Fourteen of the 16 cars tested earned a "poor," the lowest of four ratings, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said. The Chevrolet Cobalt and the Toyota Corolla earned the second-highest rating of "acceptable," but only when they were tested with their optional side air bags. They earned "poor" ratings without the air bags.

Other vehicles that earned a "poor" rating were the Hyundai Elantra, Kia Spectra, Mazda 3, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Sentra, Saturn Ion, Suzuki Forenza and Suzuki Aerio.

The institute's test simulates a severe crash. A barrier designed to resemble the front of a pickup or sport utility vehicle hits the side of the vehicle at 31 mph. A "poor" rating means a high chance of serious injury in a similar crash.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/06/crash.tests.ap/index.html

The car makers in Detroit have quite the sham going over the American public. They have managed to put enough politicians in their coat pockets to allow themselves to build bigger and bigger trucks and SUVs to the tune of an extra 1000 pounds heavier than they were 10ish years ago. Now they are building themselves a new money maker. Ironically enough, the bigger trucks and SUVs have lead to a "safety concern." The most common sense solution to this would be for government to call on Detroit to downsize the SUVs and make it safe for cars again. This probably should have been done in the first place. Will that be the solution?

NO.

Detroit has been allowed to make even more money off of this sham. Now they get the media involved to help them convince the American car owner that they must have side passenger air bags in order to survive a collision with one of the Monster Truck SUVs that they have all over the roads now.

I'm normally against government intervention, but this is an exception to the rule. Not only has Detroit been allowed to make the US roadways unsafe, but they have made the prices of cars increase. Yay, more profits for GM, Dodge, Ford, etc. Also, they have increased the US's dependence on oil. All of these bigger cars and trucks are hard to move of course, so it requres more fuel to move them. The government should stop this.

For once I 100% agree with you.
SUVs are starting to be a real pain in the ass in Europe too. People who don't need them buy them only to look cool and because the feel safer.
Many studies have shown that in fact the feeling of safety in a car tends to make people drive less carefully. Maybe it's time to start relying on cautious driving rather than on airbags to avoid accidents !

I'm glad to hear someone else on the right feels this way about SUVs.

In other parts of the country, there is probably a need (pulling equipment, snow, mountains, off-road, etc) but on Long Island, there is no need outside of image.

There was a commercial for an SUV a couple of years ago in which 5 men were working out in a gym and an announcement came over that a minivan had its lights on. The man who owned the van wouldn't let the other men see him leave lest they know he owns a minivan. At the end of the commercial, he's driving the SUV.

That sums it up.

I must have logged into the parallel dimension Allforums site; I can't believe what I'm reading....

The BMW X5 does look well cool though lol,

MY main dig is why do mums need a mammoth vehicle??

I hate SUV's. Their center of gravity is too high, they weigh too much, and they're inefficient. Btw, Loki - do you see any Porsche Cayenne’s in England, because they seem to be growing in popularity where I live. X 5's are a dime a dozen, and while I agree with you that the general proportions are good, I wouldn't give you a penny for the 3.0 liter. I was given one as a loaner for a week and ended up hating it. It's too s-l-o-w, and I’m guessing you guys probably don't even get the 4.4-liter because of the cost of petrol in England.

Wow this will probably be the first ever unanimous Thread!!!

Fuck SUV's.

I remember seeing the consumer study on who buys SUVs. Oh wait here it is...

"According to market research conducted by the United States' leading automakers, SUV purchasers tend to be "insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self–centered and self–absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off–road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."³ By all measures, these findings paint a harsh picture of SUV buyers, but this description certainly does not reflect the psychology all SUV owners. "
http://www.columbia.edu/~eag115/Ethan/Web-pages/SUV_Market.html

Hahahah...just found this appearently the libertarians are trying to protect SUVs
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=200

Give it time and eventually there will be a negligent homicide trial based on one of these SUV's t-boning a small car and killing a family of 4.

