# If I see another bloody soccer mom driving a big SUV (XC90)...............



## Jeff_24 (9 Sep 2007)

That's it, I have had it! If I see another bloody soccer mom driving a big XC90 with just 1 stupid child in the back I am going to break down!!! It's fine if you live in the county, but in an urban area it is just so unbelievably vulgar. Somebody was telling me the other day about their new M Class and asked me what did I think. I looked them straight in the eye and said "you sicken me!". I am being very blunt about this, but I just can't stress enough how much I hate these stupid, arrogant pig headed people. They have no self esteem, that's their main problem. They have to literally look down on other people just because of this. What can we do to stop this??


----------



## tosullivan (9 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



Jeff_24 said:


> What can we do to stop this??


Nothing


----------



## bond-007 (9 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*

Tax them out of existance. 

Address in the rural countryside normal tax, address in urban area punitive tax levels.


----------



## woods (9 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*

What is your issue exactly.
I drive an SUV because I am a carefull driver and am aware that they are a lot of idiots driving out there and if I have a close encounter with one of them then I do not wish to be the looser.
I am aware that that position brings extra responsibilities for me to be carefull so that I will not be the cause of the encounter and I take these responsibilities seriously.
So please let me know what you find wrong in the choices that I have made.


----------



## Jeff_24 (9 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



woods said:


> What is your issue exactly.
> I drive an SUV because I am a carefull driver and am aware that they are a lot of idiots driving out there and if I have a close encounter with one of them then I do not wish to be the looser.
> I am aware that that position brings extra responsibilities for me to be carefull so that I will not be the cause of the encounter and I take these responsibilities seriously.
> So please let me know what you find wrong in the choices that I have made.



Oh, where does the list start! Well, when reversing out when parked beside one they create huge blindspots, they guzzle fuel and that can't be good considering the current situation, they take up too much space on the road, most people who own them are barely able to drive them, they produce large quantities of CO2, they aren't safe for pedestrians or other people in cars on the road, they are intimidating. Is that big enough a list for you??


----------



## ajapale (9 Sep 2007)

Moved to Letting Off Steam from Motoring Issues and title changed to reflect nature of discussion.

aj
(mod)


----------



## woods (9 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



Jeff_24 said:


> Oh, where does the list start! Well, when reversing out when parked beside one they create huge blindspots, they guzzle fuel and that can't be good considering the current situation, they take up too much space on the road, most people who own them are barely able to drive them, they produce large quantities of CO2, they aren't safe for pedestrians or other people in cars on the road, they are intimidating. Is that big enough a list for you??


I know that they are not good for pedestrians and that is why I feel that there is extra responsibility on the drivers to be carefull.
If drivers are not being carefull then it is not fair to blame the vehicle. They do not actually take up any more space on the road than the larger cars and I do not hear you including them in your tirade.
As for the CO2 issue, may I ask if you are vegan because if you are not then how dare you mention that one. It is a fact that the raising of livestock for human consumption generates more CO2 than all travel combined including air travel.
I am willing to compare my carbon footprint with all on this board and I will beat 99% of them hands down. In the meantime I will continue to feel safe in my large heavy vehicle while I have to take my chances on the Irish roads.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (10 Sep 2007)

www.*youtube*.com/watch?v=pCo2K4Gyv3w&watch_response - 115k


----------



## demoivre (10 Sep 2007)

> Well, when reversing out when parked beside one they create huge blindspots



You would have the same problem if you parked beside a Galaxy, Alhambra etc. - would you ban does too?



> they guzzle fuel and that can't be good considering the current situation



Numerous cars out there with similar or bigger engines BMW530, 730 and 740series , E320 Merc, S type Jag etc. etc.



> most people who own them are barely able to drive them



....and your evidence to support this?



> they take up too much space on the road



No more space than a Galaxy, Alhambra etc.



> they aren't safe for pedestrians or other people in cars on the road



An irresponsibly driven micra is more of a danger on the road than a responsibly driven SUV. Don't know about Foxrock but the boy racers down my way don't drive XC90s.

Your posts in this thread are the most poorly thought out that I have possibly ever read on a BB - they say a lot more about you than they do about SUV drivers


----------



## Caveat (10 Sep 2007)

As demoivre has intimated, 'performance' cars (of which there are plenty around) are more guilty of 'fuel guzzling' than the average SUV - and let's face it, are much more likely to be driven irresponsibly.


----------



## diarmuidc (10 Sep 2007)

demoivre said:


> An irresponsibly driven micra is more of a danger on the road than a responsibly driven SUV



An irresponsibly driven micra is more of a danger on the road than a responsibly driven fully loaded tank. So what. That assertion adds nothing to this discussion

Here are [broken link removed]:
SUV's are a greater risk to others on the road than all other classes of cars excluding pickup truck (and pretty much level with sports cars)
SUV's are a greater risk to the person driving them than midsize, large, luxury cars and mini vans.



			
				woods said:
			
		

> I drive an SUV because I am a carefull driver and am aware that they are a lot of idiots driving out there and if I have a close encounter with one of them then I do not wish to be the looser.


And if everyone takes your attitude, we are going to have an equivalent of the arms race on the roads. Everyone (who can afford it) getting a bigger and tougher car to "protect" themselves from the others on the roads. Not a solution to your original problem.



> As demoivre has intimated, 'performance' cars (of which there are plenty around) are more guilty of 'fuel guzzling' than the average SUV - and let's face it, are much more likely to be driven irresponsibly.


What's do you classify as the average SUV, the average performace car? I would doubt there is a whole lot in the consumption between the two in a typical driving scenario.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2007)

Good post diarmuidc. 
If it doesn't have a tow-bar then the driver doesn't need it. All else being equal they are more dangerous than a saloon car to other road users in a crash.


----------



## michaelm (10 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> If it doesn't have a tow-bar then the driver doesn't need it.


This sums it up nicely.  If not a ban on SUV's they should at least ban the bullbars that many SUV's sport as these are potentially lethal.


----------



## Caveat (10 Sep 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> What's do you classify as the average SUV, the average performace car? I would doubt there is a whole lot in the consumption between the two in a typical driving scenario.


 
Let's not get into exactly what constitutes an average SUV or a performance car.
Anyway, what is 'typical driving'? I'm sure the average GTi driver doesn't exactly drive so as to minimise environmental impact.

I read an article in The Sunday Times a few months back comparing emissions/consumption etc between selected SUV and hot hatches/sports cars which made surprising reading.

I'm no lover of SUVs myself - in the urban context I personally think they are generally unnecessary, vulgar, ostentatious status symbols. It's just that I also think their environmental impact seems to have been overstated.


----------



## demoivre (10 Sep 2007)

> An irresponsibly driven micra is more of a danger on the road than a responsibly driven fully loaded tank. So what. That assertion adds nothing to this discussion


You're missing the point. Driving responsibly is crucial to road safety - incredible that you can't identify with that. It's a well documented fact that speeding and alcohol are  the two major contributing factors in road traffic accidents, both of which are avoidable, and not whether or not you drive an SUV.


----------



## ney001 (10 Sep 2007)

I looked them straight in the eye and said "you sicken me!"

A touch dramatic me thinks! - all of the things going on in the world and somebody asking your opinion on a vehicle sickens you????.  

As it happens soccer moms and others in SUVS bug me as well  - not so much because of the SUV but because for the most part these guys are poor drivers.  They do the same routes day in day out (school and shops) - if they have to go out of their comfort zone they panic.  They have no comprehension of blinds spots, consideration on the roads and parking and most of all they cannot handle a large vehicle/engine. 

