Who killed the Electric Car?

[Vox]

The 12 mile range times are over my friend. Btw. MORE EFFICIENT WAYS vs. ELECTRO CAR = conspiracy.

WHY do they reckon their fuel burning shit is better than the electro alternative? Because they can earn more money. Thats why. Thats why they lie about everything. Also about aliens.

 

[Lord 342]

Show me these cars please.
There are 50-MPG gas, diesel, and Hybrid cars that are hugely easier to run than electrics and all have massive ranges, like 400-800 miles. The diesels are especially popular in Europe, not because everyone there drives long distances like in America, but because it's pretty damn cool to only have to fuel your car once a month.
Read my posts fully. The cars had a usable range. But in cold weather, like ANY battery ever created, the cell potential will drop massively. This is simple physics and cannot be avoided.

 

[brandons1313]

I guess because I am an American, I am lazy.

Come on people, not all Americans drive SUVs. I drive an 87 Honda Accord POS. Nobody in my family has a SUV. My dad has a Chevy Silverado that he needs quite often to transport building materials for his new house or to tow his camping trailer. I actually see more Honda and Toyota cars on the road than SUVs (Around here that is). But I see your point. I see a lot of 'Soccer Moms' driving around H2s, Cadillac Escalades, and Suburbans when they do not need to (I think it is a status symbol to them or something).

As for the electric car, it would be a great thing if there were better methods of storing electricity. 60 mile range would not cut it around here. I know lots of people who have to travel 25-60+ miles to Boeing, Microsoft or wherever the fuck they have to work (I am lucky to have only a 7.5 mile commute to Boeing). Combined with the rain, cold, and fucking horrendous traffic, electrical cars just wouldn’t cut it around here unless you had a really short commute to places. I would love to see more ethanol powered cars and more ethanol pumps around here but sadly I don’t see ethanol become really serious here for at least another 5 years.

 

[zioburosky13]

A solid proof that America is killing the world by using a SUV

 

[Roshambo]

The Hybrid car did not bomb because Americans are "Lazy". The Electric car is not feasable. What about a 12-mile range in cold weather is hard to understand?

They make "cold climate" versions of SUVs and 4x4s...somewhere in Mexico. (It's no wonder that they operate like shit anyways.) Because they recognize that most of the trucks they sell in the Lower 48 can't stand the extreme cold.

However, much of the US is NOT in a cold climate, so that argument by the manufacturers is kind of crap. They would be immensely helpful in intra-city travel, like bicycles.

But have you ever seen the reaction from a lazy American who is told they should take a bike or bus to work instead of their car? Forget it, ego and laziness/stupidity wins, every time, as those transportations are considered "for the poor". Americans since the 50's have expected to drive large vehicles, everyone else be damned. Oops, until the 70's. Too bad most yuppies are too young to remember any of that and too stupid to learn from history. Since it came before their time = doesn't exist. Unless there's a Fox News Special about it = doesn't exist. These are the kind of untermenschen we're talking about, who decide what the auto makers make based upon what is popular, NOT what is most efficient or practical.

Now that people will buy hybrids as some sort of elitist smuggery, in response to the SUVs, there's now a market for them.

That is an unacceptable range for any vehicle, as is the inability to ever stay anywhere overnight because you are tied to your home charging equipment.

Well, if it's to someone's house that has a similar car, then it isn't much of a problem.

Or it could be the indication to rent a gas-powered or hybrid if your plans are to go out of town/away from a charging station. THEN it might be practical to rent an SUV.

For everyday use, no, there's no reason to own a SUV, and most people live within 12 miles of their job. Intra-city travel is often less than 12 miles. Both ways.

There can be no "Filling stations" because it takes several hours to re-charge an electric car.

Workplaces could offer similar charging stations. As I said, this would only be for intra-city travel, which lazy and stupid Americans buy SUVs for. So it's not so much of laziness, but rather stupidity as well.

There are simply too many problems with electric cars to successfully implement them on any sort of large scale. They are already used in many paces where they are useful (as I said around my campus and the military base).

No, they work well in short-distances, like the transit to an from work. Which many people buy SUVs for.

SUVs are popular because people like them. Research has stated that public interest in SUVs will not be significantly influence until gas goes above $5.00 a gallon.

Which, again, reinforced the lazy and stupid evaluation of these morons. If you can't get people to understand that a gas guzzler isn't the best idea for intra-city travel, then just fucking shoot them, they're probably otherwise useless to society. Aka, yupppie.

These people are not wrong; there opinions and values are different from yours; they acknowledge there lower fuel economy in exchange for carrying capacity, safety, ability to drive in poor conditions, etc.

Which, often, they aren't carrying shit, have only one person in the vehicle, and use it for intra-city travel. "Safety" is bullshit, when the idiots get behind the wheel, they are a greater danger to everyone else with their sense of being in the "family tank".

I've lived in Alaska, one of the FEW places those vehicles have any place.

So why are they so fucking popular in NY and LA, and across the country? American laziness and stupidity. There's no reason for these vehicles to exist outside of cold climates or rough terrain, or families over 5 members. Just like how electric cars are unsuitable to cold climates.

I live in New England. There are only two kinds of drivers in snow: The idiot who is scared shitless and drives 2 MPH, and the other idiot who thinks he can drive at 50 all the time and plows into the back of the first guy. I see just as many of them in economy cars as SUVs. Admitedly many people do not know how to drive SUVs but that is a personal problem, not a fault with the vehicle.

No, it's more than a personal problem, when these morons get behind a wheel of an SUV and expect it to overcome their shitty driving ability. I've seen where someone spun their wheels in an SUV on an icy intersection, they hit pavement, and then almost took out the people waiting at the corner as they ate the light pole.

SUVs are simply "popular" shit inbred from the first Gulf War popularity of the Hummer, that don't really do anything but add to waste and driver laziness. THAT is what the consumer wants, instead of a more clean vehicle that might take a bit more work or some sacrifice. Then again, most Americans think they can do whatever the fuck pleases them at the expense of those under them.

 

[Lord 342]

Now this may be blindingly obvious but automakers want to make money. Therefor they make the cars that are popular, which they then sell to people to make money. When automakers try to regulate my morality I will leave the country. It's bad enough the government is trying to do it now.

Do you have any idea at all how much money it would cost to put facilities to charge an electric car in every parking space (or even a significant number of them) at every place of business? Nobody would do that. Who would pay for all that electricity? Certainly not the employer. And what if you had to go home before your car was charged, or the building was closed due to a bomb threat, or bad weather, or any other random, stupid reason.

Shitty drivers are dangerous in SUVs or in anything else. You don't even have to touch another car to cause a massive accident if you are a lousy driver.

As I said, electric cars are already implemented in places where the resources to maintain them are in place and there disadvantages are minimized.

