Who killed the Electric Car?

[Sander]

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.

Yet again, I must reply that making the road situation unsafer is a rather ridiculous thing to do. Besides that, any rigid frame SUV is unsafe because *those* are the SUVs that are most prone to rolling over. Hence that's not at all safer.
Furthermore, as you already commented earlier, there will always be a larger vehicle on the road. Hence, it's also unsafe for yourself.
And really, your chance of crushing someone else isn't exactly a good argument to buy a car.

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.

I don't recall talking about eliminating the SUV completely.
Yes, any vehicle is capable of being handled improperly. The problem is: SUVs are much more prone to be handled improperly and when handled improperly cause much worse accidents.

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.

This is a ridiculous argument. No, they're not using as much. But they could be using a lot less gas if they had chosen *any* other car. Besides that, they are still not using the car for what it was meant.

The distance numbers are interesting, but they speak nothing of what is actually done within those miles, and if it snows in them.

How is whether it snows relevant in any way? A normal car has just as little trouble with snow as well, that's absolutely no reason to buy an SUV. It's a reason to buy snow-tyres, though.
Besides that, the 3 top-states are California, Florida and Texas. Not exactly snow-bound places, now are they?

But yes, they do speak for what is done within those miles. 50 miles is a very, very short range. It usually means you're just going back and forth from work. How often do you think a normal person will be transporting heavy, large materials on a regular basis so as to justify buying an SUV? That's right, not very often.

] 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 )

Again: that's not what most SUVs are being used for (as the fact that 70% of SUVs are being used for personal transportation shows). What's more, most modern SUVs don't give you any advantage on snowy roads precisely because they're being made lower and lower, just because people don't need it to be so high. Also making the SUV unfit for off-road travel.
Lastly, as I said, Texas, California and Florida don't exactly have much snow.

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.

Yes, yes it is. You know what's even better? If they didn't use an SUV. Because quite simply, four or five people fit into a normal car just as easily, especially since American cars are already oversized anyway. Or if people brought their own lunch. But meh.
That's no reason to go *buy* an SUV. No way in hell is that ever going to make back the price of the SUV.

What you see people doing with there cars is no judge of what kind of car they should have;

Ehm, yes it is. Because that's exactly what they're going to be needing it for. If you just use for commuting back and forth from work, you'll never, ever need an SUV. Never. So then why buy it? Because you like to feel high and mighty in a big car? Pft.
Oh, sure, they have the *right* to buy such a car. But that doesn't mean I can't berate them for behaving stupidly.

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.

Well, I am. Why? Because they're idiots for creating an unsafe road environment for everyone, wasting so much money on their car and gasoline and behaving themselves improperly on the road.

 

[Lord 342]

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.

Yet again, I must reply that making the road situation unsafer is a rather ridiculous thing to do. Besides that, any rigid frame SUV is unsafe because *those* are the SUVs that are most prone to rolling over. Hence that's not at all safer.
Furthermore, as you already commented earlier, there will always be a larger vehicle on the road. Hence, it's also unsafe for yourself.
And really, your chance of crushing someone else isn't exactly a good argument to buy a car.

But SUVs roll due to driver error, not poor vehicle design. So a rigid, stronger frame is an advantage. And why isn't being safer a good reason to buy a car?

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.

I don't recall talking about eliminating the SUV completely.
Yes, any vehicle is capable of being handled improperly. The problem is: SUVs are much more prone to be handled improperly and when handled improperly cause much worse accidents.

Sports cars are also more prone to being handled improperly because they are capable of much more than an "average" car. And some "Average" cars simply handle badly. I think everyone today knows that top-heavy vehicles can roll if handled improperly; anyone who ignores it is foolish and deserves what he gets.

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.

This is a ridiculous argument. No, they're not using as much. But they could be using a lot less gas if they had chosen *any* other car. Besides that, they are still not using the car for what it was meant.

And I do not think anyone has a right to tell someone that he's under-using his vehicle. He bought it, he can do whatever he pleases with it.

The distance numbers are interesting, but they speak nothing of what is actually done within those miles, and if it snows in them.

How is whether it snows relevant in any way? A normal car has just as little trouble with snow as well, that's absolutely no reason to buy an SUV. It's a reason to buy snow-tyres, though.
Besides that, the 3 top-states are California, Florida and Texas. Not exactly snow-bound places, now are they?

What are you smoking? You've already told me you don't drive. Drive in snow some time and see what I mean. I drive a normal car; I get stuck all the time in the snow. Anything with four-wheel-drive has a much lower chance of getting stuck.

But yes, they do speak for what is done within those miles. 50 miles is a very, very short range. It usually means you're just going back and forth from work. How often do you think a normal person will be transporting heavy, large materials on a regular basis so as to justify buying an SUV? That's right, not very often.

I cannot make any definitive statement about what other people do with there SUVs except that right now, today, as soon as I finish this post even, I have borrowed an SUV to move some furniture that will not fit in my car. An SUV that two days ago was used to move heavy metal shelving.
No matter what you see on the roads, and especially what you see on the roads in a country we're not even talking about, you cannot make the final judgement on how people are using their cars.

] 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 )

Again: that's not what most SUVs are being used for (as the fact that 70% of SUVs are being used for personal transportation shows). What's more, most modern SUVs don't give you any advantage on snowy roads precisely because they're being made lower and lower, just because people don't need it to be so high. Also making the SUV unfit for off-road travel.
Lastly, as I said, Texas, California and Florida don't exactly have much snow.

The health aides use their private vehicles. If they report what they do with them most, it will be personal transportation. That's the way these studies work; unless your car is commercially registered and actually used for more than getting you to and from your place of business, it's personal transportation. But plenty of jobs don't stop just because of incement weather.
California spans almost the entire height of the nation. It snows plenty in the north. Texas has deserts, farmers, ranchers, and rednecks. The farmers and ranchers like the SUVs because they are sound economy; they can carry their loads for work, pull trailers, etc, and the rednecks just see them as four-wheeled toys, but none-the-less they do use them off-road and thus "As intended". Florida is just Florida. I have no idea why people in Florida do anything, but it sure as hell isn't my place to question the car they want to use to do 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.