I also have the same problem with my other pet hate - older women drivers in big E class Mercerdes or other big saloon cars - they have no idea of the length or width of their vehicle and just hope for the best when parking or reversing - in fact they will try their best not to have to reverse if at all possible.  Recently in Blanchardstown shopping centre I witnessed a woman trying repeatedly to reverse from a car space (it was not a tight space) she was just sitting down really low behind a big steering wheel, she did not look around her, she did not accurately judge the room on each side - eventually she called me over and asked me if I could reverse for her!.  This is a woman who should have been driving a small car which she could handle.  All drivers should be confident in what they are driving, they should be aware of the length, weight and width of their vehicle - if you ask any of these soccer moms what length their jeep is they wouldn't have a clue!.


----------



## Nell (10 Sep 2007)

I just wonder why anybody would need an SUV for city driving.


----------



## ney001 (10 Sep 2007)

Nell said:


> I just wonder why anybody would need an SUV for city driving.



They don't need one - they want one!


----------



## ivuernis (10 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



woods said:


> As for the CO2 issue, may I ask if you are vegan because if you are not then how dare you mention that one. It is a fact that the raising of livestock for human consumption generates more CO2 than all travel combined including air travel.


 
Please get the facts correct before you start pontificating to others.


----------



## ubiquitous (10 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



ivuernis said:


> Please get the facts correct before you start pontificating to others.



"Facts" = a Wikipedia page that is based on unattributed data??



> This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data and is part of the Global Warming Art project.


----------



## pat127 (10 Sep 2007)

Jeff_24 said:


> That's it, I have had it! If I see another bloody soccer mom driving a big XC90 with just 1 stupid child in the back I am going to break down!!! It's fine if you live in the county, but in an urban area it is just so unbelievably vulgar. Somebody was telling me the other day about their new M Class and asked me what did I think. I looked them straight in the eye and said "you sicken me!". I am being very blunt about this, but I just can't stress enough how much I hate these stupid, arrogant pig headed people. They have no self esteem, that's their main problem. They have to literally look down on other people just because of this. What can we do to stop this??




Nice one Jeff! Seems to me that you're dangling a big hook and reeling in a lot of fish. If you really want to wind them up why not sling in a comment about women drivers and whether they should be banned from the roads?


----------



## annR (10 Sep 2007)

SUVs annoy me as well but before we get into women drivers, I've seen loads of men driving them as well.  I do find them intimidating on the road, it just seems to me that SUV drivers are more aggressive, maybe because it is a larger vehicle, either way I dislike it when I come round a bend and am confronted with an SUV that I have to dodge or squeeze past.

At least people in lorries and vans have them for some commercial reason, I think the annoying thing about SUVs is that they were designed for off road driving and there's no good reason to have them otherwise.
I know people have them for safety reasons but citing that reason is really giving the finger to the rest of us in small cars;  i.e. you have an SUV so that if you are a collision with a car your SUV will 'win out' and totally wreck the other car and its occupant most likely.

I do think they are dangerous in school car parks as well with small kids running around.  The wheels of one of them is taller than a small child no problem.  I don't think they should be allowed anywhere near a school.  Can't stand them I have to say.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2007)

annR said:


> SUVs annoy me as well but before we get into women drivers, I've seen loads of men driving them as well.  I do find them intimidating on the road, it just seems to me that SUV drivers are more aggressive, maybe because it is a larger vehicle, either way I dislike it when I come round a bend and am confronted with an SUV that I have to dodge or squeeze past.


 I agree, I do a lot of driving and find men in SUV’s to be the most aggressive (drive too fast, too close and lane jump). 



annR said:


> At least people in lorries and vans have them for some commercial reason, I think the annoying thing about SUVs is that they were designed for off road driving and there's no good reason to have them otherwise.


 Good point.



annR said:


> I know people have them for safety reasons but citing that reason is really giving the finger to the rest of us in small cars;  i.e. you have an SUV so that if you are a collision with a car your SUV will 'win out' and totally wreck the other car and its occupant most likely.


 This is a very important point and the “but I’m a good driver” line used by SUV drivers just doesn’t stand up. A gob****e in an SUV is more dangerous than a gob****e in a Micra. That’s the bottom line. 



annR said:


> I do think they are dangerous in school car parks as well with small kids running around.  The wheels of one of them is taller than a small child no problem.  I don't think they should be allowed anywhere near a school.


 Another good point.


----------



## Guest111 (10 Sep 2007)

I think people buy these cars because they feel their families will be safer in them. Personally I don't like jeeps/SUV's but if myself and my partner had kids we would certainly get her an SUV. Partly as they can carry all the bits and bobs associated with kids, partly because I don't trust other road users and partly for the comfort factor.
I'm not sure verbal attacks on SUV drivers serve any purpose other than to create conflict where there's no need.


----------



## MrMan (10 Sep 2007)

To be honest I haven't seen any great evidence that SUV drivers are any more aggressive than any other. Also with regards their choice in car it is a bit extreme to suggest that they have issues regarding feeling insecure in themselves etc. People buy big expensive SUV's that are not totally necessary and people also buy big expensive homes that suit well beyond their needs, but the choice is theirs and that is the way it should be. This moral high ground about SUVs being more dangerous than other vehicles for passengers etc doesn't stand in my opinion it always comes back to the driver. It would be interesting to see what percentages of SUVs are connected to fatal accidents per annum. 

I don't drive one but I do think there is more than a hint of jealosy attached to any rant held against them and their drivers


----------



## ney001 (10 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> To be honest I haven't seen any great evidence that SUV drivers are any more aggressive than any other. Also with regards their choice in car it is a bit extreme to suggest that they have issues regarding feeling insecure in themselves etc. People buy big expensive SUV's that are not totally necessary and people also buy big expensive homes that suit well beyond their needs, but the choice is theirs and that is the way it should be. This moral high ground about SUVs being more dangerous than other vehicles for passengers etc doesn't stand in my opinion it always comes back to the driver. It would be interesting to see what percentages of SUVs are connected to fatal accidents per annum.
> 
> I don't drive one but I do think there is more than a hint of jealosy attached to any rant held against them and their drivers




I very much agree - if people want a big ass car then let them off -  once they can drive it though!


----------



## ubiquitous (10 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> This moral high ground about SUVs being more dangerous than other vehicles for passengers etc doesn't stand in my opinion it always comes back to the driver.



Does it? I think its pretty conclusive that bull bars on the front of jeeps, SUVs etc are inherently more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, that the front bumper of a conventional car or van.


----------



## diarmuidc (10 Sep 2007)

And not just that, due to the the weight of the SUV, some have had the tendancy, on rolling over, to crush the cab, killing the occupants


----------



## gonk (10 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I think its pretty conclusive that bull bars on the front of jeeps, SUVs etc are inherently more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, that the front bumper of a conventional car or van.


 
They are and there is now a ban on bull bars being fitted as original equipment by car makers in the EU.

For some unknown reason, however, bull bars themselves are not banned. So, they can still be retrofitted and owners of vehicles fitted with them (which include ordinary vans, not just 4x4s) do not have to remove them.

Anyone who continues to drive with bull bars is an idiot - but by my observation anyway most 4x4s (including mine) don't have them.

That said, it is true that it is a higher risk of serious injury or death for a pedestrian to be hit by a 4x4 than an "ordinary car". But that begs the question what is an "ordinary car". Presumably, for example, being hit by a heavier saloon car like a Mercedes is worse than being hit by a Micra - do we ban all cars over a certain weight?