Even if electric cars were sold more widely, nobody would buy them because for the same amount of money they could have a car that COULD go wherever they wanted it to go in most weather, be it a 50 MPG Honda or a 22 MPG truck, they could if they ever wanted to, and all they had to do was put in the requisite fuel when it gets low. Furthermore nobody likes to rent vehicles because it's a HUGE pain in the ass; you have to fill in paperwork, accept liability to fix a car you don't own, make sure it's filled upon return, and when you get it it's a piece of shit that 300 other people have abused and beat on.

When I say cold climate I mean below freezing, which it regularly gets in the northern half of the States. I'm not talking about the kind of cold in Alaska where a dipstick heater meant in the morning your dipstick was warm but the rest of the motor was frozen and for which they make "Cold Climate" trucks for, I mean just ordinary winter cold.
Judging by the popularity of Hybrids, I'd say what people want is, sensibly, a cleaner, more effient car that doesn't take any more work.

I know lots of people waste by having SUVs but it is not my job or yours to tell that to them. It is there free choice which I respect as I expect them to respect my free choices. And why is it always just SUVs? Vans are much worse as a group. And nobody EVER bitches about pickup trucks when all an SUV is is a pickup truck with different body metal and carpet inside.

I resent shitty drivers as a group, no matter their vehicle. Most shitty I see are in really old low-end cars or Ford Rangers. You can drive anything well and anything shitty. I usually find myself more reserved when piloting a large vehicle.

 

[Roshambo]

Now this may be blindingly obvious but automakers want to make money. Therefor they make the cars that are popular, which they then sell to people to make money. When automakers try to regulate my morality I will leave the country. It's bad enough the government is trying to do it now.

But that is what they are doing, in a sense. Their "responsible alternatives" are nothing but higher-priced vehicles that are only offset by tax breaks, but may end up costing you more. Like dealer-only repairs. The gas mileage is also speculative in many cases, sometimes being nearly the same as a full-gas counterpart for short distances. Which means it's really no better in the city.

When the automakers provide for serious intra-city transportation, then I'll consider them to be something else other than oil baron lackeys.

Do you have any idea at all how much money it would cost to put facilities to charge an electric car in every parking space (or even a significant number of them) at every place of business? Nobody would do that. Who would pay for all that electricity? Certainly not the employer. And what if you had to go home before your car was charged, or the building was closed due to a bomb threat, or bad weather, or any other random, stupid reason.

1-2 hours would be sufficient to recharge them, and they have gotten far better over the years than the older models.

With the proper research and investment to develop them, which the automakers at large don't see any reason to make things efficient. See, if they build gas-guzzlers, it makes the oil barons happy.

Now consider that an oil baron is fucking this country.

Shitty drivers are dangerous in SUVs or in anything else. You don't even have to touch another car to cause a massive accident if you are a lousy driver.

As I said, electric cars are already implemented in places where the resources to maintain them are in place and there disadvantages are minimized.

Now think of these replacing people driving for short distances in the city, where it's been proven that any vehicle sucks gas.

Hell, making them smaller might in fact help along with traffic problems. Oh, wait...the auto penis thing.

Even if electric cars were sold more widely, nobody would buy them because for the same amount of money they could have a car that COULD go wherever they wanted it to go in most weather, be it a 50 MPG Honda or a 22 MPG truck, they could if they ever wanted to, and all they had to do was put in the requisite fuel when it gets low.

1. Laziness.
2. Stupidity.

Remember that humans make the worst kind of herd on the planet. Instead of a bit of sacrifice, they'll buy a huge gas-guzzler and THEN bitch about high gas prices, and figure it's time to do something when they can't afford to keep their SUV running.

Furthermore nobody likes to rent vehicles because it's a HUGE pain in the ass; you have to fill in paperwork, accept liability to fix a car you don't own, make sure it's filled upon return, and when you get it it's a piece of shit that 300 other people have abused and beat on.

Versus owning a gas-guzzler full-time and driving it solo into work, as a reason that you might want to drive long distances.

Yes, I know WHY <s>people</s> Americans won't buy it, they are egocentric, lazy, and stupid.

Also, not all auto manufacturers are dismissing electric cars based upon old technology.

Many of the "problems" with electric cars are a myth, if someone bothers to develop the technology.

93 miles on a charge
Aikawa said the planned mini-electric car, which will be available for test fleets next year, has a cruising range of 90 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in a regular home. The top speed is around 90 miles an hour.

Mitsubishi is targeting housewives who drive to pick up children from school, go grocery shopping and won’t need to travel long distances, Aikawa said, adding that they are expected to enjoy owning a car that never needs to fill up at a gas station.

Officials said the electric car will cost slightly more than a comparable gas-engine vehicle but they hope to keep prices down through Japanese government aid available for buyers of environmentally friendly cars. Although the price isn’t decided, it may sell for under $19,000, according to Mitsubishi Motors.

When I say cold climate I mean below freezing, which it regularly gets in the northern half of the States. I'm not talking about the kind of cold in Alaska where a dipstick heater meant in the morning your dipstick was warm but the rest of the motor was frozen and for which they make "Cold Climate" trucks for, I mean just ordinary winter cold.

As I said, not all of the US is in the cold climates.

And imagine this, many of the places where they have smog problems are in the southern states. So if it's seen not viable based the whole country, that's the automaker's decision. Greed, again, plays a large part. Then again, there's no money to be made being responsible.

Judging by the popularity of Hybrids, I'd say what people want is, sensibly, a cleaner, more effient car that doesn't take any more work.

Or they fell for the bullshit while getting nearly the same MPG in city traffic. A hybrid doesn't provide shit for when the vehicle is idling, only when it is running to the point of being able to cycle a charge into the batteries. It depends on the technology used, as some of it is crap.

Saab seems to be the only one right now seriously entertaining the problems with intra-city gas consumption, even moreso than Ford and Toyota. The rest, including Honda, tend to blow in the city.

Now, I admit that most hybrids do a good job at long-distances, but back to my point - they are turning towards wholly electric operation for in the city, which is nearly the function of electric cars if people only needed intra-city travel. The fact of the matter is that a combustion engine does NOT do well in the city, inherently due to the design.

I know lots of people waste by having SUVs but it is not my job or yours to tell that to them. It is there free choice which I respect as I expect them to respect my free choices.

And it's my right to tell them they're a fucking moron for driving an SUV in the city. That they can is beside the point.

And why is it always just SUVs? Vans are much worse as a group. And nobody EVER bitches about pickup trucks when all an SUV is is a pickup truck with different body metal and carpet inside.

Well, they aren't being bought up wholesale like the hype around SUVs. Someone would have to really be devoted to that pickup when the gas mileage is worse off than an SUV. That, versus "OMG, I can like, instantly go offroad like the GIs in the Gulf War!"

I resent shitty drivers as a group, no matter their vehicle. Most shitty I see are in really old low-end cars or Ford Rangers. You can drive anything well and anything shitty. I usually find myself more reserved when piloting a large vehicle.

Unfortunately, that isn't true for yuppies. Aside from the arrogance thing, they also like to "off-road" and rollover their SUV because they are such crappy drivers that assume that since they have an SUV, they can do what's shown on the commercials. Remember, they have to have those disclaimers for the stupid, yet they still don't work.