Yes, yes it is. You know what's even better? If they didn't use an SUV. Because quite simply, four or five people fit into a normal car just as easily, especially since American cars are already oversized anyway. Or if people brought their own lunch. But meh.
That's no reason to go *buy* an SUV. No way in hell is that ever going to make back the price of the SUV.

Well not any more do four or five peopel fit "Just as easily" in a typical America car. But the typical America car is an SUV, so wait, they do! I still drive an old-fashioned, six-place car that is bigger than many SUVs and vans. But the Suburbans sat six in more comfort than my car, and even 8 in at least as much. And yes, we did use them for 7 or 8 people on several occasions. Whenever we did something with other people, we took them all. It was cheaper, it was easier, and it was more social. This, combined with the fact that my dad used the cargo capacity a lot and the fact that we get snow here made SUVs a sound choice.

What you see people doing with there cars is no judge of what kind of car they should have;

Ehm, yes it is. Because that's exactly what they're going to be needing it for. If you just use for commuting back and forth from work, you'll never, ever need an SUV. Never. So then why buy it? Because you like to feel high and mighty in a big car? Pft.
Oh, sure, they have the *right* to buy such a car. But that doesn't mean I can't berate them for behaving stupidly.

Admitedly some people buy a car for all the wrong reasons. But I'd much rather berate the idiot boy-racer who buys a CRX to "pimp it out" and pretend he's in "The fast and the furios" than someone who buys a big truck just because it makes him feel good. And besides, this is America. If having a big truck makes him feel good, so long as he knows how to drive it, I'm OK with that. It's not my business, and I'm not going to waste my time taking someone else's inventory.

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.

Well, I am. Why? Because they're idiots for creating an unsafe road environment for everyone, wasting so much money on their car and gasoline and behaving themselves improperly on the road.

That's the problem with the world today. We are very much interested in minding other people's business.

 

[victor]

It becomes my business when gasoline prices go up, global warming increases, and I'm being run over by a jerk who doesn't know how to drive. Pretty stupid final argument there. It's like saying it shouldn't be your business if a foreign country invades yours.

 

[brandons1313]

Larger vehicles win in an accident.

Yep. You got that right.

I think what they are getting at is that the more larger vehicles out there, the more chance of getting struck in the rear or sandwiched by them. Where as getting struck by another car would be probably be a lot less damaging. If i had to choose between a car hitting me and a suv hitting me, I'll take the car 100% of the time.

 

[SuAside]

Yep. You got that right.

shit, thats not a pile up, that's a plow with the grim reaper at the wheel...

 

[Roshambo]

Yep. You got that right.

And an SUV still wouldn't have mattered for shit in that instance, or many others, including rollover caused by simply hopping a curb....OMFG, I HAVE TO UPGRADE TO A TANK TO BE SAFE!!!!

 

[victor]

You know, as I'm currently reading up on basic mechanics for my physics exam in two weeks, I can safely say an SUV, considering it's mass and structural integrity, wouldn't have mattered shit if it had been hit by a truck.

A tank wouldn't have been much better, if the wreckage had started burning. It would only have served to grant you a slower, more painful death.

 

[Lord 342]

An SUV, or anything bigger than that car would have helped somewhat. It certainly wouldn't have emerged unscathed, but it would have held up much better. That is not to say that they are the only path to safety, but you cannot discredit something's safety becaues it has an inherant capability to be operated improperly and thereby un-safely. Lots of small cars, especially SMALL monocoque cars like the Fiat X1/9, the Toyota MR2, and the Corvette to name a few are extremely sturdy. I've seen a Corvette wipe out at 125 MPH and the driver walked away. Not a racer or anything but some fool in one he stole. But small "mid-size" cars actually tend to be the worst. Too big to have strength through compactness of materials, too small to have strength through sheer size and weight. My buddy's Mazda station wagon got terrible crash test reviews, my MR2 (much smaller) on the other hand got 5 stars front and rear (They didn't do side when it was new). But likewise you can go probably much faster than you should in any of those sports cars I mentioned; does that cancel out the safety they achieve through incredible proprtional strenght?

 

[Sander]

But SUVs roll due to driver error, not poor vehicle design.

Wrong, often accidents are not due to driver error (on one of the sides), yet an SUV can then still roll-over.

So a rigid, stronger frame is an advantage.

Eblergh? Are you fucking blind? A rigid strong frame in combination with the top-heavy nature of an SUV leads to more fatalities. How can that *possibly* be safer?
Please tell me it isn't because you're more likely to crush the other car...

And why isn't being safer a good reason to buy a car?

Gee, thanks for twisting my words *again*.
I didn't say that buying a safer car per se is bad, I said that buying a car that makes you feel safer but is more dangerous to others on the road is a poor reason to buy a car because that's a slippery slope. This will lead to people buying even bigger cars because they think that's safer versus the SUVs out there already. Then there will be people who want to respond to that, etc. etc. etc.
Hell, the fact that more and more people are buying bigger cars to be safer demonstrates this perfectly, since this has led to an overrepresentation of the SUV on the road and hence a much unsafer environment.

Sports cars are also more prone to being handled improperly because they are capable of much more than an "average" car. And some "Average" cars simply handle badly. I think everyone today knows that top-heavy vehicles can roll if handled improperly; anyone who ignores it is foolish and deserves what he gets.

What is this, the fifth time I have to say this? They endanger *others* on the road just as well, or even more.
Besides, sports cars have not in any way been proven to be handled worse than the average car nor have they been proven to cause more accidents (for as far as I know), yet this is the case for SUVs.

And I do not think anyone has a right to tell someone that he's under-using his vehicle. He bought it, he can do whatever he pleases with it.