----------



## Nell (10 Sep 2007)

For City Driving I think it would be no harm to discourage anyone from driving SUVs or large executive saloons. SUVs are ok if you intend pulling a trailer or horsebox and require them in the countryside / "off road". What good are they stuck in gridlock or doing the school run? the cost of fuel must be v high.


----------



## gonk (10 Sep 2007)

Nell said:


> What good are they stuck in gridlock or doing the school run? the cost of fuel must be v high.


 
What good is any car stuck in gridlock? As has already been pointed out, 4x4s do not take up significantly more road space than "ordinary" cars. If you could magically replace every 4x4 in Ireland with a Micra or a Starlet overnight, you'd still have traffic jams.

Fuel consumption is another red herring. People have latched onto the concept of "gas-guzzling SUVs" from the States, where engine sizes are much bigger (5 litres plus wouldn't be unusual) and diesel much less common than here. My 2.5 litre diesel 4x4 does about 30mpg, or 35mpg on a long run. Not great, I know, but better than a lot of "ordinary" cars.

If the SUV bashers got their way and they were all banned, they would be sorely disappointed at the traffic and environmental difference it made - little or none.


----------



## Jock04 (10 Sep 2007)

The much shortened version of my view -

They are fashion accessories/ status symbols. (you simply have to do something, darling - very ordinary people are driving Beemers & Mercs these days - how does one stand out?). There are less intrusive vehicles offering good safety standards & user-friendliness.

Non SUV owners dislike them because they tend, in many cases, to be poorly driven & parked.The effect is more pronounced than with a saloon car. They cause visual obstruction at junctions & are generally "unfriendly" to other road users.  A Merc bumper may break your shin, an SUV bumper may break you in half.

They seem particularly popular in Ireland. Visible "status" is considered very important with a section of the population.

Paris has banned them, other cities may follow.

Being the ingenious people they are, the Irish will soon a find way around any limitations such as restricting ownership to farmers.

Like all fashion accessories, they will eventually go away.
Just try not to get hit by one in the meantime!


----------



## gonk (10 Sep 2007)

Jock04 said:


> They are fashion accessories/ status symbols.


 
True, but criticising them on bogus environmental and traffic congestion grounds has become even more fashionable.


----------



## cole (10 Sep 2007)

Soccer mum's driving SUV's aka mother truckers.


----------



## MrMan (10 Sep 2007)

> Does it? I think its pretty conclusive that bull bars on the front of jeeps, SUVs etc are inherently more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, that the front bumper of a conventional car or van.



What is the relevance of this statement, the rant is about SUV's, I don't think anyone is questioning the usefullness of bullbars. Yes they are dangerous and needless, but also off topic.



> And not just that, due to the the weight of the SUV, some have had the tendancy, on rolling over, to crush the cab, killing the occupants



I still don't think there is enough cause to want to ban them even from cities.



> Non SUV owners dislike them because they tend, in many cases, to be poorly driven & parked.The effect is more pronounced than with a saloon car. They cause visual obstruction at junctions & are generally "unfriendly" to other road users. A Merc bumper may break your shin, an SUV bumper may break you in half.



Talk about a generalisation, I'm on the road every day in and out of the city and bad drivers are indeed on view every day, but they are definitely not confined to SUV's. We know what damage an SUV can do but what damage can actually be attributed to them.


----------



## GeneralZod (10 Sep 2007)

I find SUV drivers are amongst the most aggressive drivers on the road, they're up there with white van man.

They tail gate and drive faster than most.

I think the "I'm alright Jack" attitude about coming off better in a crash if you're in a SUV is very selfish as it exposes other drivers to greater risk.


----------



## woods (10 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



ivuernis said:


> Please get the facts correct before you start pontificating to others.


Shortcut to: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
Shortcut to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment
Shortcut to: http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/sustainabletompkins/2007-March/001790.html
Shortcut to: http://www.wellfedworld.org/globalwarming.htm
Shortcut to: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Eat_A_Steak_Warm_The_Planet_999.html
Shortcut to: http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html

As if I would be guilty of pontificating.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> I don't drive one but I do think there is more than a hint of jealosy attached to any rant held against them and their drivers


 I don't in any way feel jealosy toward those who drive them. I was given an XC90 while my car was being serviced and I hated it. It was like driving a van and if I want a van I'll buy one, not one pretending to be a car.


----------



## snuffle (10 Sep 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> I find SUV drivers are amongst the most aggressive drivers on the road, they're up there with white van man.
> 
> They tail gate and drive faster than most.
> 
> I think the "I'm alright Jack" attitude about coming off better in a crash if you're in a SUV is very selfish as it exposes other drivers to greater risk.




Sigh, here we go with the generalisations and authorative statements from people with a chip on their shoulder about 4x4s for whatever reason.

OK so, how about this - I find people have this misplaced notion that 4x4 drivers (doesn't seem to matter to these people if it's a SUV or a genuine commercial vehicle either) are "aggressive" and will overcompensate in their OWN aggressiveness when encountering them - eg. my husband (who uses our  commercial 4x4 for work purposes) was driven off the road by a bint in a hatchback, she swerved aggressively into his lane, while being level with his door, and forced him to take the decision to mount the pedestrian-free footpath and hit a pole rather than risk a crash with said bint. She kept driving away from the scene while my husband had to assess the damage to our vehicle caused by aggressive hatchback driving. Hence - a 4x4 driver whos' driving is courteous to a fault, is literally run off the road by aggressive, ignorant, female hatchback driver. There's one anecdote to scupper your theory.

And "we" certainly do not drive faster than most - due to the vehicle being heavier, I am more aware of the need to be able to stop safely in an emergency and hence drive more slowly and conscientiously than I would if I were driving my car (when I say that, I don't mean I don't drive conscientiously when driving my car, but I am on extra high alert when driving the 4x4). Also the fact that you may have a load in the back of the 4x4 would mean you would drive more slowly to avoid over-braking and possibly dislodging the load. 

I am female, but I am comfortable with safely reversing/parking larger or higher vehicles (perhaps due to learning initially to drive in Hiace/Transit vans, which were my father's work vehicles) but maybe I am the exception to the rule -  I do agree that there is nothing more frustrating than seeing someone, male or female, trying to maneouver a vehicle they clearly are not able for, I often feel like pointing them in the direction of a smart car, which is about the size some people should be driving if they cannot manage simple maneouvering tasks. My own first car was a Nissan Micra, and trust me, I would far rather encounter me now in a 4x4 than me as a nervous learner teenager in a Micra!


As for the safety aspect - that did admittedly influence our decision to purchase. I was involved in an accident last year where I was rear-ended while sitting in traffic in my Peugeot 206, and the car crumpled to a concertina. The jeep in front of me, which my car also hit due to the force of the impact, hadn't even a scratch on the point of impact, so having been that innocent person sitting in the smaller car coming out of an accident caused by an idiot driver (I was struck by a car, incidentally, a station wagon style car), with back injuries and a completely written off car, I would  most definitely choose to be the person in the 4x4 who is still alive after some other irresponsible driver causes me to be involved in an accident, rather than possibly the dead driver of a smaller car which crumpled to oblivion.

As an aside, I read that in a survey carried out in the states which assessed carbon "footprints" of 74 vehicles, the Toyota Prius (or pious as it's colloquially known) came out bottom of the pile in 74th place with the worst ratings for carbon emmisions from production to disposal, and the number 1 car for least emmissions was the Jeep Wrangler. 
hmmmmmm..........


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> I learned to drive in a Nissan Micra, and trust me, I would far rather encounter me now in a 4x4 than me as a nervous learner teenager in a Micra!