 

[victor]

I'm with Rosh on this one. The reason electric, hybrid and water fuel cell cars are crap is because of lack of research and development money, and lack of interest due to "it's gay" and "it doesn't make your cock bigger and harder like SUVs do".

Put all the money spent on gasoline in alternative car research and voila, you'll be driving cross-country with one in no time. Alright, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get my point.

And yeah, take your bike or walk to work/school like I do, even better. You'll lose weight and save a LOT of money.

Electric cars are crap, but respect the fact they're a very new technology. In comparison, I wouldn't drive all the way to the uni in a Ford T, would I? Especially as the temperatures here can drop to -40 degrees celsius.

I'm all for auto companies making money, Lord 342, but do they have to do it at the expense of our atmosphere? I'm not sure I want to live on Venus, and I doubt any potential grandchildren of yours want to either.

 

[Kahgan]

Regarding pick-up trucks and vans. I don't know how it is in America, but at least here in Norway pickup trucks and vans are mostly used by craftsmen. Carpenters, masoners, painters, etc. They have those kind of cars because they need them to transport tools and materials. But then agian, this regards cheaper, and ironically enough, more reliable brands like Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, mostly japs cars, really, as opposed to the huge expensive american penis-enlargers.
Also, if these big 4wd's are so superb in going off-road, how come you don't see them used in the third world? Africa, for example, where an off-road going reliable, cost efficiant car is really needed?
It is a known fact that japs cars, especially the indestructable Toyota Hilux is the most used cars in the third world.

 

[Lord 342]

Rosh, you clearly do not know anything about Hybrids. They get there best mileage in the city where they can run with the motor usually off and regain power through regenerative breaking. Most hybrids get much better city mileage than highway. This varies based on how the hybridization is implemeneted but nonetheless this is true. On the highway they have no chance to regenerate but they still achieve good economy there. Not all Hybrids are tremendously efficient, the Silverado Hybrid and Lexus Rh SUV only get marginally better fuel economy than there gas-only counterparts, but I firmly believe that "every little bit helps", so why not? If someone is willing to spend the premium to get one of these vehicles I laud him. Electric cars and other "alternative" vehicles also come with tax breaks, you must remember, so the argument that the only reason why people buy hybrids is the tax break is effectively moot.

You don't need an SUV to make your cock feel big either; I've got an MR2 with a little four-banger that gets great mileage and it's damn fast and you feel great driving it. It's all what you want personally and there should never be any regulations of personal taste.

I've said it before: Car makers make big cars because PEOPLE WANT TO BUY THEM. Not because Oil companies tell them to. If the oil companies controlled the automakers, why do you think there would have been any research into electric cars to begin with, not to mention hybrids and all the fuel efficiency technology that is starting to bear fruit right now. A typical large SUV has the fuel economy of a midsize car of 20 years past. Let's not even talk about the dysmal fuel economy of a 50s car, which even the lumbering Hummer H1 surpasses.

You'll have to explain to me why it is "Lazy" and "Stupid" to want a car that can go anywhere at any time. That is practical and safe in my mind. Having a larger car is usually more practical and even safer, but that is a personal choice based on personal wants, desires, finances, and the potential uses of the car. Furthermore, if a gas car stops for want of fuel, you put more gas in it and go. If an electric car runs out of charge, it will have to be towed to someplace with compatible, available charging facilities and re-charged. Imagine if just one stopped on a city street because of a low battery. Instead of a cop or wrecker man or even kind citizen putting in 2 gallons of fuel and getting him on his way, a wrecker would HAVE to be summoned and the car would have to be towed, holding up trafic for much longer than it would take to refuel a conventional or hybrid car.
I do not know where you get your figgure of 1 to 2 hours but I have seen no evidence to corroborate it. Even the ultra-miserly Honda Insight 5-speed, which gets something like 70 MPG, can take you anywhere in the country. You're going to have to prove to me that this is "lazy" and "Stupid" and that using an electic car, that is slow and limited by charge time and range, is "smart". In fact many city dwellers, especially in New York, don't own a car because it is impractical to keep one due to cost of garaging it somewhere. This would only be higher if the garage cost included electric facilities, thus discouraging ownership of the cars amongst city dwellers who you claim would get the most use out of them. Many other people in cities park on the streets, where the equipment for charging the cars would have to be provided, which is impractical and undesirable due to vandalism, theft of electric power, and the simple fact that urban kids would see it as a terrific joke to unlug Mr. Miller's car after he goes to bed, either stranding him or causing the afforementioned "out-of-juice" situation.

There is no "conspiracy", the research money is simply going to other, more generally aplicable, publicly palatable, and easily implimentable ideas like Hybrids, Hydrogen power, and alternative fuels like E85 Ethanol blend. There was plenty of research into electric cars. The EV1 cost about $80,000 a piece, and there were about 1100 produced. The program cost GM over a BILLION dollars and went NOWHERE. They decided to put there money elsewhere. Tell me, if you poured one and a quarter billion into something and didn't see progress, would you simply pour in more money, or would you figure "This isn't working, I better try something else".?

Khagan: You posted while I was creating my rather long post.
The Toyota Hi-Lux is a 4x4 pickup. They're popular in Africa, etc. because they are indestructible and cheap. The Hiace 4x4 van is another popular car in the 3rd world. Most American carmakers don't sell there cars in those places, or sell in limited numbers, and, like all low-volume imports, they become difficult to maintain due to difficulty obtaining parts and service. American cars are only practical in North America and other places where they have a heavy market penetration. Same reason that Citroen made some good cars that don't show up here a lot like the terrific XM (1990 Car of the Year in Europe).

 

[Sander]

You'll have to explain to me why it is "Lazy" and "Stupid" to want a car that can go anywhere at any time.
That is practical and safe in my mind.

Because that is not what an SUV is designed to be, nor is it actually used in that capability ever.
An SUV is a wasteful form of transport that has barely any justification. Yes, you can travel further than with an electric car. You can travel even further with many smaller cars because those cars are much more fuel-efficient and, in many cases, safer as well.
See, buying an SUV because you are going to have to travel through the countryside, over non-asphalted roads and transporting quite a bit is justified. Buying it just to go places on your own is not, unless you buy it to satisfy your nonsensical hunger for a big car and give you a feeling of dominating over other drivers on the road.

And keep in mind that even 'normal' American cars are generally much bigger than their European counterparts.

Having a larger car is usually more practical and even safer, but that is a personal choice based on personal wants, desires, finances, and the potential uses of the car.