Pft.
Okay, suppose someone buys a full, state of the art PC and just use it to run Word.
Are they under-using it or not?
For fuck's sake, man, I'm not denying anyone the right to buy those cars, I"m just telling them they're idiots for wanting one and that they're not using its capabilities at all. Hell, I can back it up by *facts*.

In fact, in a similar vein, if you don't think I have the right to tell others what to do, where do you get the right to tell me what I can or cannot think about or tell others?

What are you smoking? You've already told me you don't drive. Drive in snow some time and see what I mean. I drive a normal car; I get stuck all the time in the snow. Anything with four-wheel-drive has a much lower chance of getting stuck.

Gee, and is an SUV the only car with four wheel drive?
Oh, golly, *no it isn't*.
Besides that, as I said, most SUVs are bought in states that don't even have snow. So that makes your argument pretty goddamned irrelevant.

I cannot make any definitive statement about what other people do with there SUVs except that right now, today, as soon as I finish this post even, I have borrowed an SUV to move some furniture that will not fit in my car. An SUV that two days ago was used to move heavy metal shelving.
No matter what you see on the roads, and especially what you see on the roads in a country we're not even talking about, you cannot make the final judgement on how people are using their cars.

Do you know what the difference between you and a yuppie with an SUV is?
You go out and borrow one for two days because you'll need it during those days. The yuppie goes out and buys it, uses it at most to move his furniture, and then uses it some three years (the average new SUV age) to ride back and forth between work.
I've never claimed that an SUV can't be useful to move heavy stuff. But realistically, how many of the 80 million SUVs that stay within a 50 mile radius for personal transportation are going to be used to move stuff like that at any regular rate? Most people you see in those SUVs are businessmen, for crying out loud.

The health aides use their private vehicles. If they report what they do with them most, it will be personal transportation. That's the way these studies work; unless your car is commercially registered and actually used for more than getting you to and from your place of business, it's personal transportation. But plenty of jobs don't stop just because of incement weather.
California spans almost the entire height of the nation. It snows plenty in the north. Texas has deserts, farmers, ranchers, and rednecks. The farmers and ranchers like the SUVs because they are sound economy; they can carry their loads for work, pull trailers, etc, and the rednecks just see them as four-wheeled toys, but none-the-less they do use them off-road and thus "As intended". Florida is just Florida. I have no idea why people in Florida do anything, but it sure as hell isn't my place to question the car they want to use to do it.

Oh, gee, people use them, let's not question their reasons at all. What the hell kind of conformist attitude is that? No, really, I don't get it. Don't you ever think 'why the hell did he do that?'

Also, since most people in California do not live far in the north where it snows, it's safe to assume that most of those cars are not going to be used through snowy weather nor were bought for it.

As for Texans using them off-road, no. Check the surveys. As I said, isn't happening.
Besides that, a truck is much more practical for that, especially since an SUV is, due to roll-over danger and most SUVs being lowered for non-off-road use, actually not all that handy off-road.

Well not any more do four or five peopel fit "Just as easily" in a typical America car. But the typical America car is an SUV, so wait, they do! I still drive an old-fashioned, six-place car that is bigger than many SUVs and vans. But the Suburbans sat six in more comfort than my car, and even 8 in at least as much. And yes, we did use them for 7 or 8 people on several occasions. Whenever we did something with other people, we took them all. It was cheaper, it was easier, and it was more social. This, combined with the fact that my dad used the cargo capacity a lot and the fact that we get snow here made SUVs a sound choice.

Wait, did you just admit that your *normal* car fits more people than most SUVs and hence essentially supported my argument that that's not something SUVs should be used for or are being used for?
Cool, thanks.

Admitedly some people buy a car for all the wrong reasons. But I'd much rather berate the idiot boy-racer who buys a CRX to "pimp it out" and pretend he's in "The fast and the furios" than someone who buys a big truck just because it makes him feel good. And besides, this is America. If having a big truck makes him feel good, so long as he knows how to drive it, I'm OK with that. It's not my business, and I'm not going to waste my time taking someone else's inventory.

Now this is an excellent straw-man argument.
'Well, I'd rather berate the idiot-racers'.
What the hell? How does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? Yes, I could go berate them, but it's pretty damned irrelevant to what we're talking about, now isn't it? If I started berating that'd be about the same as suddenly starting to berate Iraqi terrorists. Yes, of course that's moronic, but why would I bring it up?

Also, why do you think it's not your business to question other people's behaviour, but you do feel it's your business to question my behaviour regarding those people?

That's the problem with the world today. We are very much interested in minding other people's business.

Pft. That's the essence of human nature and it's what makes any society work. Not questioning other people's behaviour leads to a boring and uninquisitive life in which you will not learn much at all. It will also lead to a very uptight and closed community in which criticism is not tolerated, which is ridiculous.

 

[Roshambo]

Most people you see in those SUVs are businessmen, for crying out loud.

Or soccer moms, who believe SUVs are inherently safer and can carry their kids, which can be done just as easily in the family car. And drive it around to shop, do errands, etc. most of the time, and maybe one or three days a month might put the SUV to some practical use. In other words, yuppie trash wives of businessmen.

Agreed, driver error is pretty much bullshit when considering the INHERENT FLAWS IN SUVs.

Yeah, a Pinto is safe except for that whole rear-ending thing...so it must be a poor driver that gets rear-ended to make it explode. Just like an SUV driver could avoid the SUV from tipping due to shitty center of balance by not ever getting into an unstable driving condition (read: BAD FOR OFFROADING OR ANY KIND OF ROADING, WHICH IS WHAT THESE VEHICLES ARE SUPPOSEDLY DESIGNED AND MARKETED AS!) This includes wet or snowy conditions, as without traction, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF THERE'S A STUNT DRIVER BEHIND THE WHEEL, it's still fucked. All it needs to do is slip into a sideways fishtail, and there you have your rollover. That fucking simple, which is why many law offices have targeted these kinds of lawsuits against auto manufacturers.