 But that's not the point. Would you rather meet a nervous learner in a Micra or a large 4X4?


----------



## Pique318 (10 Sep 2007)

snuffle said:


> ....I would most definitely choose to be the person in the 4x4 who is still alive after some other irresponsible driver causes me to be involved in an accident, rather than possibly the dead driver of a smaller car which crumpled to oblivion.
> 
> As an aside, I read that in a survey carried out in the states which assessed carbon "footprints" of 74 vehicles, the Toyota Prius (or pious as it's colloquially known) came out bottom of the pile in 74th place with the worst ratings for carbon emmisions from production to disposal, and the number 1 car for least emmissions was the Jeep Wrangler.
> hmmmmmm..........


 

Cars are designed to crumple when hit, to absorb the energy, so the 206 actually saved your life (or more serious internal injuries) by doing that.

Also, I would love to see that 'survey' carried out in the US which (surprise surprise) revealed that a 4.0L petrol (or whatever they squeeze under the bonnet of those things) Wrangler was kinder to the environment than a Prius ? Maybe the batteries in the prius may be harmful if left rotting in a landfill but seriously, do you believe that story ?

Anyhoo....back OT. SUVs....if you have one, good for you....just don't wash it, and let it at least 'look' like it was off road now and again !
Do NOT buy that spray-on mud to make it look like you were off-roading. 


And to ALL drivers out there, learn the physics behind driving and how a car and the changes in the control of the driven wheels, steering, tyres, braking etc affect the balance and overall control of a car and we might all be a bit safer on the roads !!!!


----------



## woods (10 Sep 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> I find SUV drivers are amongst the most aggressive drivers on the road, they're up there with white van man.
> 
> They tail gate and drive faster than most.
> 
> I think the "I'm alright Jack" attitude about coming off better in a crash if you're in a SUV is very selfish as it exposes other drivers to greater risk.


I am not aggressive as a driver. I do not tailgate and I most definatly do not drive fast.
I do not feel selfish just because I do everything I can to be safe. That is like saying that the person who fits a burglar alarm to their house is selfish because the burglar will go next door and so they are putting their neighbours at risk.
If you can promise me that you will take all the young speedmerchants and lunatics off the road then us grandparents will feel safer and can give up the SUVs
And I totally fail to see where the jelousy aspect comes in to it. I would much prefer to drive a nice car.


----------



## brodiebabe (10 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



woods said:


> In the meantime I will continue to feel safe in my large heavy vehicle while I have to take my chances on the Irish roads.


 
You'll feel safe.  That's great!

What about if you hit someone in a Nissan Micra.  They won't be safe.  But don't worry too much about it - you'll be safe!


----------



## GeneralZod (10 Sep 2007)

The problem with the widespread adoption of SUVs is that they're incompatible with other vehicles. The crumple zone of the SUV rides up over the car's crumple zone into the passenger compartment. These vehicles were let become prevalent and used for purposes that their basic design made them unsuitable for without endangering other road users. This isn't to mention their high centre of gravity and risk of rollover.

This class of vehicle needs to be made safer. Fortunately manufacturers are being required to make them more compatible with other vehicles.  

In effect future "SUV" models have to be designed out of existence by making them more car like.


----------



## Bluebells (11 Sep 2007)

Methinks some posters have  a problem with _women _ driving these vehicles. Maybe the reason they are the transport of choice is simply that they _are_ Moms.
The car seats are usually in the back of Mammy's car, not Dads. Dad drives his car to work and parks it. Mammy brings the kids to school, to games, to the doctor etc. The buggy will be in her boot, not Dads. The  children most often travel their mother's car. 
It is Mammy who has to lift them in and out of the child seats, it is much easier to lift a heavy todder _up_into a seat than _down_into said seat, because one does not have to bend ones back while lifting a heavy load. In fact it is easier for everyone to get into, and out of, a higher vehicle, esp grandma.
Don't know how the people carriers stack up against this, maybe they are the same in terms of height etc? Can't comment on enviornmental impact, don't know enough about it. Don't know who to believe. 

PS. Last year, John Creedon invited listeners to give examples of things that illustrate the Celtic Tiger . The one that won was  " fellas driving 4x4s and avoiding potholes "


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2007)

Bluebells said:


> Methinks some posters have  a problem with _women _ driving these vehicles. Maybe the reason they are the transport of choice is simply that they _are_ Moms.


 I can’t answer for other posters but I find men in 4X4’s to be aggressive, speed and tailgate. My issues with women using them for school runs etc are no different to the general issues outlined above, in particular the selfishness of using a vehicle that is more dangerous to other road users as outlined so well be General Zod


Bluebells said:


> The car seats are usually in the back of Mammy's car, not Dads. Dad drives his car to work and parks it. Mammy brings the kids to school, to games, to the doctor etc. The buggy will be in her boot, not Dads. The children most often travel their mother's car.
> It is Mammy who has to lift them in and out of the child seats, it is much easier to lift a heavy toddler _up_into a seat than _down_into said seat, because one does not have to bend ones back while lifting a heavy load. In fact it is easier for everyone to get into, and out of, a higher vehicle, esp grandma.
> Don't know how the people carriers stack up against this, maybe they are the same in terms of height etc?


 People movers are about the same height, maybe slightly lower but from my experience they are a better height than 4X4’s. By the way, your comments are quite sexist. My mother in law does some of the picking up of my children and she drives a Fiesta.




Bluebells said:


> PS. Last year, John Creedon invited listeners to give examples of things that illustrate the Celtic Tiger . The one that won was  " fellas driving 4x4s and avoiding potholes "


----------



## gonk (11 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> I can’t answer for other posters but I find men in 4X4’s to be aggressive, speed and tailgate.


 


Purple said:


> By the way, your comments are quite sexist.


 
Pot, kettle, black . . .

Signed,

A Man in a 4x4.


----------



## Guest111 (11 Sep 2007)

*Re: SUV's*



brodiebabe said:


> You'll feel safe. That's great!
> 
> What about if you hit someone in a Nissan Micra. They won't be safe. But don't worry too much about it - you'll be safe!


 
To be fair all someone can do is ensure their own safety by driving the safest vehicle possible and take due care for the safety of others by driving carefully. If I had kids I'd prefer them to travel in a large SUV rather than a Micra.


----------



## diarmuidc (11 Sep 2007)

gonk said:


> Presumably, for example, being hit by a heavier saloon car like a Mercedes is worse than being hit by a Micra - do we ban all cars over a certain weight?


If you looked at t[broken link removed] I linked to earlier, you would know the answer to your rhetorical question. Subcompact cars are pretty much *equal *to other catagories of cars (including large/luxury) in relation to the risk to other drivers on the road.


----------



## gonk (11 Sep 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> If you looked at t[broken link removed] I linked to earlier, you would know the answer to your rhetorical question. Subcompact cars are pretty much *equal *to other catagories of cars (including large/luxury) in relation to the risk to other drivers on the road.


 
I don't have time to read all 22 pages of the report, but I have read the conclusions on pages 5 & 6. They say nothing at all about the relative risk to _*pedestrians*_ struck by vehicles of varying sizes & weights, which was the point I was making.


----------



## MrMan (11 Sep 2007)

> In my experience SUV drivers are:
> 
> 1) making a showy display to everyone that they have the ability to borrow and/or waste copious amounts of money to prove their 'status'.
> 2) are lazy,arrogant drivers: they mount the pavement when parking rather than manoevering into the parking space.
> ...