Not in most cases where an SUV is bought.
The idea that a bigger is safer is somewhat poorly thought out and incorrect in the case of most modern SUVs. To cite the wikipedia entry on SUVs (which cites it sources and is hence reliable in this case) :

Rollover

The high center of gravity of SUVs makes them more prone to rollover accidents (especially if the vehicle leaves the road or in emergency manoeuvres) than lower vehicles. In recent years, Consumer Reports has found a few SUVs unacceptable due to their rollover risk. This was also dramatically demonstrated in one Fifth Gear show using a Range Rover. Modern SUVs are usually designed to prevent rollovers on flat surfaces. Average heights for:

* Family sedans 57.3 in
* Minivans 70.2 in
* SUVs 70.7 in

In 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released results of a study that indicated that drivers of SUVs were 11% more likely to die in an accident than people in cars. [2] These figures may be confounded by variables other than the vehicles' inherent safety, for example the documented tendency for SUVs to be driven more recklessly (most sensationally perhaps, the 1996 finding that SUV drivers are more likely to drive drunk [3]). SUV drivers are also statistically less likely to wear their seatbelts. [4]

Besides that, an SUV is also more dangerous to other drivers.

Furthermore, if a gas car stops for want of fuel, you put more gas in it and go. If an electric car runs out of charge, it will have to be towed to someplace with compatible, available charging facilities and re-charged. Imagine if just one stopped on a city street because of a low battery. Instead of a cop or wrecker man or even kind citizen putting in 2 gallons of fuel and getting him on his way, a wrecker would HAVE to be summoned and the car would have to be towed, holding up trafic for much longer than it would take to refuel a conventional or hybrid car.

This is a somewhat ridiculous argument, as it relies on the incompetence of the driver to prove its point. Sorry, if you can't remember to refuel your car in time, you're really not in any position to be complaining about how hard it is to refuel a car.

However, this was the same argument used against natural gas-powered cars. However, these cars are being more widely adopted due to their better fuel economy and the much lower natural gas prices and can be easily recharged throughout Europe and large parts of South-America.

 

[Lord 342]

You'll have to explain to me why it is "Lazy" and "Stupid" to want a car that can go anywhere at any time.
That is practical and safe in my mind.

Because that is not what an SUV is designed to be, nor is it actually used in that capability ever.
An SUV is a wasteful form of transport that has barely any justification. Yes, you can travel further than with an electric car. You can travel even further with many smaller cars because those cars are much more fuel-efficient and, in many cases, safer as well.
See, buying an SUV because you are going to have to travel through the countryside, over non-asphalted roads and transporting quite a bit is justified. Buying it just to go places on your own is not, unless you buy it to satisfy your nonsensical hunger for a big car and give you a feeling of dominating over other drivers on the road.

I wasn't talking about SUVs here I was talking about cars that run on "poured" fuel; gas, diesel, Liquid Hydrogen, kerosene, whatever.
Down here I was talking about large cars in general, which are safer as they weigh more. This is simple physics backed up by IIHS research.

Having a larger car is usually more practical and even safer, but that is a personal choice based on personal wants, desires, finances, and the potential uses of the car.

Not in most cases where an SUV is bought.
The idea that a bigger is safer is somewhat poorly thought out and incorrect in the case of most modern SUVs. To cite the wikipedia entry on SUVs (which cites it sources and is hence reliable in this case) :

Rollover

This is not the fault of the vehicle but rather incompetent drivers who think that just because there SUV rides like a car that it also handles like one. This is actually people being stupid. SUVs, especially American SUVs, do not roll over in accidents when struck from the side. Most SUVs that do roll roll due to driver incompetance. I am in favor of a seperate classification on your lisence for large vehicles becaue current US licensing laws are ludicrous. One can get ones license on a Chevy Malibu (as I did) and then go out and immediately drive a 42' Provost bust chassis motor home on that same lisence. This is stupid. But I actually learned how to drive on my dad's Chevy Suburban, so I was very familliar with how a large vehicle handled and drove, one of the key elements of which is that you have to be careful in turns.

Besides that, an SUV is also more dangerous to other drivers.

This is a stupid argument. So are school busses, espcially because they lack a "Jane Mansfield" bar. If I am in my MR2 or Corvette and a school bus jacks on its breaks because the driver is a soccer mom and not a real CDL bus driver, and I rear end it, I'm finished. Not that that's likely as both cars have excellent breaking, but just be behind one and look where the bumper is. It's terrifying. Imagine if one backed over you. I respect someone else's decision to drive something that is safer for him because that is what he should be thinking about: his own safety. There will always be a bigger vehicle on the road than what you are driving and there is no getting around that, so you may as well drive the biggest thing you are comfortable in and that fits your needs, wants, and budget.


Re: Out-of-fuel: considering how short a range an electric car has on average, and the variable factors of temperature and accessory use, cell life, etc, the out-of-fuel scenario is much more likely and much more catastrophic considering the ramifications of it. And plenty of people are stupid enough to let there vehicle run out of its requisite fuel. Don't kid yourself about how stupid people can be.

 

[Sander]

I wasn't talking about SUVs here I was talking about cars that run on "poured" fuel; gas, diesel, Liquid Hydrogen, kerosene, whatever.
Down here I was talking about large cars in general, which are safer as they weigh more. This is simple physics backed up by IIHS research.

Except that weight alone does not make a safer car and at many points it stops mattering much. There are a lot of other things that make a much, much greater difference and won't pose a threat to other participants in traffic.

This is not the fault of the vehicle but rather incompetent drivers who think that just because there SUV rides like a car that it also handles like one. This is actually people being stupid. SUVs, especially American SUVs, do not roll over in accidents when struck from the side. Most SUVs that do roll roll due to driver incompetance. I am in favor of a seperate classification on your lisence for large vehicles becaue current US licensing laws are ludicrous. One can get ones license on a Chevy Malibu (as I did) and then go out and immediately drive a 42' Provost bust chassis motor home on that same lisence. This is stupid. But I actually learned how to drive on my dad's Chevy Suburban, so I was very familliar with how a large vehicle handled and drove, one of the key elements of which is that you have to be careful in turns.

American driving license requirements are ludicrous anyway, unless they changed over the past ten years (as one woman I know got her driver's license in the USA, but can't drive worth shit for Dutch standards and would never have gotten her license like that).
Anyway, back to your claims. The idea that 'especially American cars' are not prone to roll over is false. They are, simply due to the way in which *most* SUVs are constructed (ie. top heavy, body on frame instead of one whole).
Now, yes, the fact that accidents happen here are due to incompetence on the driver's side. However, since an SUV is basically a car, and applying general car-driving styles to an SUV leads to unsafety, one must say that an SUV is an unsafe *car*. If you treat as something that's supposed to be driven differently from a car to reduce the risks, then no, it isn't that unsafe.
Also nice how you skip around the part where SUV drivers are essentially proven to be lazier and stupider (not wearing seatbelts, more likely to die in accidents, more likely to drive poorly), which was essentially Rosh's point.

This is a stupid argument. So are school busses, espcially because they lack a "Jane Mansfield" bar. If I am in my MR2 or Corvette and a school bus jacks on its breaks because the driver is a soccer mom and not a real CDL bus driver, and I rear end it, I'm finished. Not that that's likely as both cars have excellent breaking, but just be behind one and look where the bumper is. It's terrifying. Imagine if one backed over you. I respect someone else's decision to drive something that is safer for him because that is what he should be thinking about: his own safety. There will always be a bigger vehicle on the road than what you are driving and there is no getting around that, so you may as well drive the biggest thing you are comfortable in and that fits your needs, wants, and budget.