The circular arguments and plugging your fingers into your ears while "LA-LA-LA"ing the same thing over and over is getting old, Lord 342, when you can't back up shit as we explain how SUVs are pretty much a total fraud. The "bigger vehicle = safer" bullshit was debunked a long time ago, and those studies generally revolve around vehicles properly engineered with a safer center of balance. You don't bother to give a proper reply, and then keep reposting the same crap over and over despite the mountain of evidence otherwise that is backed by simple physics*. Which seems to be how you're posting of late.

Again, disappointing.

All cars are susceptible to rollovers to various extents. Generally, the higher the centre of mass is located, the higher the vehicle is and the faster it goes, the more likely it is to roll over. SUVs are particularly notorious for rolling over. HMMWVs, on the other hand, are nearly invulnerable to this type of accident. According to anecdotal evidence, however, it can be rolled in very specific circumstances and this was done on purpose twice in the Israeli army. A driver needs to move backwards very fast and then do a sharp turn, and immediately slam the brakes to block the wheels.

From Wiki's entry on rollover which I could grab from a few other sources as well. SUVs are built as popularity trends around the military version of the HMMWV, and the original civvy Hummer is the only one on the market that has the lower center of gravity to be a proper SUV, because it CAN do what it is advertised for due to the wider wheel contact plane. The copycats are the dangerous ones...which make up most of the Shitty Urban Vehicle market, when most have been narrowed to fit into smaller parking spaces for yuppie appeal, therefore compromising its stability and center of gravity. Again, simple fucking physics.

Narrower wheel contact plane + high center of gravity + centrifugal torque commonly resulting from normal driving on most on or off ramps = will you please turn your brain back on, I know you have one, Lord 342.

 

[Lord 342]

Sander: The only behavior I'm questioning is the very questioning of other's behavior -the only thing I feel legitimately entitled to question. Why do you care what other people do with their cars, or what the are, or how they drive them, and what they carry in them. IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS. I don't like ricer boys but I'm not going to spend dozens of posts criticizing them.
And why is it OK for me to borrow an SUV but not for someone else to own one? I'll never get this. SOMEONE has to own one.
In my opinion, SUVs have become a cultural symbol of something... I'm not quite sure what; yuppee-ism, soccer moms, capitalism, America, something, but it's something you abhor, so you demonize the large, visible symbol of it. The SUV is never at fault; it's just a truck. They're not the most dangerous vehicle on the road, the most unstable, the least efficient, or anything at all, really.


Roshambo: On the contrary, it is YOU who has his fingers in his ears; you continue to base ALL of your arguments off of one falsehood: That the vehicle is at fault for operator error, because it had different limits. This, my friend is ludicrous. That law offices target vehicle manufacturers for making popular vehicles with these different limits is simply a sign of the times; American culture has become extremely litigous; frivolous law suits abound. Just look at any of a number of absurd product warnings on the internet and you will see just how far we've gone in that direction. There are elements in American culture who believe that the greatest crime is to own; and that therefor he who has the most money is at fault. I live near a Superfund site of some note, the "Grace Spill". W.R. Grace itself, while they did engage in some dumping, was not responsible for the actual contamination. That was the work of a small, local firm. Others also dumped inappropriately. Who took it in the shorts? W.R. Grace. Why? The local firm who actually did the dirty work, had no funds. W.R. Grace could pay, so they did.

As to bigger vehicles not being safer, I don't know how you can "Debunk" physics. This is simple high school stuff. The object with more mass will override the force of the object with less mass. A Honda TOTALED itself on the rear bumper of my dad's Suburban once. The Suburban didn't even move on the impact because it had nearly triple the mass, and it suffered no damage whatsoever, because of its rigid frame. True that certain SUVs may be more easily rolled than lower vehicles, but in decades of testing cars, only two that passed through Consumer Reports's hands were flagged as such rollover risks that they made a fuss over it. CR is known to be especially hard on American cars, yet even though they were able to lift two wheels of a Chevy Blazer off the pavement, they said it was "not a threatening event, and corrected with a mundane procedure" (or something along those lines). Not surprisingly the two vehicles were Isuzus. Looking at CR's tests of SUVs, they post relatively low speeds though the avoidance maneuver, yet aside from the two Isuzus, they all complete it safely. What does this say? That different vehicles handle differently. Idiots get into SUVs and expect them to handle like cars. They ARE NOT cars and ARE NOT driven like cars.
If they roll under circumstances not created by driver error, than that is simply a failure mode. Small cars fold up like cheap suits when hit. No vehicle is without flaws. Even the HMMWV, which you seem to think is the only vehicle capable of off-roading, is flawed; it's extremely unwieldy to drive, uncomfortable to ride in (even the civilian versions), slow as fuck, and has abysmal fuel economy by modern standards. Everything is a trade-off. And Pintos only exploded when rear-ended by drunk drivers in pickup trucks doing 70 on surface streets (Overall they were no worse than average for the time period; Grimshaw Vs. FoMoCo was blown out of proportion by the media, just as the SUV business is today). And they fixed the problem eventually, as well.

And I don't even understand what you think you know about off-roading, bad weather driving, etc. Four-wheel-drive is an advantage because it CREATES traction for forward motive. That is ALL it does. SUVs usually have more aggressive tire, which also help traction. If you are driving appropriately for poor conditions, you will not have this magic "Sideways Fishtail" that, according to you always leads to a rollover (it does not). Stop pretending you know stuff abut this, because it is obvious that even if you do, your massive hatred for SUVs (which most likely has a similar source to Sander's; except you hate everybody who is not like you so it could most likely be all of them) is clouding your ability to reason. Each individual SUV will have a varying degree of off-road ability. Some, like the CJ Jeeps, the Toyota FJ Cruiser, the Land Rover Defender and Discovery, to name a few, are extremely capable. Others are not so capable but still more able than the average car. A skilled off-roader will know his individual vehicle's acceptable angle of approach and descent, and will avoid a situation in which he could roll, because it is possible in ANY vehicle when you are off road. Again, simply different limits.