The charge will be that the suv owner raised the vehicle even higher than the manufacturer built the vehicle, puting the grill of the suv directly in line with the head and shoulders of passengers in a passenger car. Needless to say, in my test scenario, all passengers were decapitated.

I hope I get to sit on that jury.

Dop

Dop, for once, I'm in complete agreement with you.

Yeah, Dop and Prae - add me to that list too. (Although I own a Cherokee Sport - it's still somewhat smaller than the Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Yukon, blah blah blah). And, I love it in the winter.

I'll join in with you guys on this. SUV's are a pain in the ass and people should have to have a special (very expensive) license to drive them.

While we're at it, lets make driving and useing a cell phone at the same time ILLEGAL.

Originally posted by Echo2
While we're at it, lets make driving and useing a cell phone at the same time ILLEGAL.
We can't do that - I'd be in misery. Try smoking a cigarette, driving a manual, talking on your cell (no hands free), and balancing a drink in your lap. Now, that should be illegal, but like most Americans, I'd be guilty as hell. :)

What is going on here? This can't be allforums politics. How in the hell do we all agree?

I don't agree at all. Maybe instead of making SUVs smaller we should make compact cars bigger.

OK, I'm just kidding, but still, if people want to be vain and drive around in one of those idiotic looking plastic fantasic Hummers because they're compensating for something, that's their right. If we're going to tell people that they can't drive large wasteful vehicles, then why don't we also restrict how large a house people can have, where they can build it, whether or not they can have a pool, whether or not they can have a lawn, whether or not they can have a gas powered mower, etc. Everyone of us does something that's wasteful in some way or another - what makes your wastefulness OK and someone else's wrong.

And if you think getting rid of SUVs are going to make you safer, there are millions of trucks and semis out there ready to pulverize your car. Locally one nailed an SUV this morning and killed the driver.

Dop - you have interesting ideas on what constitutes a fair jury.

LOL Lionel -- you can trust me.

Actually, my gruesome scenario has already played out ... in Phoenix several months ago. All passengers in the car were decapitated -- can't remember whether it was 3,4 or whatever.

The driver of the killer suv wasn't even cited. He probably got a special discount from his insurance company for driving a safe vehicle.

Dop

if people want to be vain and drive around in one of those idiotic looking plastic fantasic Hummers because they're compensating for something, that's their right.

This is America. We believe in freedom. But there are lines that have to be drawn. I would have absolutely no problem if everyone wanted to own a school bus to drive around, but there are exceptions!!! When someone's freedom causes others' lives to become endangered, we have a problem.

Maybe instead of making SUVs smaller we should make compact cars bigger.

I have no doubt that GM, Ford, etc are hoping that this will eventually come to rise. Cha-ching!!! $$$$

At this point, we're simply talking about the safety problem involved with SUVs/trucks. I haven't even touched on the environmental and energy problems that are also associated with owning them.

Come on now, it's almost un-American not to love a Suburban! Heh, heh, heh.

If we're going to tell people that they can't drive large wasteful vehicles, then why don't we also restrict how large a house people can have, where they can build it, whether or not they can have a pool, whether or not they can have a lawn, whether or not they can have a gas powered mower,

Sigh, They restrict water usage in a large number of places. Its called having a limited resource. Just because people have money to waste is no excuse. Man youre an asshole. It is not people 'right' to waste shit at the expense of others.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Sigh, They restrict water usage in a large number of places. Its called having a limited resource. Just because people have money to waste is no excuse. Man youre an asshole. It is not people 'right' to waste shit at the expense of others.
Of course it is. If you're tired of getting that short end of the stick, then go earn money so you can waste things along with everyone else. That said, I think it's in everyone's best interests to conserve gas and such, but I wouldn't make it law.

Pumping pollutants into the air and water, though, is an ENTIRELY different story...

Well actually it was a law. There were fuel standards in place for both cars and trucks. Solution: break the law by pretending it doesnt apply to you because you didnt build a car or a truck...

I'll tell you why I hate SUV's...because insurance companies love them, and I hate insurance companies.