That's a really, really stupid argument. For one, because all of those other cars actually have a sensible reason to be there. A bus is constructed the way it is out of necessity, as is a truck and most large vehicles *except* for the SUV (in its normal use in the US).

Besides that, contributing to an unsafe environment on the road isn't going to make you much safer. It's a slippery slope.

Re: Out-of-fuel: considering how short a range an electric car has on average, and the variable factors of temperature and accessory use, cell life, etc, the out-of-fuel scenario is much more likely and much more catastrophic considering the ramifications of it. And plenty of people are stupid enough to let there vehicle run out of its requisite fuel. Don't kid yourself about how stupid people can be.

Considering the fact that I haven't really seen that happen, ever and that most cars have sufficient ways of warning people about being low-on-fuel, people really shouldn't be that stupid.

 

[Lord 342]

You have a fundamental falsehood: SUVs are NOT basically cars, they are basically trucks, and they behave and should be treated as such. They are EXACTLY the same as the pickup trucks that have populated our roadways for a century with little alarm, excepting for different sheetmetal on the back and carpeting inside versus a plastic liner. Admitedly there are a few "SUVs" which are based on cars and/or have a monocoque, but they are basically glorified all-wheel-drive station wagons like the AMC Eagle. They are ill-suited to many tasks because they lack a rigid frame for stability and cargo capacity.

Furthermore, passenger vans are MUCH more likely to roll than are SUVs because of there even higher center of gravity. Believe me, I know. I work with them and have driven them a lot and great distances. We are required to have labels on the dashboard about rollover risk because of this risk. Yet NOBODY talks about how much vans roll over! (They also get much worse fuel economy. Even Mini-vans don't get significantly better gas mileage and are much less useful)

Why does a bus necessitate the LACK of a Jane Mansfield bar; an important safety device even found on a Ford Excursion? And why can you unequivocally claim that SUVs are designed the way they are out of anything but the market demanding vehicles of such a design? People want them to have a certain capability, then they will have it. That is the regulator of vehicle design. Frankly, if you resent someone having that capability, then you should either buy one for yourself or fuck off.

So show me some surveys of what people are doing with there SUVs. I see lots of people commuting in them by themselves, but maybe they take five with them to lunch and save gas. What are they doing on the weekend? Go to any home center in the US and you will see the parking lot full of trucks of all stripe being filled with material for manifold purposes. Had it occured to you that it may be better economy to own a large vehicle that suits all your purposes than a small one to commute in and a large one for other tasks? Many people can only afford one car, in which case, if you can afford one, an SUV is a sound choice.

A few facts:
-Incompetent drivers will be incopetent in any car or truck. That is there fault not the car's.
-If you do not wear your seatbelt you are a fool. I support your right to be wreckless as such because in this circumstance it is much more likely to hurt you than me. Good riddance.
-By and Large BMW drivers are assholes. Does that mean there must be something wrong with BMWs?

If you haven't seen someone out of fuel you are quite lucky. Like I said electric cars are much easier to run out of power than a regular car is to run out of fuel, and they are MUCH harder to deal with when thusly incapacitated.

Lastly "SUV" is a media buzzword. The SUV originated in the 1930s when the first Suburbans where made. The first modern, 4x4, three-rows-of-seating SUVs took shape in the 1950s with that decade's iteration of the Suburban and International Harvester Travelall. Everyone just called them trucks, vans, Utilities, or "Utes" (still used in Australia a lot).

 

[Roshambo]

Rosh, you clearly do not know anything about Hybrids.

Then why the fuck do I know that some are crap, and some are working on the REAL reason why hybrids were supposed to have been developed?

You clearly assume that all hybrids operate on the same technology.

A piss-poor assumption.

They get there best mileage in the city where they can run with the motor usually off and regain power through regenerative breaking. Most hybrids get much better city mileage than highway. This varies based on how the hybridization is implemeneted but nonetheless this is true.

No, on some models, the "hybrid" is shit for intra-city travel, as not all hybrids use electric power for low speeds. Some use gas from dead starts and continue to use gas throughout their operation, using the electric drive for helping the gas engine, not much else.

Again, that's why I posted about the Saab, because they were doing things intelligently. I find it amusing that you take the time to reply, but not read what I linked to as sources, so I'll just quote it so you won't miss it this time.

In congested driving conditions, fuel saving is taken a step further by the Saab BioPower Hybrid Concept's 'Zero Mode' option, resulting in zero fuel consumption and zero emissions. It can be selected by the driver via a button in the central console. At speeds below 50 kph, 'Zero Mode' will shut off the engine and switch the car over to electric power only from the RDU. In this mode, the battery bank provides a range of between 10 and 20 kilometers. The engine is smoothly re-engaged whenever the battery status approaches a low charge level or the electronic throttle opening requires acceleration beyond the 50 kph operating limit.

Not all Hybrids are tremendously efficient, the Silverado Hybrid and Lexus Rh SUV only get marginally better fuel economy than there gas-only counterparts, but I firmly believe that "every little bit helps", so why not?

One, it's THEIR, not there.

Two, some models get even worse performance. Honda and GM, for instance, use gas power from dead start, while others use electric before the gas engine kicks in around 25MPH. Some models, like the Saab, are planned to be wholly electric for intra-city travel.

Unless you foolishly believe that "hybrid = instant better MPG!" without bothering to learn how it works in each model. Which would insist that it is in fact YOU who doesn't know shit about hybrids.

If someone is willing to spend the premium to get one of these vehicles I laud him. Electric cars and other "alternative" vehicles also come with tax breaks, you must remember, so the argument that the only reason why people buy hybrids is the tax break is effectively moot.

And better gas mileage, which is a myth for some models in intra-city travel. I get the feeling I'm starting to repeat myself here...

You'll have to explain to me why it is "Lazy" and "Stupid" to want a car that can go anywhere at any time. That is practical and safe in my mind.

Because they don't bother to use the vehicle for what it is intended, often using it for intra-city travel. Safe is also another bullshit quantifier.

Having a larger car is usually more practical and even safer, but that is a personal choice based on personal wants, desires, finances, and the potential uses of the car.

BULLSHIT. A larger vehicle != safer.

Furthermore, if a gas car stops for want of fuel, you put more gas in it and go. If an electric car runs out of charge, it will have to be towed to someplace with compatible, available charging facilities and re-charged. Imagine if just one stopped on a city street because of a low battery. Instead of a cop or wrecker man or even kind citizen putting in 2 gallons of fuel and getting him on his way, a wrecker would HAVE to be summoned and the car would have to be towed, holding up trafic for much longer than it would take to refuel a conventional or hybrid car.