I know you won't listen to me.
But I also know that you are a very strongly opinionated person and that you get extremely frustrated when someone is able to engage you in a rational discussion and does not give in to you. Perhaps you need to drive an SUV, I hear they make you feel very manly and powerful.

 

[Roshambo]

Roshambo: On the contrary, it is YOU who has his fingers in his ears; you continue to base ALL of your arguments off of one falsehood: That the vehicle is at fault for operator error, because it had different limits.

Read this carefully and slowly to yourself several times so it sinks in.

IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF OPERATOR ERROR.

I'm not even going to red the rest of the brainshit, as I skipped to the part about physics. Your personal life's experience doesn't impress me as much as the physics classes I took in one of my forays into college. I pointed out a few precise reasons why SUVs were unsafe, backed up by a shitload of evidence, and yet you're still blathering on about larger vehicles being safer because of your personal life and some irrelevant models. Sorry, your personal life is NOT WHOLLY INDICATIVE OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS WORLD.

That a simple turn at normal speeds from an offramp can flip an SUV loaded as advertised, sometimes with a top rack, should make you wake the fuck up.

But I know that dead people won't make you unplug your ears or your head from your ass. Yet you presume to say its their fault when there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence that makes your anecdotal evidence FULL OF SHIT.

That's just shitheaded of you. You deserve blink tags being implemented into browsers again because the effect is required.

Here's a good question, one that will stump you now that we've cut down most of your straw man arguments or ignored the outright stupidity:

If SUVs are inherently safer than cars, because of "their larger size", then why do they rollover when making the same turn a car can perform at much higher speeds? Or the Hummer? Or a pickup? Or anything else that has been properly engineered? Again, I brought up the lawsuits, because guess what? They are becoming common! Which I just fucking said, now twice for your personal benefit. This includes the facts that civvy-version "SUVs" are more prone to rollover from highway driving...that they are prone to rollover should mean that it's becoming what...DUR! A PROBLEM WITH THEM!

Gotcha, don't bother to whine.

 

[Lord 342]

Roshambo: On the contrary, it is YOU who has his fingers in his ears; you continue to base ALL of your arguments off of one falsehood: That the vehicle is at fault for operator error, because it had different limits.

Read this carefully and slowly to yourself several times so it sinks in.

IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF OPERATOR ERROR.

And why not? You've never said anything that proves this.

I'm not even going to red the rest of the brainshit, as I skipped to the part about physics. Your personal life's experience doesn't impress me as much as the physics classes I took in one of my forays into college. I pointed out a few precise reasons why SUVs were unsafe, backed up by a shitload of evidence, and yet you're still blathering on about larger vehicles being safer because of your personal life and some irrelevant models. Sorry, your personal life is NOT WHOLLY INDICATIVE OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS WORLD.

How come my personal life if irrelevant yet yours always seems to be?

That a simple turn at normal speeds from an offramp can flip an SUV loaded as advertised, sometimes with a top rack, should make you wake the fuck up.

And again we have the fallacy that all vehicles are the same. "Normal" speeds for a car and a truck (i.e. an SUV) are QUITE different. There is an off-ramp near me with a posted speed of 25 MPH. I can take its curve in my stodgy old buick at THREE TIMES that speed. But I wouldn't dream of doing it in any truck. You see when you drive you have to engage common sense. When you drive a top-heavy vehicle you have to slow down for turns. When your already top-heavy vehicle is loaded, you slow down EVEN MORE. And if you've loaded it on top first before in the cargo area, out of necessity or your own stupidity, then you slow down a whole lot. The slow speeds posted on on-ramps are there for a reason, as are the nifty little signs with pictures of Trucks rolling. The only reason SUVs appear unsafe in this regard is because they became popular and thereby put trucks in the hands of the general public who had had experience only with cars. The ones who make the same mistake you do here; that all vehicles handle similarly; are the ones who roll them. Going down an off-ramp too fast for your vehicle IS OPERATOR ERROR. If Semi-trucks became popular and the public at large tried to drive them like cars, guess what, they would turn them over on off-ramps! You are the one who needs blink tags.

But I know that dead people won't make you unplug your ears or your head from your ass. Yet you presume to say its their fault when there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence that makes your anecdotal evidence FULL OF SHIT.

People dead through there own stupidity or ignorance or simple mistakes simply convince me that we, as humans, are fallible. That includes you, bucko. Frivolous lawsuits and the evidence used in them simply convinces me that Shakespeare was right: "First, kill all the lawyers".

Here's a good question, one that will stump you now that we've cut down most of your straw man arguments or ignored the outright stupidity:

If SUVs are inherently safer than cars, because of "their larger size", then why do they rollover when making the same turn a car can perform at much higher speeds? Or the Hummer? Or a pickup? Or anything else that has been properly engineered? Again, I brought up the lawsuits, because guess what? They are becoming common! Which I just fucking said, now twice for your personal benefit. This includes the facts that civvy-version "SUVs" are more prone to rollover from highway driving...that they are prone to rollover should mean that it's becoming what...DUR! A PROBLEM WITH THEM!

This is an easy question to answer. I've been saying this all along but I can't seem to get through to you with it: And SUV is a TRUCK. It has a different center of gravity than a car. It is designed to do things a car can't, and therefor cannot do things a car can, like take off-ramps at high speed. You wouldn't drive a box truck down an off ramp at 45, would you? I do not know why this is hard to grasp, for me it is the easiest thing in the world.

The fact that we see law suits about this is indicative of a problem with our culture, where the individual must accept no blame. People who started smoking of there own free will blame the Tobacco firms. People blame McDonald's for making them fat, for fuck's sake. IF SOME DIPSHIT DOES SOMETHING STUPID IT IS HIS FAULT, NOT THE THING HE DID IT WITH OR THE COMPANY THAT MADE IT. It is that simple.

 

[4too]

TODAY: Supply Drives Demand

TODAY: Supply Drives Demand



Just started looking for availability of Honda Insight in my zip code area. None, according to a suspect auto browser wizard. Most want too much information, and I do not want to field salesman calls at this time.

