Should SUV Driving amount to Drunk Driving?

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:43:57 -0800 (PST), donquijote1954
wrote:

Are SUVs' tinted windows a sign of shame? Or are they a sign of
misanthropism?

I find the tinted windows in my SUV (Mercedes-Benz ML 320) do a
pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm hauling my bikes, which
are standing upright in the back courtesy of a Bike-Tight Glider
Board.


--
jeverett3ATsbcglobalDOTnet (John V. Everett)

donquijote1954 wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:13 pm, John Everett
wrote:
I find the tinted windows in my SUV (Mercedes-Benz ML 320) do a
pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm hauling my bikes, which
are standing upright in the back courtesy of a Bike-Tight Glider
Board.

At least that's an smart and smaller SUV. I'm talking about Supersized
Unnecessary Vehicles here.

Sure, you know waste when you see it, and it's something that other
people do. I understand perfectly.

-------

I would rather just see fuel prices rise, myself. It would encourage
conservation at all levels. After all, what good is it for a person to
trade-in a huge SUV for a tiny car, and then have to drive the tiny car
as many trips to move what they were using the SUV for? Unless they
should have to get permission from YOU to pick a big car, and if that's
the case, go eat a dick.

It's rather like the problem with low-flow toilets: if you just have to
flush them multiple times to do the job, then what was the point?

------

I'm just waiting to catch some Earth-First fruitcake messing with my
SUV. They're going to feel pretty guilty as they're "wasting some of the
Earth's precious resources" down at the hospital emergency room.
~

"DougC" wrote in message
...
donquijote1954 wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:13 pm, John Everett
wrote:
I find the tinted windows in my SUV (Mercedes-Benz ML 320) do a
pretty good job of hiding the fact that I'm hauling my bikes, which
are standing upright in the back courtesy of a Bike-Tight Glider
Board.

At least that's an smart and smaller SUV. I'm talking about Supersized
Unnecessary Vehicles here.

Sure, you know waste when you see it, and it's something that other
people do. I understand perfectly.

What is interesting is how many people who post on Usenet do nothing
practical themselves. Thus a vehicle will will allow you to carry home a 4
x 8 piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always have to let
someone else do anything other than blab.

On Dec 17, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:

What is interesting is how many people who post on Usenet do nothing
practical themselves. Thus a vehicle will will allow you to carry home a 4
x 8 piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always have to let
someone else do anything other than blab.

I carry 4x8 plywood in a 1990 Honda Civic station wagon. The car was
apparently designed with that in mind. A 4x8 lays flat with the rear
seats folded down. It sticks out the back, but that's no big deal.
Lowes is only 1.5 miles from my house. BTW, the Civic gets not-
quite-40 mpg.

What would I do without the Civic - say, if I had to use a less
versatile small car? I'd just hitch up the utility trailer I built a
few decades ago. It's tiny, just 4' x 6', but it's hauled loads of
landscaping rock, so plywood would be no problem. But I use the
trailer only rarely. It's just not needed much.

You don't need to build your own utility trailer, of course. They're
for sale, cheap. Some even fold for more compact storage.

Of course, for every person with an economical car and a trailer,
there are about a million SUV owners who say "Oh, I've _GOT_ to have
my SUV! Some day, I might have to haul an entire sack of potatoes!"

- Frank Krygowski

George Conklin's latest idiocy:

Thus a vehicle [that] will allow you to carry home a 4 x 8
piece of plywood is called "Unnecessary" by those who always
have to let someone else do anything other than blab.

=v= Unless you're a carpenter, carrying home a 4 x 8 piece of
plywood is not a daily activity, so using that as an excuse for
dragging around an extra ton or so of steel on a more-than-daily
basis is kind of stupid.

=v= My own vehicle has hauled plywood of that size (and larger!)
when I've attached a trailer to it. So your argument simply
doesn't hold water (something else I've hauled).
_Jym_

wrote:

Of course, for every person with an economical car and a trailer,
there are about a million SUV owners who say "Oh, I've _GOT_ to have
my SUV! Some day, I might have to haul an entire sack of potatoes!"

- Frank Krygowski

The minor reason I have an SUV is that I want the 4WD when I need it.

The /major/ reason is that I am tall enough that I won't fit properly in
many cars, only bigger truck/SUVs and luxury-size cars--and eco-freaks
don't like them either.

I want at least 3-4 inches between my head and the roof, with the seat
in the (proper) upright position. Having doctors in the family, I've
heard stories of what happens when the vehicle flips and there's not
enough headroom--and I've also heard what the seatbelt does when the
person has the seat halfway reclined and they get into a frontal collision.

There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.
--------
If there was a government subsidy available to offset the higher price
of a (probably newer) higher-MPG vehicle that had 4WD and could fit me,
we can talk.