First, low fuel indicator. If they don't bother charging it, then they deserve the towing charge. Also, the "charging facilities" is pretty much bullshit when Misubishi's research has allowed them to ignore that - by having the charging adapter in the car itself, so it can use any home as a power station. Please, pay attention to what I write, I have a feeling I am wasting my time pointing out the obvious repeatedly.

See? That is what research into electric cars results in.

I do not know where you get your figgure of 1 to 2 hours but I have seen no evidence to corroborate it. Even the ultra-miserly Honda Insight 5-speed, which gets something like 70 MPG, can take you anywhere in the country. You're going to have to prove to me that this is "lazy" and "Stupid" and that using an electic car, that is slow and limited by charge time and range, is "smart".

Well, even the model that Icewendigo cited could get 40% charge from one hour, now put the ol' imagination to a strain and figure what research and development could offer in modern or even future terms.

In fact many city dwellers, especially in New York, don't own a car because it is impractical to keep one due to cost of garaging it somewhere. This would only be higher if the garage cost included electric facilities, thus discouraging ownership of the cars amongst city dwellers who you claim would get the most use out of them.

Didn't you bother to read the fucking article I posted?

YOU PLUG IT RIGHT INTO THE WALL. That's it, end of story, even soccer moms could figure out how to plug it in because it's designed to be chargeable at ANY home. And NY clearly demonstrates the problems with owning large, gas-guzzling vehicles.

Many other people in cities park on the streets, where the equipment for charging the cars would have to be provided, which is impractical and undesirable due to vandalism, theft of electric power, and the simple fact that urban kids would see it as a terrific joke to unlug Mr. Miller's car after he goes to bed, either stranding him or causing the afforementioned "out-of-juice" situation.

It's called a reinforced power cable with an alarm system and locking plugin.

There was plenty of research into electric cars. The EV1 cost about $80,000 a piece, and there were about 1100 produced. The program cost GM over a BILLION dollars and went NOWHERE. They decided to put there money elsewhere. Tell me, if you poured one and a quarter billion into something and didn't see progress, would you simply pour in more money, or would you figure "This isn't working, I better try something else".?

How about you read the fucking article I posted and stop spewing the same bullshit over and over? It makes what I have replied to so far rather irrelevant, it's obvious you didn't bother to look into what they have researched. Considering that this is a bold effort fro Misubishi to regain their image, I doubt they'd lie again when public scrutiny is upon them.

Down here I was talking about large cars in general, which are safer as they weigh more. This is simple physics backed up by IIHS research.

Only to the driver, and for vehicles that are NOT top-heavy. Other drivers are quite at risk.

Also, it doesn't take much imagination to know that a top-heavy vehicle would be inherently unsafe anywhere. But then again, I know enough about physics and equilibrium to know that a top-heavy vehicle is NOT safe, and if it's larger, that just means it's more of a danger, NOT safer. And a side-impact, no matter what model, means problems for a top-heavy vehicle.

Yet, the morons buy them to go off-roading on occasion, which results in...rollover!

This is not the fault of the vehicle but rather incompetent drivers who think that just because there SUV rides like a car that it also handles like one. This is actually people being stupid.

Oh, but I thought that because they were bigger, they were inherently safer? Then there's the whole top-heavy thing...

SUVs, especially American SUVs, do not roll over in accidents when struck from the side. Most SUVs that do roll roll due to driver incompetance.

Bullshit on both counts. Again, top-heavy vehicles do NOT have a safe equilibrium, and that is a manufacturing issue, NOT so much a driver issue. SUVs can also lose equilibrium fast if they are even clipped by a police cruiser. But stupidity and assumptions do play a part, including the promises of the dealers that an SUV is an off-road capablevehicle.

This is a stupid argument. So are school busses, espcially because they lack a "Jane Mansfield" bar. If I am in my MR2 or Corvette and a school bus jacks on its breaks because the driver is a soccer mom and not a real CDL bus driver, and I rear end it, I'm finished. Not that that's likely as both cars have excellent breaking, but just be behind one and look where the bumper is. It's terrifying. Imagine if one backed over you. I respect someone else's decision to drive something that is safer for him because that is what he should be thinking about: his own safety. There will always be a bigger vehicle on the road than what you are driving and there is no getting around that, so you may as well drive the biggest thing you are comfortable in and that fits your needs, wants, and budget.

Uh...the point is nobody is buying buses as much as SUVs, with the promises of SUVs to be all-terrain vehicle that turn out to be lies. It's a sport-utility vehicle, what SUV stands for, which is a use that they often don't see.

So yes, it would be like people driving unsafe buses as a fad.

Sander already addressed the rest. Now please care to educate yourself about the differing technologies of hybrids and about electric cars in development that put most of your arguments back about 10 years.

 

[Sander]

You have a fundamental falsehood: SUVs are NOT basically cars, they are basically trucks, and they behave and should be treated as such. They are EXACTLY the same as the pickup trucks that have populated our roadways for a century with little alarm, excepting for different sheetmetal on the back and carpeting inside versus a plastic liner.

No they're not. The essential difference comes in the effect replacing the bed with more body. That is what leads to it being top-heavy (something that is much less of a factor, if at all, in pick-up trucks) and hence needing to be handled differently.
Besides that, a pick-up truck is a car as well and is not treated differently either.

Admitedly there are a few "SUVs" which are based on cars and/or have a monocoque, but they are basically glorified all-wheel-drive station wagons like the AMC Eagle. They are ill-suited to many tasks because they lack a rigid frame for stability and cargo capacity.

That rigid frame makes them vulnerable to rolling over, actually.

Furthermore, passenger vans are MUCH more likely to roll than are SUVs because of there even higher center of gravity. Believe me, I know. I work with them and have driven them a lot and great distances. We are required to have labels on the dashboard about rollover risk because of this risk. Yet NOBODY talks about how much vans roll over! (They also get much worse fuel economy. Even Mini-vans don't get significantly better gas mileage and are much less useful)

Do you know why? Because no-one cites passenger vans as the epitomy of safety. Besides that, passenger vans have a purpose: to transport many passenger. An SUV doesn't have that purpose, not in the way it is used by most people.

Why does a bus necessitate the LACK of a Jane Mansfield bar; an important safety device even found on a Ford Excursion?

I don't recall praising that at all. However, we were talking about the size of cars, not other safety matters.

And why can you unequivocally claim that SUVs are designed the way they are out of anything but the market demanding vehicles of such a design?

I never did. I claimed that SUVs were stupid exactly because people wanted them *not* for what they could possibly be justified for: off-road transport. People don't use them for that, ever. A staionwagon is both more practical, cheaper and more fuel-efficient for the purpose of transporting people and often goods as well.

In fact, the fact that people actually want such a car yet don't make any use of its capabilities is what makes them ridiculous. Because this leads to the car manufacturers profiling and marketing them as such.

People want them to have a certain capability, then they will have it. That is the regulator of vehicle design. Frankly, if you resent someone having that capability, then you should either buy one for yourself or fuck off.