Other hybrids appear more available, but their mileage reflects their size, comfort, stylin' and a MPG close to the better conventional gas powered small cars.

No doubt, plenty of SUV's available too, just like the multitude of Ford Pinto's and Chevy Vega's in the mid and late Seventies. Some dealers would offer a USED Japanese four cylinder auto in ads and confirm it still on the lot when one called. Usually ''sold'' when you got there. The ol' bait and switch, they would point to 20 (Flaming) Pinto's in their used car line up.

So once again a Japanese (Honda)
vehicle generates demand and a waiting list, while the vehicle type that this thread implies is THE MOST IN DEMAND by Americans is "easy'' to find.

This implies that ready availability on the lot, equals a - lower - demand for many types of motor vehicles. Our options for fuel economy / utility / safety seem as scarce as the petroleum derivatives that fuel the present transportation network.

Limited options would appear a WIN- WIN for the auto makers and ...
So with this LOCK on the supply side, why is GM still losing Billions of dollars?

What other business decisions are they fudging, and muddling?

Maybe the true market direction is vectored to using less gasoline. Maybe if GM properly developed it's electric car with LESS BLOAT and WASTE, their high powered heavy industrial marketing maze might have put less research in cup holders. Using conventional powered equipment batteries would cost a lot less, until the next generation benefits from economy of scale production. GM might have had a LOCK on the niche market (EARLY before the japanese) of families that have 2 or 3 vehicles and an urban commute of 50 miles or less. Consider 8 months of over grown golf cart driving, and save that 30 to 40k , 4 wheel drive, high ground clearance vehicle for the winter months.

GM could have sold a "cheap' electric and a middle to high SUV.
Exploiting both horns on this dilemma.

No, they are letting circumstances back seat drive with the corporate hands firmly steering with the ... rear view mirror. Call that responsible driving?



Today , options are limited, supply is limited. MARKETING demands a need be dictated and visualized, sold, as more REAL than simple transportation requirements.

Today , options are limited, supply drives demand.

.........................


Don't need 100,000 for a GM Bloat mobile ...

http://www.electroauto.com/

If one has the shop resources, confident mechanical experience, and a good deal on a donor car, this site claims to have conversion kits that exceed the GM specs. Resource outlay: 10k for a kit and 2 to 3 k for batteries.
So, if one got a low rust used small car for 5k, and had the 90 to 200 hours to convert, one could have an all electric commuter car, close to the cost of the hybrids and the high mpg gas/diesel cars.

But no time to watch FOX Network much less Public Televsion style doc u dramas....

or 200 hour action r-PG's with PC leveling / enemy scaling issues.




4too

 

[Lord 342]

The cars I see all the time are mostly those conversions. A company called "Solectria" does 'em. They work great where they are used; on the millitary base and college campus. Never too far from "home base", electric motors provide loads of torque for city driving, don't have to leave them idling while the messenger runs into and out of his destinations.
Electric cars -the real subject of this thread; wow!- are great niche market vehicles. They have many advantages for cetain settings, and they are very quiet. When they had electric busses in England (albeit fed by overhead catanaries like trains) they used to call them "The silent death" because it was easy to get squished by them. We still have them in Boston near me, but with power steering, accessories, etc, they make at least a modicum of noise.
They are (at least currently) no substitute for a "poured fuel" vehicle, but they fit better in certain settings.

 

[Roshambo]

And why not? You've never said anything that proves this.

As you've said, simple fucking physics. Which they obviously don't teach in high school physics classes anymore.

Narrower wheel contact plane + high center of gravity + centrifugal torque commonly resulting from normal driving on most on or off ramps = will you please turn your brain back on, I know you have one, Lord 342.

How come my personal life if irrelevant yet yours always seems to be?

Because you fail to put it in context and also fail to provide anything evidentiary to support any of these absolutely laughable bullshit things you've been saying.

And again we have the fallacy that all vehicles are the same. "Normal" speeds for a car and a truck (i.e. an SUV) are QUITE different. There is an off-ramp near me with a posted speed of 25 MPH. I can take its curve in my stodgy old buick at THREE TIMES that speed. But I wouldn't dream of doing it in any truck. You see when you drive you have to engage common sense. When you drive a top-heavy vehicle you have to slow down for turns. When your already top-heavy vehicle is loaded, you slow down EVEN MORE. And if you've loaded it on top first before in the cargo area, out of necessity or your own stupidity, then you slow down a whole lot. The slow speeds posted on on-ramps are there for a reason, as are the nifty little signs with pictures of Trucks rolling. The only reason SUVs appear unsafe in this regard is because they became popular and thereby put trucks in the hands of the general public who had had experience only with cars. The ones who make the same mistake you do here; that all vehicles handle similarly; are the ones who roll them. Going down an off-ramp too fast for your vehicle IS OPERATOR ERROR. If Semi-trucks became popular and the public at large tried to drive them like cars, guess what, they would turn them over on off-ramps!

Except these vehicles are rated for both those speeds and highway conditions, by the manufacturer*. So is rolling over because the TOP-HEAVY (look this up and figure out what the fuck it means, phsyics failure) when just moderately off-roading or even becoming inherently unsafe because of WEATHER CONDITIONS causing them to fishtail and flip even at lower speeds.

Hence the reason for the lawsuits being chased after by lawyers, because they have proven this many times. So if physics, multiple court findings, and vehicle safety investigations don't mean anything to you, keep on truckin' Captain Oblivious.

* - You just fell into trap two, dumbass. You try these shitty straw man arguments against someone who regularly thinks six moves ahead in chess and in debate?

EDIT: What the hell, I'll give away trap three. Tire blow-out, which happens from a number of causes, not all operator error. Nothing dies or rolls over from blow-out quite like an SUV.

You are the one who needs blink tags.

Not when you're being the stubborn retard.