I read an article several years ago that talked about how the insurance companies like SUV's because when they crash into a smaller vehicle, they are more likely to kill the occupants of the smaller vehicle rather than just maim them. A one-time death payout is cheaper than a lifetime of medical care.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Well actually it was a law. There were fuel standards in place for both cars and trucks. Solution: break the law by pretending it doesnt apply to you because you didnt build a car or a truck...
I think the government should place heavy taxes on larger passenger vehicles, provide tax rebates on biodiesel and hybrid vehicles, and increase the gas taxes greatly. That way, the SUV drivers can keep their big gas-guzzling things (at a price), and the rest of us can save money by helping the environment and such. Everyone wins!

I read an article several years ago that talked about how the insurance companies like SUV's because when they crash into a smaller vehicle, they are more likely to kill the occupants of the smaller vehicle rather than just maim them. A one-time death payout is cheaper than a lifetime of medical care.

Vile,

Anyway you can find that article? Or any clues as to where you read that? I would be very interested in reading it.

I think the government should place heavy taxes on larger passenger vehicles, provide tax rebates on biodiesel and hybrid vehicles, and increase the gas taxes greatly. That way, the SUV drivers can keep their big gas-guzzling things (at a price), and the rest of us can save money by helping the environment and such. Everyone wins!

This is actually a good idea. There are tax penalties on the smokers and the drinkers, why not a tax penalty on individuals that choose to pollute more and make the roads more unsafe for others?

Originally posted by Karankawa
Vile,

Anyway you can find that article? Or any clues as to where you read that? I would be very interested in reading it.


No sorry, I read it in a magazine (might have been Discover), but I did find these stats online:

• SUVs are nearly three times as likely as cars are to cause a driver fatality in the other car in a two-vehicle collision.

• In a front to side collision, the driver of the hit car is 6.6 times more likely to die than
the driver in the striking car. When an SUV hits a car, the driver in the struck car is
30 times more likely to die than the driver of the SUV.

• For every life of a Ford Explorer driver saved in a two-vehicle accident because that
driver chose and Explorer over a large car, five drivers are killed in vehicles hit by
Explorers.


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GzuOAv271zgJ:www.citizen.org/documents/Microsoft%2520Word%2520-%2520SUV%2520Incompatibility%2520and%2520Aggressiv ity%2520Statistics.pdf+SUV++compact+car+crashes+in surance&hl=en

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The driver of the killer suv wasn't even cited.

Was it his fault? Or should he just get a ticket for driving an SUV?

Originally posted by Karankawa
This is America. We believe in freedom. But there are lines that have to be drawn. I would have absolutely no problem if everyone wanted to own a school bus to drive around, but there are exceptions!!! When someone's freedom causes others' lives to become endangered, we have a problem.

I have no problem with drawing lines. But the lines should be drawn without regard to the type of vehicle (before someone tells me that trucks are exempt from a lot of rules, I already know that and I don't have a problem with changing that). If we want to make all vehicles conform to certain standards and SUVs can't cut it, fine. But give manufacturers a chance to make SUVs conform, don't just ban SUVs because jerks drive them.

Originally posted by Karankawa
At this point, we're simply talking about the safety problem involved with SUVs/trucks. I haven't even touched on the environmental and energy problems that are also associated with owning them.

Problems associated with a heck of a lot of vehicles, including a lot of sports cars, really large luxury cars, pickup trucks, and full size vans. Why is no one talking about those? Because people who drive SUVs are jerks, apparently. Peta members are jerks too but we're not banning them. :)

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Sigh, They restrict water usage in a large number of places. Its called having a limited resource. Just because people have money to waste is no excuse. It is not people 'right' to waste shit at the expense of others.

Right, but they apply those standards evenly - to all houses - not just to houses built in the tudor style.

Originally posted by 500lbguerillaMan youre an asshole.

You think everyone that spends money on themselves instead of giving it all to you is an asshole. Try arranging your synapses in such as way as to produce a cogent argument and get back to me.