Cut the mouth-stuffing. This is the *third* thing I never claimed. I never said I resented people for having a bigger car than me (I don't own a car, I don't even own a driver's license because I don't consider it useful at this point), and I have no reason to either. I resent the idiots who buy a big car just to have a big car. I resent the moron who decides he needs a Hummer in my street, that is so big that when parking falls outside of its parking space and is ridiculously useless. I don't resent him for having something bigger than me.
Hell, even if I had all the money in the world I would never even consider buying an SUV.

So show me some surveys of what people are doing with there SUVs. I see lots of people commuting in them by themselves, but maybe they take five with them to lunch and save gas. What are they doing on the weekend? Go to any home center in the US and you will see the parking lot full of trucks of all stripe being filled with material for manifold purposes. Had it occured to you that it may be better economy to own a large vehicle that suits all your purposes than a small one to commute in and a large one for other tasks? Many people can only afford one car, in which case, if you can afford one, an SUV is a sound choice.

If you can only afford one car that would suggest being somewhat short on cash. Buying an expensive, fuel-inefficient car doesn't seem like a sound choice to me.

As for the surveys, here's one.
76.6 percent of trucks (no distinction is made between trucks and SUVs) is being used for personal transportation within businesses. More than 80% drive less than 20,000 miles per year (that isn't a lot, and doesn't require an SUV in any form). In fact, 68.2% have a range of operation of 50 miles. Again: why the SUV.

The same survey excluding pick-ups and SUVs: .9% is used for personal transportation, almost 40% make more than 20,000 miles per year and only 53.3 percent have a range of operation of less than 50 miles.

Furthermore, 58 million SUVs were used as transportation for 50 miles or less. Only 1 million were being used for off-road travel. 71 million operated solely in the home state, versus 2 million.

So, what does this say? A vast majority of SUVs is used for nothing but small travel within 50 miles. An SUV within that range is essentiallly useless, especially since almost no-one is going to be transporting heavy/large stuff requiring an SUV regularly within a range of 50 iles.

As for your example that they might go for lunch with five people in the SUV: what? Are you serious? Are you going to justify having five people buy an SUV to transport people a distance they could *walk* during a lunch-break? That's just ludicrous.

A few facts:
-Incompetent drivers will be incopetent in any car or truck. That is there fault not the car's.
-If you do not wear your seatbelt you are a fool. I support your right to be wreckless as such because in this circumstance it is much more likely to hurt you than me. Good riddance.
-By and Large BMW drivers are assholes. Does that mean there must be something wrong with BMWs?

Yes, if that's the audience BMW is aiming at with a car not meant for asshole.
Oh, gee, I see that the analogy has stopped making much sense.
There is something terribly wrong with a vehicle intended to be used off-road to transport people and goods being used by Yuppies who treat it as a car to commute to and from work within a range of 50 miles. There is no sense to it whatsoever.
What's even worse, more recently many SUVs have been lowered and hence have been made useless for off-road travel, their entire reason for existence in the first place. Why? Because no-one uses them as such, and the companies cater to the audience.

In effect, the car is bollocks because the audience demands a bollocks car.

Let's make a comparison with videogames, shall we? Suppose that Fallout 3 is made to cater to the Oblivion crowd. A once great Roleplaying Game Series is hence completely altered and marketed to suit the needs of a crowd who don't use it as a roleplaying game at all. Does that make the company poor, the game poor, the gamers idiots, or all three of those possibilities?

If you haven't seen someone out of fuel you are quite lucky. Like I said electric cars are much easier to run out of power than a regular car is to run out of fuel, and they are MUCH harder to deal with when thusly incapacitated.

As I have already said, the same argument was made against natural-gas operated cars. It is just as much a bullshit argument, it depends entirely on the infrastructure that is laid out for said cars. If the effort is made to develop the infrastructure, there will be no problem.
Also, I am apparently overestimating American drivers, since they apparently forget to fuel their cars a lot more often.

Lastly "SUV" is a media buzzword. The SUV originated in the 1930s when the first Suburbans where made. The first modern, 4x4, three-rows-of-seating SUVs took shape in the 1950s with that decade's iteration of the Suburban and International Harvester Travelall. Everyone just called them trucks, vans, Utilities, or "Utes" (still used in Australia a lot).

Your point being...what, exactly?

 

[Lord 342]

Rosh you would try anyone's patience.
I'd thank you to not pick at my grammar -I make an effort unlike most forum idiots, but honestly I'm as human as you are. Otherwise it speaks of someone who is running out of rational argument so you resort to trying to discredit me by faulting my usage.

Anyway, let me separate a few things:
Larger vehicles are inherently safer in accidents with other vehicles because their superior mass forces back the other vehicle. Also anything with a rigid truck frame will crush a lesser vehicle, leading to greater safety for its occupants.
An improperly driven vehicle is unsafe by any standard. Any vehicle is capable of being handled improperly, they simply have different modes of failure. When pushed to their limits, topheavy vehicles will roll, sports cars tend to go flying any which way, and lesser vehicles can exhibit different modes of failure depending on which limit is reached. This is operator fault for not knowing the limits of the vehicle. A B-52 bomber is capable of exceeding the speed of sound under the right conditions, yet it is decidedly NOT a transonic craft and will more than likely fail catastrophically under such a situation. Yet if its pilot were to push it to the sound barrier and it broke up, would it be his fault for doing something he shouldn't have, or the bomber's, for not having the speed-handling capability of, say, a B-58 or B-70. The B-52 is not a faulty bomber, in fact it is an excellent bomber, evidenced by the fact that the B-58 and B-70 are no more yet the '52 persists in our inventories and the USAF is committed to it into the 2040s. So we can state unequivocally that if an operator exceeds the limits of his vehicle HE is at fault for doing so, and NOT the vehicle for having such limits. As both Sander and I stated, American driving licence requirements are bullshit, allowing untrained operators into vehicles that arguable require special training to operate safely. I am not happy about this but I also see the solution as providing and requiring the training, not eliminating the vehicle requiring it. So there are both a precedent and explanation for this operator fault.

You have not proven to me your understanding of hybrids yet I admitted to the very facts about them you now feel the need to re-state to me. Yes, many hybrids implement the technology differently -some use an electric motor that turns independently of the engine, and some use one that is fundamentally linked to it, both with and without the capacity to shut off fuel to the engine and run on electric power alone. These systems operate differently but the basic technology is the same -add an electric motor and regenerative breaking to a gas-powered vehicle to at the least relieve stress on the motor, allowing it to operate closer to peak efficiency, or at most allow for eliminating its operation under certain circumstances to greatly conserve onboard fuel stores. I said that some hybrids only provide minimal fuel economy benefits but unlike the electic car they bring significant advantages to the table -in the case of the Lexus Rh and some Hondas, (I forget which model specifically) the Electric engine greatly increases on-demand power, a feature many buyers appreciate. In the case of the Silverado truck, the Hybrid model comes with several on-board 120VAC electric outlets to power tools and equipment, and the massive battery reserve on board so that long periods of using accessories do not deplete the battery. These features, combined with the modest boost in economy, greatly appeal to workers and contractors who use their vehicles to make their living and would appreciate the small gain in economy as well as the added features.
The Saab was nothing special. The JDM Toyota Prius has an "EV" switch that disable the gas engine; US models can be converted to have this feature. The fact that some Hybrids use the gas engine from dead starts does not change the fact that they get better fuel economy than their gas-only equivalents. The technology is new; give it time to mature. I understand your point, but it does not invalidate mine.