People dead through there own stupidity or ignorance or simple mistakes simply convince me that we, as humans, are fallible. That includes you, bucko. Frivolous lawsuits and the evidence used in them simply convinces me that Shakespeare was right: "First, kill all the lawyers".

You've become a sickly oblivious little shit. What the fuck? You have to be QUITE in denial or out of touch to miss shit this obvious.

Again, stupid, it's THEIR.

If you're going to try correcting me about shit you don't have a clue about, at least try to make it a bit more legible. You still haven't bothered to explain shit about why the SUV is the MOST UNSTABLE VEHICLE ON THE ROAD and yet all the problems are driver error. For a sport-utility vehicle.

Yet you want to call people at fault because they buy something expecting to do something with it, and then it won't even work as advertised, and is in fact an inherent danger in normal driving conditions?

This is an easy question to answer. I've been saying this all along but I can't seem to get through to you with it: And SUV is a TRUCK. It has a different center of gravity than a car. It is designed to do things a car can't, and therefor cannot do things a car can, like take off-ramps at high speed. You wouldn't drive a box truck down an off ramp at 45, would you? I do not know why this is hard to grasp, for me it is the easiest thing in the world.

Yeah, then why do you fail to understand that THEY ARE FAR MORE UNSTABLE THAN A TRUCK, RETARD?! A pick-up can corner at higher speeds and turn rates than an SUV, because it has a properly-engineered center of balance, so can a car, and SUVs still remain the exception to everything. Delivery trucks could do the same, as they're designed for going along freeways. Is THAT simple enough for you to understand?

Just shut the fuck up about things you obviously don't know jack shit about. Through physics, through safety records, through engineering and design records, ALL SUVs except for the Hummer, which is instead a civilianized Humvee, are designed unsafe. A high center of gravity due to a narrow wheel contact plane, coupled with centrifugal torque and ANY bump to make it further unstable, means one certain thing that you haven't adressed yet. Might it be due to me using terms you had no clue about, instead using a straw man of your personal life?

"SUVs are dangerous vehicles, because they have a propensity to roll over."

"Propensity" doesn't mean "possibility". Please do bother to look up the big words.

That means it could tip as it's turning, over bumps a car, pick-up, or anything properly engineered could handle, which anyone who graduated high school physics should know. Let me know when you graduate into college to understand this, as you're refusing to rub the neurons together to form the spark until then.

 

[Lord 342]

Yes, I AM sickly oblivious to propaganda.
Figures don't like but liars can figure. SUVs have higher statistics for rollovers because people take them off-road. People who do not know how to drive off-road and then do something stupid. If peole took their Buicks and Toyotas off-roading, they'd roll them even more because of their shorter suspension travel. Combine this with idiots who drive them like cars on the roads, and presto, higher rollover rates.

And again with the criticism of the grammar; the last resort of he who can find no actual way to prove someone wrong. You do it too. Don't make me show you posts wherein you leave out whole words where you've berated some poor newbie who had an opinion that happened to differ from yours. I think we can keep this argument above the belt.


An SUV is still a truck, and NOT a pickup truck. It is a completely different kind of truck that does different things from a pickup truck, and, consequently, has different handling characteristics. It is no more "improperly engineered" than is my Corvette because the Corvette can't carry your bookcase home from the store and will get stuck in snow.

Narrower wheel contact plane + high center of gravity + centrifugal torque commonly resulting from normal driving on most on or off ramps = A SLOWER OFF-RAMP SPEED. Again, "Normal" varies with necessity based on the vehicle. There is no "normal", I have to tell you, as much as its existence would validate your argument. Why is this not obvious? Have you ever driven a truck? A REAL truck, not a pickup or even an SUV, but I mean a REAL commercial truck? If the answer is no, stop talking about all vehicles as if they were the same, because if you have, I think you would understand the degree of differences that exist between types of vehicles and the speeds at which they can complete similar maneuvers.

While you at least make a good show of understanding the physics that make a vehicle roll, you can't seem to grasp the simple solution of handling it differently because it is different from other vehicles. I do not understand this logic disconnect, especially since I have no trouble believing you are intelligent enough to actually understand the physics. Apparently my point remains just beyond your grasp.

Law suits ALWAYS arise when a product is mis-used. I've explained this already, I won't waste my time again.

As to tire blow-outs, that proves NOTHING except that different vehicles experience different modes of failure. An SUV is the last thing I'd rather have a tire blow out in (actually, no, a semi-truck is, but only if it were the front tire. There is a reason they don't allow recaps on the front axle) But I know what I'd rather be rear-ended in. There is no perfect vehicle, even though every manufacturer advertises his as if it were. We all know commercials are propaganda; you are stretching things pretty thin if you think I'm going to turn around and change my point of view because something doesn't actually work like in the fucking TV commercials. Maybe you're just disappointed your gymnast Barbie didn't do gymnastics on her own, like in the CG advert.

And SUVs are not the worst for center of gravity, that title goes to 15-pack vans, which roll extremely easily.

 

[Roshambo]

Yes, I AM sickly oblivious to propaganda.

And you're also sickly oblivious to simple physics, too. Or was "high school physics" a simple lie on your part?

Figures don't like but liars can figure.

Too bad you've not figured one fucking thing out except that you've stupidly bought into assumptions based upon your own willful ignorance.

SUVs have higher statistics for rollovers because people take them off-road.

MORON. Most rollover occurs on highways, and the articles I quoted were from people who included someone from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Now, I find it amusing that you put so much into credentials, so much that you'd suck off one car rag and an MIT nut, rather than believe the American Institute of Physics and NASA...in ways that would hurt NASA the most. Or you'll believe your story "from when I whuz on th' ferm" instead of people with numerous different backgrounds in different articles, and reasons to state these things, including ex-Ford engineers. If that doesn't make you wake the fuck up and start researching, I'm simply going to lock this topic as you've successfully killed it through drowing it out with stupidity and repeated fallacies.

If peole took their Buicks and Toyotas off-roading, they'd roll them even more because of their shorter suspension travel.