---

All I'm saying is that laws should be applied evenly to all vehicles, instead of picking out the ones that people don't like. Pickup trucks have the same bumper height disparity that SUVs have (actually more of them do - all pickups are truck designs, whereas many SUVs are car-based these days). Full size vans weigh as much or more than SUVs and are quite prone to flipping over. Corvettes get terrible gas mileage, are frequently driven by jerks, and don't have the redeeming value of being able to haul large numbers of people and/or cargo. So why are we just picking on SUVs?

You've missed the point again Lionel.

The driver made a high-rider out of the suv -- to where the grill was well above any protecting metal in the victim car. It raised the car from the door handles up decapitating all the passengers.

Had he not done that .. there's a chance the people would have lived.

Read 1st, post 2nd.

Dop

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Or should he just get a ticket for driving an SUV?

Yes!...I hates those SUV drivers....


All I'm saying is that laws should be applied evenly to all vehicles, instead of picking out the ones that people don't like. Pickup trucks have the same bumper height disparity that SUVs have (actually more of them do - all pickups are truck designs, whereas many SUVs are car-based these days). Full size vans weigh as much or more than SUVs and are quite prone to flipping over. Corvettes get terrible gas mileage, are frequently driven by jerks, and don't have the redeeming value of being able to haul large numbers of people and/or cargo. So why are we just picking on SUVs?

Dammit Lionel....quit being so...reasonable...:D

It's funny - for once Lionel who usually is one of the most modertae members of this forum, stands alone against all !

Lionel a moderate? BWAhahahahah ... he's never sided with a leftie on this forum.

Back on topic ... the $4/gal gas will solve the suv problem.

High gas prices hadn't bothered people too much in the past because most of them had tons of equity in their homes (thanks to clinton) and low interest rates (thanks to clinton) and room on their credit cards (thanks to clinton) so they had resources from which they could draw extra cash. Let the good times roll.

Now, those same people are lucky to have a job, certainly no health care, shakey retirement if any, probably living in a cardboard box on a hillside in El Paso, and no hope whatsoever other than gays can't get married, the 10 commandments will be in government buildings, the blacks and whites have seperate proms in Georgia and it's still OK to bomb an abortion clinic as long as you don't get caught. And if they're hungry, they can always eat their guns and bibles.

Yes this is one I want to happen. Bring on the $4 gas ... heck, make it $20 gas ... then we'll see how many wingers stay loyal to the awol emperor.

Hopefully it will take NASTYCAR down with it along with all those redneck singers and their stupid songs they sing off-key.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Lionel a moderate? BWAhahahahah ... he's never sided with a leftie on this forum.

I would call him "a moderate conservative". His views are usually balanced and he refrains from insulting everyone who is not from his side, which is not so common.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Lionel a moderate? BWAhahahahah ... he's never sided with a leftie on this forum.

Really? I didn't realize lefties opposed gay marriage.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Really? I didn't realize lefties opposed gay marriage.

Some right-handed people do too...:(

Hopefully it will take NASTYCAR down with it along with all those redneck singers and their stupid songs they sing off-key. I'm with you on this point Dop! But, I have to laugh out loud cause we are sooo 'generalizing'. No, wait - YOU generalized FIRST dammit!

Prae, you do all that stuff while driving? Smoking, cell phone, reading, zigging in and out of lanes AND balancing a drink? You sure you aren't a woman? That's just an everyday thing for us! :)

Originally posted by saycricket
Prae, you do all that stuff while driving? Smoking, cell phone, reading, zigging in and out of lanes AND balancing a drink? You sure you aren't a woman? That's just an everyday thing for us! :)
I'm pretty sure I'm not a woman, thank you very much. :)

BUT, I have to say I see your point - I've witnessed lots of women do those things, but the most disturbing of all is when they put their makeup on while driving. I go ABSOLUTELY nuts when I see that.

I feel behind the times...when I'm driving, usually what I'm doing is driving. And listening to the radio, but that doesn't involve using hands or taking your eyes off the road...