At least you are cutting out Co2 emissions by riding your high horse!.

In fairness this is more generalising that makes little sense and does not seem to be a reasoned argument. If all SUV drivers were 'dumpy' little women who park on the footpath and blow fumes into my face while laughing at the thought of global warming then I must have missed something on my everyday travels.


----------



## Trafford (11 Sep 2007)

My partner bought an SUV last year and I am still too embarrassed to be seen in it. I find the idea of a monstrous vehicle like that for just one person to be plain grotesque.


----------



## bullbars (11 Sep 2007)

I own two 4x4's, one with bullbars. 
If I didnt have the bullbars the front of my jeep would be dented & scratched continuously. If I tried to sell it on, the repair works would then run in to the thousands & would anyone seriously consider buying it if it looked like I used it as a battering ram? 
"Gas Guzzling SUV" is an american term refering to the 4x4's in the states which would commonly be petrol V8 engines with 5-6 litres capacity. My two jeeps are 2.5l Tdi engines. I meet plenty of cars with engines bigger than mine every day but no reference to those is made? A friend of mine has a 2.0litre impreza, when i asked what mpg he gets I was informed it was approx 18 - 22 mpg. 4x4's would beat this figure easily but are still refered to as "Gaz guzzlers" and tarnished as nr. 1 oil wasters.


----------



## demoivre (11 Sep 2007)

MrMan said:


> In fairness this is more generalising that makes little sense and does not seem to be a reasoned argument.



Totally agree with you.  aims predominantly at changing driver behaviour and not changing the type of vehicle one drives and for very good reason - the main causes of accidents are speeding and drink driving. Some of the arguments put up by some of the anti SUV crowd beggar belief because there are cars out there which are more expensive and have higher fuel consumption -  begrudgery is my take on a lot of it.


----------



## Nell (11 Sep 2007)

Apart from the safety aspects - what other factors influence one to purchase a 4X4 if not using it for a business reason or "off road". Not SUV bashing, just curious!


----------



## demoivre (11 Sep 2007)

> 1) making a showy display to everyone that they have the ability to borrow and/or waste copious amounts of money to prove their 'status'.
> 6)people who would go to _any _lengths to justify their existence.



I am going to trade down to a micra, sell my house and move in to a two up two down, cancel my private health insurance, sell my kids ponies and not go on any more foreign holidays. Happy now comrade .


----------



## bullbars (11 Sep 2007)

> Some of the arguments put up by some of the anti SUV crowd beggar belief because there are cars out there which are more expensive and have higher fuel consumption - begrudgery is my take on a lot of it.


 
I Agree; some may bang on about the carbon footprint etc. but if they had the chance to buy a 3.0L sports car in the moring there would be no thought about it.

There is always the old line that they are purchased as a status symbol also. I freely admit I prefer driving a jeep over a car/van & I wont be made feel bad about it. If we all sat down and thought about all our purchases & everyday choices and then decided to opt for pure function over our desires we would lead an extremely boring life.


----------



## jmayo (11 Sep 2007)

gonk said:


> Anyone who continues to drive with bull bars is an idiot - but by my observation anyway most 4x4s (including mine) don't have them.


 
Perhaps they have the bull bars together with a front winch fitted for a reason.
Have you ever thought of that?
I know of a few people that have used the bull bars as a means of mooring ballons before liftoff. And yes these same people have tow bars because they are actually pulling trailers.

There two basic reasons for the large amount of SUVs/4x4s on the roads.
One is the status symbol, where we yet again copy the Americans, in having big ass 4x4s to cart our now obese kids around town.

The other is the fact that businesses commericalise the 4x4s to avail of cheaper tax on purchase, vat back on diesel and benefit in kind.
Look at the number of crew cab pickups and 4x4 commericals that are on our roads. Compare to other European countries. 

The first point is our desire to now mimic all things American and requires us to change our social and materialistic thinking. 
The second point could be cleared up by government and their VRT screwing us.

BTW Yorky some of those boghoppers you referred to are quiet often actually pulling large twin axel trailers either full of building materials or animals!
Try that with your 1.1 Fiesta or Micra.

And if you want to inhale some fumes drive behind some of our public transport vehicles.

Also some one on this thread made reference to lane jumping. 
Maybe some of the complete gobsh**es that traveln on our roads and hog the overtaking lanes should sample some proper European driving and they might figure out how to drive.
It is such a pleasure to drive in Continental Europe where people actual do lane change and know how to do it.
Also for above two reasons the roads are not full of SUV/4x4 drivers either becuase of the government screwing them (VAT/VRT) or becuse they think they should live like some yoko from Texas.


----------



## gonk (11 Sep 2007)

jmayo said:


> Perhaps they have the bull bars together with a front winch fitted for a reason . . . I know of a few people that have used the bull bars as a means of mooring ballons before liftoff.


 
I see many more bull bars than winches, likewise balloons!



jmayo said:


> The other is the fact that businesses commericalise the 4x4s to avail of cheaper tax on purchase, vat back on diesel and benefit in kind.Look at the number of crew cab pickups and 4x4 commericals that are on our roads. Compare to other European countries.


 
This is my reason for having a 4x4 crew cab.


----------



## gramlab (11 Sep 2007)

Jeff_24 said:


> T bloody soccer mom



I think soccer mom  sums it up nicely. We are all becomming americanised - co-workers are now called colleagues, hearing back yard instead of garden more often, french fries instead of chips etc. etc


Bring back the days of walking to school, malnutrition, mass emigration and being envious of G8 nations!!


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2007)

gonk said:


> Pot, kettle, black . . .
> 
> Signed,
> 
> A Man in a 4x4.


I said "I find", not "They are".

Signed,

A man in an Audi A4 cabriolet.


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2007)

bullbars said:


> I own two 4x4's, one with bullbars.
> If I didnt have the bullbars the front of my jeep would be dented & scratched continuously.


 Why, what do you keep hitting?


----------



## michaelm (11 Sep 2007)

bullbars said:


> If I didnt have the bullbars the front of my jeep would be dented & scratched continuously. .


Indeed.  Well if a driver sporting bullbars, for which they have no genuine application, knocks down and kills a child, or indeed an adult, while not travelling particularly quickly they will have to live with the thought that the difference between life and death may have been bullbars.  That said if said driver hits a large Kangaroo at speed they'll know that they were right all along.


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2007)

michaelm said:


> That said if said driver hits a large Kangaroo at speed they'll know that they were right all along.


 Indeed, or a bull. I know I have to avoid them there bulls every day


----------



## bullbars (11 Sep 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bullbars* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=484921#post484921
> _I own two 4x4's, one with bullbars. _
> _If I didnt have the bullbars the front of my jeep would be dented & scratched continuously. _
> ...


 
Trees, rocks & other off road obstacles. Large animals can do a fair amount of damage at even the slowest speed so the odd shunt from a bullocks hind quarters can cause enough damage.


----------



## nai (11 Sep 2007)

I have been following this with interest as it is obvious that most of the people pontificating about safety haven't taken the time to check the relevant safety standards.

I'm just going to give a couple of examples from the European NCAP Testing results website http://www.euroncap.com
about some of the various cars mentioned here - 

XC90 - scored 10 on pedestrian safety (2 stars)
Micra (2003) - scored 12 on pedestrian safety (2 stars)
Punto (2005) - 19 - 3 stars
Honda CRV (2007) - my car - 13 - 2 stars
Audi A4 (2001) - no cabrio (saloon) - 7 - no star
Large Crewcab (Nissan Pathfinder) - 18 - 2 stars

In pretty much all of these examples you will find that the occupant safety is higher than the smaller cars which I'm sure is one of the first things that people would check when buying a suv. 
Safety was one of our concerns when we bought our CRV this year, also comfort - we have 2 children 3.5 years and 6 weeks - my wife has back problems - she has found that strapping them in is much easier than putting them into our old passat. 
We were less worried about the carbon footprint/emissions as the CRV is not used to commute (avg 12k per year).