No, they'd get stuck first before rolling, because of the shallower suspension depth. That is how cars are engineered to have a lower center of gravity and to cope with the centrifugal torgue in their turning, to cope with the narrower wheel contact plane of most cars. Hence why cars are rated for streets and highway operations. SUVs are rated for streets/highway/offroad, but just barely so they can sell them.

Yes, I'm well aware of the physics and engineering of these things, I started out as an electronics engineer and have been progressing towards "master engineer". I can tell you that some of the "anti-rollover" technologies are laughable, only that lowering their center of gravity like a properly engineered vehicle would work.

Combine this with idiots who drive them like cars on the roads, and presto, higher rollover rates.

Funny that you should mention cars...

An SUV is still a truck, and NOT a pickup truck. It is a completely different kind of truck that does different things from a pickup truck, and, consequently, has different handling characteristics. It is no more "improperly engineered" than is my Corvette because the Corvette can't carry your bookcase home from the store and will get stuck in snow.

Funny that you consider it to be a truck, when there's some SEVERE engineering issues you just can't be bothered to look at. Not even when it involves accurate information about what the vehicle is designed for.

"Propaganda" is jack shit when statistically, SUVs have been proven unsafe, through engineering have been proven unsafe, and then you expect me to believe that YOU are somehow the only one that magically knows what the fuck goes on with SUVs because of something that happened when you were a kid with a Suburban someone owned, and it's all because of operator error.

And if you think I'm supposed to be impressed about the straw man argument about your Corvette being no better engineered than an SUV because you can't take a bookcase home, don't think you're immune to any of the avatars I provide for people who repeatedly use that kind of argument.

You still haven't bothered to explain ANYTHING about why the SUV can't do what it is designed and rated for, not even regarding the frame and construction, which I noticed you squeaked out of answering Sander about.

You haven't done shit except verbally masturbate upon "operator error" and make shitty straw man arguments.

Fine, then, provide proof this uncommon mass of SUV safety and rollover issues are all directly related to "operator error", or simply drop your bullshit now.

Narrower wheel contact plane + high center of gravity + centrifugal torque commonly resulting from normal driving on most on or off ramps = A SLOWER OFF-RAMP SPEED.

You OBVIOUSLY failed physics. So did most of America, or never even got to the point of understanding simple physics, so they will BELIEVE what they SEE, and BELIEVE what they READ. So if they see a vehicle off-roading, they will think it could do the same, hence the disclaimers. Now if the vehicle is described to them as being "like a truck" or "like the Humvee the Army used in the Gulf War", what are they to believe?

Let me break this down into models of autos since you can't obviously think spacially to wrap your mind around these simple physics concepts. It doesn't matter if you or I have a good concept of these things, it matters how much the common consumer is aware of it and educated about it. To many of the bipedal cockroaches in America, unless it's on the evening news or some trendy thing dealing with thier job, it's not worth knowing about.

Oh, and SUVs, BY THE MANUFACTURER (commonly Ford) and other sources, were rated at the same turning abilities as cars and pick-ups.

"Narrower wheel contact plane"

You want to call an SUV a truck?

Then explain why they have the wheel contact plane of a CAR, retard.

All except for the Humvee.

"high center of gravity"

You want to call an SUV a truck?

Then explain why they have poorer weight distribution, narrower wheel contact plane, and greater rollover propensity than a VAN, retard.

"centrifugal torque commonly resulting from normal driving on most on or off ramps"

This part requires thought. You obviously failed last time. And the time before. From when Sander pointed it out. From when I had to point it out for the second time, personally, and then when others probably stopped reading the thread after you stopped paying attention to any links or anything anyone else cared to say, instead going off to flog the mental dolphin to "operator error". Yes, we get that you're operating in error, have been for some time now.

You're the idiot that expects all of America to understand that not all SUVs are ANYTHING like what they were copied from, the Hummer...and then doesn't see fault in them driving something so stupid. Pardon if this comes as a shock to you, but frankly your logic's pretty fucking RE-TARDED!
:retarded:

Again, and this has NOTHING to do with driver error, how can you expect a vehicle that is so intrinsically poorly-engineered, that it doesn't suit ANY use for what it was copycatted from the Hummer for...except LOOK PRETTY? Even you have to say people have to be particularly careful with it...okay, then why does the involvement of incidential events lead to catastrophic results that no driver ability could overcome?

Hell, by ratio of owners and related accidents, SUVs also win over VAN rollovers. Even a van has a longer and generally wider wheel contact plane than an SUV. Meaning that a VAN could corner on an off-ramp far better than an SUV could, and many vans were known for being blown over from a bit of wind during high-speed turns...or from taking an off-turn at 80. However, many SUVs, in particular the most popular model, the Ford Explorer, can rollover in normal highway speeds and conditions.

Read that last part again, Corky. If the SUV isn't rated for normal highway operation, then uh...explain what they're doing on the highway. Or is that "operator error", too? If they have a high center of gravity, how the fuck can they offroad? (Hence the point of a pickup's longer and wider wheel base, a lot of weight has to have a lower center of gravity without actually being lower to the ground, while being able to cross over rough terrain. Which...is what they show in the commershuls, artard!)

The only reasons why they narrowed the wheel base for SUVs from the Hummer design was for yuppie "go-anywhere" appeal, and for lower cost. THAT IS IT. They're certainly not safer because of it.

That is the entire appeal and illusion of the SUV. It is designed to look like a vehicle safe like a truck but can handle like a car, yet can go offroad with the whole family.

(Snip the rest that proves you to have woken up on the retarded side of the bed this morning, including the FACT of severe SUV rollovers caused by simple blow-outs and other reasons unrelated to driver-error.)

*yawn* Predictable.

Again, I'll believe statistics and safety evaluations by multiple sources that agree, and leave your quaint personal story for the campfire. It's called "corroborating evidence", something to back up your point, which you haven't bothered to do in two threads now, so what the fuck? Anecdotal evidence is hardly on the same level, and until you realize that, I'll probably have to split/lock two topics.