car IMO. It is simply brilliant. Put snow tires on it and it's even better. You're high on fucking crack if you believe that you need a 4WD SUV to get you through the white stuff.

Truth. Some friends of ours who live in Toronto drive an Acura sedan. They just throw on some snow tires on every winter and get by just fine.

Toronto doesn't really get much snow... I know since I live here I do have snow tires for my 2002 Protege5 though.

To be on topic. I think the hate is for the ones that drive the SUV just because they want to drive an SUV. in other worlds the Urban ones. I see quite a few Hammers here and I just laugh.

 

[Pariah]

By far the deadliest risk facing SUV, minivan, and truck occupants is a rollover accident. According to NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), more than 280,000 rollover accidents are reported each year, claiming more than 10,000 lives annually.

Because of a higher center of gravity, SUVs are more prone to rollover accidents than typical sedans.

In 2003, 35.7 percent of fatal SUV crashes resulted in a rollover. That same year just 15.8 of fatal passenger car accidents resulted in a rollover. What this statistic points out is the fact that SUVs are much more likely to rollover in a serious accidents. Compounding the issue is the fact that SUVs often carry heavy loads with make them even more top-heavy and thus are more likely to be involved in rollover accidents.

...

People believe that the bigger their vehicle, the safer they are. That perception has propelled the SUV industry into one of the fastest growing car markets in the United States. Unfortunately, that perception is not correct. SUV's, have a disturbing tendency to roll over which results in more serious accidents. Just about every make and model of SUV's have this problem.

The government requires SUVs to display a warning label telling drivers that the vehicle may rollover when they make a sharp turn which is exactly the type of a maneuver a driver may take in order to avoid an accident. According to the National Highway Safety Administration, SUVs roll over more than twice the rate of other vehicles. Warning drivers that their vehicle may rollover if they make a sharp turn is not enough, the basic flawed design needs to be changed.

What causes SUVS to flip and rollover? SUVs have a higher center of gravity because they are taller, have higher ground clearance and a narrower distance between their wheels. This higher center of gravity makes it easier for SUVs to tip over. In fact, the heavier the vehicle, which SUVs tend to be, the more likely the vehicle will tip over. A roll over bar provides some protection in the event of a roller yet many SUV manufacturers have taken them out of the SUVs since they are predominantly driven by families.

Don't be fooled by ratings given to SUV. The tests provided by the manufacturers were conducted by professional drivers with lightly loaded SUVs which have little to do with how an ordinary driver with a car full of kids would react in the same situation. Even an SUV with a five-star crash rating still has a 10% chance of rolling over in a single-vehicle crash. When drivers of SUVs lose control their vehicles, their vehicles tend to flip over more often than passenger cars; their passengers can be ejected which likely results in death. More than half (53%) of passenger deaths in SUVs occurred in rollover accidents.

Misleading at best, just inaccurate at worst. Yes, SUV's are more likely to rollover, but the fearmonger links above greatly exaggerate the real world threat to passengers. According to the gov't, in 2002, 3% of the total number of accidents were rollovers. Taken a step further:

Warning drivers that their vehicle may rollover if they make a sharp turn is not enough, the basic flawed design needs to be changed.

Again, from gov't crash statistics:

"Un-tripped rollovers are less common than tripped rollovers, occurring less than 5% of the time, and mostly to top-heavy vehicles. Instead of an object serving as a tripping mechanism, un-tripped rollovers usually occur during high-speed collision avoidance maneuvers."

So, the flawed design of SUV's contributes to 5% out of the 3% of accidents that are rollovers or 0.15% of total accidents. That is a very small percentage to be making such a big deal about.

The tests provided by the manufacturers were conducted by professional drivers with lightly loaded SUVs which have little to do with how an ordinary driver with a car full of kids would react in the same situation.

Manufacturers don't provide crash ratings, the NHTSA does, and straight from their faq:

"The dynamic maneuvering test uses a heavily loaded vehicle, to represent a five-occupant load, and a full tank of gas."

So again, simply false information being provided from the links above.


Oh, and while we're using warning labels as evidence of anything. Here is one on the Dodge Viper:

"The back seat is the safest place for children."