My point - having a SUV is not necessarily about status and does not mean that SUV owners are either going to do more damage to pedestrians or the environment.


----------



## tosullivan (11 Sep 2007)

Bullbars for me are the problem......

Also, I think all soccer moms with their fake Gucci sunglasses on their heads on cloudy days should be jailed for life


----------



## Caveat (11 Sep 2007)

tosullivan said:


> Bullbars for me are the problem......
> 
> Also, I think all soccer moms with their fake Gucci sunglasses on their heads on cloudy days should be jailed for life


 
 

Would these same moms have orange faces and hair that is dyed either:

Raven black
or
Sickly yellow?


----------



## woods (11 Sep 2007)

tosullivan said:


> Bullbars for me are the problem......
> 
> Also, I think all soccer moms with their fake Gucci sunglasses on their heads on cloudy days should be jailed for life


Then there is no need for people to paint us SUV drivers with the same brush. This is a 2 SUV household and not a bullbar or a pair of Gucci glasses (fake or otherwise) in sight.
We are just average Joe's who want to feel safe when we go out our doors and have no regrets about it.


----------



## Graham_07 (11 Sep 2007)

What about soccer DADS, what would be ok for them to drive.......?


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2007)

Caveat said:


> Would these same moms have orange faces and hair that is dyed either:
> 
> Raven black
> or
> Sickly yellow?


 

Good lord, we've all gone very hard line!!   Can we not just take the mick out of pretentious people without hating them? 

I draw a distinction between pretentiousness/conspicuous spending (which doesnt affect me & I can smirk at) and obnoxiousness (peoples rude behaviour which makes my blood boil). 

I've a few D4 type friends who have the accents and the clothes etc. but who are really sound skins and their outward appearance is only a product of where they're from (same could be said of me - but a lot less glam !!) - but I'd nearly have to defend them from other friends of mine who'd interpret their accents & appearance etc as being, of themselves, obnoxious  - this would be unfair. 

So I think, by the same token, these soccer moms neednt necessarily be public enemy no. 1. (now if they open the gob & its all self-important prattle for the benefit of everyone within earshot you have my blessing to execute them  ).

Re bull bars - I can concur that hitting a kangaroo means curtains for your rad - saw it happen in front of me. This was such a real issue in the outback that, unless we really had to, we wouldnt drive at night (had no roo bars).


----------



## Purple (11 Sep 2007)

Betsy Og said:


> Good lord, we've all gone very hard line!!   Can we not just take the mick out of pretentious people without hating them?
> 
> I draw a distinction between pretentiousness/conspicuous spending (which doesnt affect me & I can smirk at) and obnoxiousness (peoples rude behaviour which makes my blood boil).
> 
> ...


Good post, good points.


----------



## Caveat (11 Sep 2007)

Betsy Og said:


> Good lord, we've all gone very hard line!!  Can we not just take the mick out of pretentious people without hating them?
> 
> I draw a distinction between pretentiousness/conspicuous spending (which doesnt affect me & I can smirk at) and obnoxiousness (peoples rude behaviour which makes my blood boil).
> 
> ...


 
OK - maybe my remark was unnecessary & probably came accross as a bit nasty.  I'm not usually a nasty person - honest!

But it has relevance when you think about it - if we are talking about pretentious consumerism, well pretending your skin tone is much (much) darker than it is, and pretending you have a bizarre glossy horse's mane of hair is at least as pretentious - non?


----------



## Kitten (11 Sep 2007)

I'm loving this thread.

I bought, no no I correct myself, my husband bought me a new SUV last year, it's black and I love it.

I have a pair of Christian Dior Black shades (oh and a brown pair of bvlgari as a stand by second set if I'm not wearing black) which fit nicely into the specially designed sunglass pocket above the rear view mirror, actually there are 2 sunglass pockets available.

My SUV is automatic but has tiptronic and yes I know how to use it.  I find it great for overtaking when I need a bit of ooomph. I know how to reverse and dear lord I can even parallel park without much effort.

Why do I have an SUV?  I have 3 baby boys, a 3 year old, 2 year old and a 1 year old and somehow I just don't think a micra would cut it and to be honest (shoot me down) but I wouldn't be seen dead in one.  Also the blacked out windows are great when they are all roaring their heads off in the back and I'm trying to stay sane and sing humpty dumpty when I'd really rather be sitting on a barstool drinking gin and tonic with my hubbie!

Oh and the SUV I'm driving scored nil on the NCAP safety points for pedestrians, good job I don't have bullbars eh?

I have no doubt that once the boys are older, I'll be classed as a soccer mom, however I would request that to be changed to rugby mom as I'm a rugby lovin' munster gal.


----------



## Joe1234 (11 Sep 2007)

Kitten said:


> Also the blacked out windows are great



Are they not illegal?


----------



## GeneralZod (11 Sep 2007)

Check out this amazing youtube clip from the film Disturbia

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSIWPIG0rM

A 4x4 
1.  blocking visibility/tinted windows
2.  tail gating
3.  speeding
4.  causing accident
5.  another 4x4 rolling over
6.  fatality caused (aftermath not shown).


----------



## snuffle (11 Sep 2007)

Yorky said:


> In _my_ experience SUV drivers are:
> 
> making a showy display to everyone that they have the ability to borrow and/or waste copious amounts of money to prove their 'status'.....




Em, our current 4x4 (ok it's a commercial model, not a private one, but the price range is about the same for both) cost us less to purchase from a dealer than my old '01 Peugeot 206 cost us - in fact about 1k less, it's a 98 model in pristine condition (ie. was previously used for ferrying about tools and machinery, not bumping over rough farmland getting scratched to bits), so it's not always about the conspicuous "showy display" of borrowing money. Anyway, I can think of plenty of saloon/sports cars that easily cost double/triple what a brand new 4x4 costs,  so where's the show of venom for drivers of prestige badge cars? And as a previous poster mentioned - if people have the money that they earned themselves, why should the be restricted to buying the smallest, cheapest version of whatever they want? I personally think buying a brand new car is lunacy, and always go for used models, but if someone wants the latest 07 BMW, so what?
 Plenty of people live in houses that are bigger than they need, or wear expensive clothes when Penneys duds would do, or pay through the nose for posh holidays when a week in a tent or a caravan in Tramore would do, but surely that's their choice? 

And just to clarify, I would fall into the category of the person in the Penney's duds and living on a fairly basic wage, and would love to have money to burn, although I reckon if I won the lotto in the morning, you still would not find me wearing designer clothes and driving a brand new car! Couldn't personally justify throwing away money no matter how much I had to spare, but different strokes for different folks. 


And you really don't know the full reasons behind why people drive the cars they do - just because you see a seemingly fit man get out of a 4x4 doesn't mean they don't have a non-apparent affliction like arthritis in a joint or back trouble,that means getting into a higher more comfortable vehicle is easier than trying to haul yourself out of a lower vehicle. Just one example of many that I personally know of....

Anyway, I don't think anyone in either camp will ever change their opinion, and will stick rigidly to their guns and ignore the facts that don't prove their case and harp on about the ones that do (and I am including myself in that BTW ).