Regarding Mitsubishi, I don't see why you believe them now when you previously stated that the car makers do what makes the oil companies happy. You accuse them of conspiracy when they do what you don't' like, but as soon as they publish something you agree with, you have no reservations about swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. I do not trust Mitsubishi, or any other cap company to do anything except make the kind of cars that people want to buy because that is how you make money. I don't expect them to be truthful for any reason, plenty of companies, including many car firms, were driven under by lies and poor decisions.

As to plugging in a car to a regular line voltage line, there are still numerous problems. Dozens upon dozens of electric cords strung out to people's cars across sidewalks would be a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. Locking connectors are NOT household standard. Pay-phones are designed to resist vandals yet they are still vandalized. A car plugged into the wall, no matter how robustly, is inviting someone to tamper with it. Alarming it won't solve anything; look at the current state of car alarms; once they reached a certain level of penetration they became ignored. Even household burglar alarms are at this level. People do not stop to see what is wrong, they eventually see what's doing if the alarm a) is bothering them and b) doesn't quit after five or ten minutes. And what good is an alarm if someone yanked on your armored cord hard enough to break the locking junction box off the wall, or destroy the fitting on your car, and then where are you? If you have a car with an alarm, I bet you ignore it yourself. I know I ignore mine.

My point was not that owning a gas-guzzling vehicle in NYC is difficult, but that owning ANY vehicle there is difficult. Any further steps that make it even more complex to own said vehicle will ensure that it is not the vehicle that people buy. The environment that could support plug-in-to-line-voltage cars is not usually the one that is suited to them. If you have a private garage to put it in to keep it from being tampered with or weathered, then you probably need something with better range or can afford, within reason, any vehicle you want.

Sander: just a couple questions:
How does how far you drive have any bearing on weather or not you need an SUV? If people are driving them short distances, so much the better. They are not using as much gas. The distance numbers are interesting, but they speak nothing of what is actually done within those miles, and if it snows in them. For better or worse, America is laid out and administrated in a fashion that, in many cases neccesitates the use of private vehicles, and in many cases ones capable of at least modest off-road capability. The town I live in is somewhat corrupt. I'll be honest. Our snow removal budget is often gone after the first snow fall, and the plowmen are unorganized private contractors. Sometimes you can't get where you are going for the snow. Furthermore my elderly grandparents are cared for by home-health-aids. Many of these aids drive SUVs because people depend on them for basic living requirements and if they're supposed to be there, and it's snowing, and the plows haven't gone out yet, well, they better get there or some poor old fart's going to be sitting hungry in a pile of his own excrement. (The joke about him eating his own shit is obvious. -you don't have to make it )
And our infrastructure is laid out very differently than in Europe; if you're on lunch from your job there is oftentimes simply no place to walk to eat. Four, Five, or even more (my dad's Suburbans sat 8 and yes we put many people in it regularly) in one car of mediocre fuel economy is better than everybody going in there own car, even if they all drive Hondas.
What you see people doing with there cars is no judge of what kind of car they should have; I've seen plenty of people loading too much cargo into a tiny car and creating an unsafe condition by doing something inappropriate with his car. But goddammit, I'm NOT going to tell him he needs to buy a truck just because I think so.

 

[Icewendigo]

I havent read all post yet,

But I called the friend of mine right up to cut the debate one way or another about cold weather...

The electric car he has been using and testing for the past 7 years using older battery technology is still working fine and has worked every year since during winter with no problems, period. The drop in battery power has no effect in reality, meaning he gets to and from where he needs to in winter time(there may be a small drop in power but he still has power left when he gets back). So that electric car is not significantly affected by cold weather.

As for the US being cold, we're in Canada.

Since chargine takes 1 to 3 hours, the special electic adaptor is set at the house and there is one at work.

My friends only problem with the Electric car is its price. In his opinion, at this point in time until a car manufacturer develops a electric car that is factory made(much less expensive than buying a car and modding it with manual labor), electric cars will be too expensive to be interesting for the majority of people (If a car manufacturer were to make an electric car in a factory with current technology you'd have something similar to the EV1 if not better at a price comparable to hybrids).

 

[PhredBean]

Larger vehicles are inherently safer in accidents with other vehicles because their superior mass forces back the other vehicle.

True, it does force the other vehicle back more, but that doesn't make them safer. Accidents involving SUVs are more likely to have fatalities than accidents between two smaller framed vehicles. Funny part is: they guy in the SUV is just as likely to be injured and killed as the guy in the car, all he did was increase the danger for both of them. Where most cars now are designed to crumple in specific ways preventing dashboards from crushing the passenger, but that also allows some of the force from the crash to be bled off which is better for the occupants of both vehicles. SUV occupants are more likely to be injured by whiplash and other related injuries.

Also anything with a rigid truck frame will crush a lesser vehicle, leading to greater safety for its occupants.

Even if it did make them safer, what you are arguing here is darwinism of the road. Hell if that isn't a damn good selling point: SUVs murder people in smaller vehicles. What a good little citizen you are.

An improperly driven vehicle is unsafe by any standard. Any vehicle is capable of being handled improperly, they simply have different modes of failure.

Or different likelyhoods of failure and different capabilities for avoiding catastophies. While a car has the flexibility to turn in time to avoid a crash, the same sharp turn may be likely to flip the top-heavy SUV. The heavier vehicle also has a greater stopping distance, again decreasing the drivers ability to react to the threat of an accident. Even acceleration can allow a driver to evade an accident, an area SUVs also tend to suffer in.

 

[Lord 342]

Larger vehicles win in an accident. It's simple physics. SUVs are generally safer for their occupant.

Saying they "Murder" people in smaller cars is pretty strong, I've got to say. Nobody is getting murdered. I could just as easily say that small cars needless endanger their occupants and are too small to see easily and cause accidents and hazards (I was driving the MR2 and was forced off the road by some idiot in a Ford Tempo wagon. He didn't see me). But that is the risk I take driving a little car. I accept it. Like I said there will ALWAYS be a bigger vehicle out there that can crush you. You cannot tell someone "No no, you can't have that, it might hurt someone". However I think you can and in fact SHOULD tell him "You have to learn to drive that safely because you could hurt someone otherwise."

And by the logic of your last paragraph we should also eliminate economy cars with poor handling because they have bad acceleration and poor handling and cannot avoid accidents. Cars are different. It behooves you as a responsible motorist to know how to safely operate your car. That's all there is to it.