Alternately, if you'd care to pretend that nobody ever hauls anything
and just assign "maximum vehicle sizes" based on the primary driver's
/height/, we can do that too--I'd still end up with a larger vehicle.

Or we could all just grow up a bit, and realize that "freedom to choose"
involves the possibility that other people will make choices that you
don't agree with.
..........

Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
people won't arrive at on their own?
~

"DougC" wrote in message
...

Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
people won't arrive at on their own?
~

Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of
all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
should and they are there to tell us what to do.

"George Conklin" wrote in message
...

"DougC" wrote in message
...

Why is it that "urban planning" always involves enforcing decisions that
people won't arrive at on their own?
~

Well, technically that is called normative behavior. Like preachers of
all types (religious or secular), planners think we don't live like we
should and they are there to tell us what to do.

And there it is!

Now, come on, George. Couldn't you have squeezed in "revanchist"?

:-D

On Dec 17, 1:40 pm, DougC wrote:
wrote:

Of course, for every person with an economical car and a trailer,
there are about a million SUV owners who say "Oh, I've _GOT_ to have
my SUV! Some day, I might have to haul an entire sack of potatoes!"

- Frank Krygowski

The minor reason I have an SUV is that I want the 4WD when I need it.

Uh huh. Like last night, when I drove to a place where I was
scheduled to play music. About 30 miles, IIRC. Winter storm in
progress. Blowing, drifting snow. Snowplows unable to keep up.

Were you the guy in the 4WD pickup driving at 20 mph on the rural
highway, with his flashers on, with the traffic piled up behind him?
Probably not, I guess. Still...

I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive.
Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't
"need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road.

I think the "need" for 4WD is just another artificially concocted
product of advertising. It's not like society ground to a halt when
it snowed in 1965.

The /major/ reason is that I am tall enough that I won't fit properly in
many cars, only bigger truck/SUVs and luxury-size cars--and eco-freaks
don't like them either.

I want at least 3-4 inches between my head and the roof, with the seat
in the (proper) upright position. Having doctors in the family, I've
heard stories of what happens when the vehicle flips and there's not
enough headroom--and I've also heard what the seatbelt does when the
person has the seat halfway reclined and they get into a frontal collision.

We've got an ER doctor in the family, so I've heard plenty of weird
horror stories.

If you let every horror story guide your decisions, you'll paralyze
yourself with fear. For example: I read recently that in Canada, more
people die by falling out of bed than from bike crashes. So what
should you do? Sleep on a mat on the floor? No, you should realize
that weird, regrettable accidents happen, no matter what you do.

But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
vehicle that's most prone to flipping!

There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.

Got data?

--------
If there was a government subsidy available to offset the higher price
of a (probably newer) higher-MPG vehicle that had 4WD and could fit me,
we can talk.

Alternately, if you'd care to pretend that nobody ever hauls anything
and just assign "maximum vehicle sizes" based on the primary driver's
/height/, we can do that too--I'd still end up with a larger vehicle.

Or we could all just grow up a bit, and realize that "freedom to choose"
involves the possibility that other people will make choices that you
don't agree with.

One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
by the effect of one's choice on others.

Most reasons for choosing SUVs are illogical rationalization. Yet
every SUV driver is imposing added danger on other road users, by
their excessive mass, their high bumpers, their blocking of
visibility, and often, their aggressive or simply stupid driving.
They're also hurting our national security by contributing to to
excessive energy demand.

I be a lot less bothered by people choosing SUVs if they actually paid
the real cost of their choice. But that's not likely to happen soon.
What's your share of our latest war-for-oil?

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
.....
I was finally able to pass him. That's with my front wheel drive.
Within a couple minutes, he was out of sight behind me. He didn't
"need" 4WD. He needed to stay off the road.


If you think that front wheel drive is "just as good" as 4-wheel drive,
then you aren't going anywhere you need 4-wheel drive.

.....
But if you're really afraid of jamming your head into the roof when
your vehicle flips, it doesn't make much sense to drive the type of
vehicle that's most prone to flipping!


Yes it does, if the only vehicles that can satisfy both the requirements
I have are SUV's.

There might be a smaller car out there that has 4WD and enough headroom,
but I'd bet it costs a lot more than the used SUV I bought.

Got data?


No, do you? We'd be considering 1995-2000 year US models here, since
that was the era mine was made in...

One could also grow enough to know that some choices are simply
wrong. And that freedom to choose has always needed to be restricted
by the effect of one's choice on others.

So if I cost other people money by driving a (larger) SUV, then how do
other people save me money by driving tiny cars? Because so far I
haven't seen a dime of that savings. Every time I fill up, it costs me
$45, $50 a tank, and somebody with a little car there is only paying $15
or $20! It's just unfair!

I be a lot less bothered by people choosing SUVs if they actually paid
the real cost of their choice. But that's not likely to happen soon.
What's your share of our latest war-for-oil?


I pay more for gas, for what driving I do. What other costs were you
imagining?
~