----------



## snuffle (11 Sep 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> Check out this amazing youtube clip from the film Disturbia
> 
> http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSIWPIG0rM
> 
> ...



wow, it's in a film, so it must be true. Now at what dealership can I get one of those Cameros that the same Shia Lebeouf was driving that turn into that Autobot Bumblebee...

have you seen that documentary film "the Italian Job" where minis perform dangerous manoeuvres? shocking stuff! Ban all minis, as all mini drivers act like this.


----------



## GeneralZod (11 Sep 2007)

snuffle said:


> Ban all minis, as all mini drivers act like this.



I was just linking to a spectacular scene.


----------



## snuffle (11 Sep 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> I was just linking to a spectacular scene.



and I was just being tongue in cheek in the context of the thread where some posters are tarring all 4x4 drivers with the same brush, sorry if I offended, wasn't directed at  you in particular


----------



## Graham_07 (12 Sep 2007)

Ok, whats all the fuss about.........this is the car every soccer / rugby mom needs 

[broken link removed]
( dont forget to turn up the volume ) 

problem solved !


----------



## bacchus (12 Sep 2007)

I have never thought about the issues raised by Jeff_24....

Just called a Volvo dealer to order a new XC90 for myself as i think it will look nice beside my wife's ML55... and in black, please. 
I don't know now where my son is going to park his X5. I guess he will have to park it at his girlfriend parents's place between her Cayenne and
the parents's Hummer.


----------



## Graham_07 (12 Sep 2007)

bacchus said:


> I have never thought about the issues raised by Jeff_24....
> 
> Just called a Volvo dealer to order a new XC90 for myself as i think it will look nice beside my wife's ML55... and in black, please.
> I don't know now where my son is going to park his X5. I guess he will have to park it at his girlfriend parents's place between her Cayenne and
> the parents's Hummer.


 
I hope thats the stretch hummer with built in jacuzzi and not just the bog standard one.


----------



## michaelm (12 Sep 2007)

Joe1234 said:


> Are they not illegal? [re: *Kitten*'s blacked out windows]


AFAIK they are illegal as front windows and windscreen; they reduce visibility, particularly at night.  I've written to various Ministers for the Environment about such and always get a standard Pontius Pilate reply from some underling along the lines of 'enforcement of the law is a matter for the Gardaí, interpretation of the law is a matter for the Courts', re: bullbars the response was that the Governments hands are tied by the EU (pants).  I don't have the mental energy to write to the current Minister for U-Turns.


----------



## Purple (12 Sep 2007)

bacchus said:


> I have never thought about the issues raised by Jeff_24....
> 
> Just called a Volvo dealer to order a new XC90 for myself as i think it will look nice beside my wife's ML55... and in black, please.
> I don't know now where my son is going to park his X5. I guess he will have to park it at his girlfriend parents's place between her Cayenne and
> the parents's Hummer.





Graham_07 said:


> I hope thats the stretch hummer with built in jacuzzi and not just the bog standard one.




This is all great fun, I hope no one is taking it to seriously!


----------



## Caveat (12 Sep 2007)

Yorky said:


> Anyone know where my post went from yesterday evening?


 
Still on page 3 Yorky - unless there was another one?


----------



## Purple (12 Sep 2007)

Yorky said:


> Yes, just after Graham_07 yesterday evening. disappeared for some reason


It was a bit too colourful me thinks.


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Sep 2007)

Nothing's been deleted, Yorky.

Honestly, you guys are getting paranoid. No wonder women in large cars bother you...


----------



## Caveat (12 Sep 2007)

Yorky said:


> Yes, just after Graham_07 yesterday evening. disappeared for some reason


 
Was it you who posted the link? It seems to be gone.


----------



## Graham_07 (12 Sep 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> Nothing's been deleted, Yorky.
> 
> Honestly, you guys are getting paranoid. No wonder women in large cars bother you...


 
Theres a large black SUV with tinted windows parked across from my office, two women in black suits and shades.....should I be worried !!!


----------



## Purple (12 Sep 2007)

Graham_07 said:


> Theres a large black SUV with tinted windows parked across from my office, two women in black suits and shades.....should I be worried !!!


I don't know, ask them if one of them is called "Kitten". If so you're screwed.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> I don't know, ask them if one of them is called "Kitten". If so you're screwed.


 
I'm guessing if he does what you suggest he's screwed anyway...and no, not in that way!


----------



## Purple (12 Sep 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I'm guessing if he does what you suggest he's screwed anyway...and no, not in that way!



Yea, good point.


----------



## demoivre (12 Sep 2007)

Yorky said:


> Anyone know where my post went from yesterday evening?



I drove over it it in my Touareg - thought it deserved it !


----------



## RainyDay (12 Sep 2007)

SUVs are soft targets. A 1.6 Avensis which is doing an 80 mile each way commute 5 days a week will have a much worse carbon footprint that the yummy-mummy 3.0 SUV doing the school run. But hey, let's not criticise any men going to work, eh?


----------



## ClubMan (12 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> A 1.6 Avensis which is doing an 80 mile each way commute 5 days a week will have a much worse carbon footprint that the yummy-mummy 3.0 SUV doing the school run. But hey, let's not criticise any men going to work, eh?


Bit sexist to assume that it's necessarily the man driving the Avenis to work?


----------



## Purple (12 Sep 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Bit sexist to assume that it's necessarily the man driving the Avenis to work?



It is also sexist to think that those who don't like 4X4's being used in an urban setting confine their ire to women users. I for one have no problem with women or men using them it they need the vehicle to go off road or carry/ pull heavy loads.


----------



## Graham_07 (13 Sep 2007)

"yummy-mummy"  
"soccer mom" 
.....what's next ? "do you want fries with that?" 
Why can't we find an indigenous term for these descriptions?


----------



## DrMoriarty (13 Sep 2007)

_Bean _with a van?


----------



## Jock04 (13 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> I for one have no problem with women or men using them it they need the vehicle to go off road or carry/ pull heavy loads.


 

Well, with the latest figures for obesity and all................


----------



## Graham_07 (13 Sep 2007)

DrMoriarty said:


> _Bean _with a van?


 
Mamaí agus a humvee ?


----------



## Purple (13 Sep 2007)

Jock04 said:


> Well, with the latest figures for obesity and all................


Fat kids don't count


----------



## RainyDay (13 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> I for one have no problem with women or men using them it they need the vehicle to go off road or carry/ pull heavy loads.


Why does the Cabriolet driver get to impose conditions on others? Do I get to insist that Cabriolet drivers (which must be the most impractical form of vehicle given our recent summer weather) must 'need' their vehicles for driving with the top down & their hair blowing in the wind?

Or perhaps a bit of 'live & let live' should apply?


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Why does the Cabriolet driver get to impose conditions on others? Do I get to insist that Cabriolet drivers (which must be the most impractical form of vehicle given our recent summer weather) must 'need' their vehicles for driving with the top down & their hair blowing in the wind?
> 
> Or perhaps a bit of 'live & let live' should apply?



Right, first of all I'm going bald so the "hair blowing in the wind" bit is just a distant dream 
Secondly the type of roof a car has does not change the chances of killing a pedestrian in a crash.
Thirdly I am not seeking to impose conditions on other, just letting off steam about my opinion that people who drive off road vehicles but never go off road are selfish.
...oh, and I'm opinionated 

As for live and let live, Mrs Purple wants an Volvo XC90 and while I am against it it's her choice and her car (off road van?) and I will still speak to her when she gets it (or if I don't it will have nothing to do with the Volvo).


----------



## SarahMc (14 Sep 2007)

Print off a load of these and stick them on the windscreen of any SUV you see parked miles from rural muck.


----------



## woods (14 Sep 2007)

SarahMc said:


> Print off a load of these and stick them on the windscreen of any SUV you see parked miles from rural muck.


Is it not wonderfull that there is no bigger problems in the world that motivated and well meaning people can spend their time and energy on. 
Now that we have fixed world hunger and world peace they have all of this extra energy to spend being critical of people's vehicle choices.


----------



## efm (19 Sep 2007)

I love this thread!

My 2 cent - I work hard and I'll spend my money how I like. If you don't like it ?....Look away and save your ire for something worthwhile. 



SarahMc said:


> Print off a load of these and stick them on the windscreen of any SUV you see parked miles from rural muck.


 
And I'm thinking of printing off 10,000 and then driving to my local landfill in my SUV and dumping them!


----------



## demoivre (22 Oct 2007)

Yorky said:


> At what cost to everyone else though? If every motorist drove a SUV it would be real-life dodgems. And where would the Koyoto emissions levels be?
> 
> If you want a high vehicle there are plenty of mini-SUV / MPV's around. We all take our chances when out on the road and there shouldn't be a section of the motoring public driving around in glorified tanks, cocooned from any personal danger while posing a serious threat to all other road users.



Why is a responsibly driven SUV a serious threat to all other road users? I've driven SUVs for years and I have never been involved in any crash while I was driving.  Driver irresponsibility is the major cause of road traffic accidents and not the type of vehicle one drives, which is why the ad camaigns aim at getting people to slow down, not to drink and drive and belt up - no mention of taking SUVs off the road. Young male drivers are the highest risk group re. accidents - where I live in the south east lots of these guys are speeding( I've seen some crazy driving by these guys on bad rural roads) around in micras, civics, corollas and the like - why should I be prohibited from driving an SUV to protect myself and my family against these guys ?


----------



## Purple (22 Oct 2007)

demoivre said:


> Why is a responsibly driven SUV a serious threat to all other road users? I've driven SUVs for years and I have never been involved in any crash while I was driving.  Driver irresponsibility is the major cause of road traffic accidents and not the type of vehicle one drives, which is why the ad camaigns aim at getting people to slow down, not to drink and drive and belt up - no mention of taking SUVs off the road. Young male drivers are the highest risk group re. accidents - where I live in the south east lots of these guys are speeding( I've seen some crazy driving by these guys on bad rural roads) around in micras, civics, corollas and the like - why should I be prohibited from driving an SUV to protect myself and my family against these guys ?



What if the same boy racers were driving SUV's?
Does that mean you get a tank?


----------



## MrMan (22 Oct 2007)

> What if the same boy racers were driving SUV's?
> Does that mean you get a tank?



Hardly a reasonable queston is it. One can only go as far as possible to protect ones own interests and most of us will put our family before conforming to the latest phase ( slating SUV drivers)


----------



## demoivre (22 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> What if the same boy racers were driving SUV's?



The pertinent point is they aren't.


----------



## Pique318 (22 Oct 2007)

Purple said:


> What if the same boy racers were driving SUV's?
> Does that mean you get a tank?


 
Don't be silly, just one of these [broken link removed]


----------



## Pique318 (22 Oct 2007)

demoivre said:


> The pertinent point is they aren't.


 
But if they were, your logic dictates that you would get something even bigger...


...and the Automotive arms race continues....


----------



## demoivre (23 Oct 2007)

Pique318 said:


> But if they were,



If, if, if......................" If my aunt had b***s she'd be my uncle ". I'm driving in the real world where the speeding young, male drivers are mostly driving eight, nine or ten years old corsas, saxos, civics  and the like (ie the boy racers) or panel vans, and they're driving them for a reason - they are cheaper to buy and insure than seventy grands worth of a 3.0 Touareg, X5 or Range Rover. I'm not anticipating a change in the status quo !


----------



## Caveat (25 Oct 2007)

Apart from this ongoing 'driver safety' defence, has any urban dweller actually given a good reason as to why they insist on buying these things?

Given the driving etiquette/adherence to rules displayed by some, I certainly don't accept that the majority of SUV drivers based their decision to buy on safety anyway.

People are of course free to buy what they want - but for many, just don't pretend it's for anything other than status reasons.


----------



## demoivre (25 Oct 2007)

Yorky said:


> The Government really does need to tax them off the road and change the mentality back towards compact small engined cars.



 What , ban all cars above 1.3  or something . Will the 998cc micra tow my double horse box with two horses in it ?


----------



## demoivre (25 Oct 2007)

Caveat said:


> People are of course free to buy what they want - but for many, just don't pretend it's for anything other than status reasons.



And if you followed that logic any expenditure above the minimum on any product could be regarded as ostentatious. It's ladas, council houses and bottles of stout for everybody so!


----------



## Caveat (25 Oct 2007)

demoivre said:


> And if you followed that logic any expenditure above the minimum on any product could be regarded as ostentatious. It's ladas, council houses and bottles of stout for everybody so!


 
  Where does status come in here?

As you well know, Ladas are unreliable, many people would like to get out of a council estate for a better quality of life and many people just don't like stout...

demoivre, I'm not suggesting that everyone adopt a humble or modest approach to choosing their vehicle. I just doubt that anyone who doesn't have a practical reason to own an SUV, other than this tenuous safety argument, will ever say "It makes me feel important/superior" which in many cases, I think is the sad truth.


----------



## efm (25 Oct 2007)

Yorky said:


> No offence, but this is the downside to people having too much disposable income: it just _has_ to be spent on consumption.


 
Is there anything wrong with that? We live in a democratic market economy where people are free to consume if they want to.

My pet theory on this is: "man" has a need to "better" his situation and his status among his peers. Where a recognised class structure does not exist or is in decline "man" uses other means to measure his status or standing against his peers. In a market economy this is most easily achieved through money and displays of wealth or expenditure. Society as a whole seems to have accepted this method of advancement and embraced it, thus validating "mans" expenditure, and the cycle continues.

(That is such a Sociology 101 theory but I don't care - it's mine and I'm sticking to it  )


----------



## franmac (26 Oct 2007)

Yorky said:


> You're in the majority with the above philosophy and that is why we are using up the earth's resources at an unprecedented rate.
> 
> I trust that sits well with you.


 
And your children and grand children.


----------



## efm (26 Oct 2007)

Yorky said:


> You're in the majority with the above philosophy and that is why we are using up the earth's resources at an unprecedented rate.
> 
> I trust that sits well with you.


 


franmac said:


> And your children and grand children.


 
How very presumptuous of the pair of you - you assume that because I DESCRIBE a theory I automatically ASCRIBE to it. 

Read my post again - I said I had a theory as to why people in societies act they way they did - tell me where I said I agreed it was the right thing to do?


----------



## mf1 (26 Oct 2007)

"My pet theory on this is: "man" has a need to "better" his situation and his status among his peers. Where a recognised class structure does not exist or is in decline "man" uses other means to measure his status or standing against his peers. In a market economy this is most easily achieved through money and displays of wealth or expenditure. Society as a whole seems to have accepted this method of advancement and embraced it, thus validating "mans" expenditure, and the cycle continues."

I think this is a very interesting theory and I believe it describes a lot of people and their view of their own world and where they fit in in the pecking order. I personally find it distasteful and hope that few of the people I choose to spend my time  with (as in friends and family) ascribe to it.  Its not a nice theory but I think it is apposite in relation to much of our society's need to demonstrate ostentatious shows of wealth.

mf


----------

