Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes indeed, Samuel, any vehicle with a higher centre of gravity is more prone to rolling. This also applies to vans, various other people movers, trucks etc. Let's not forget that the basic laws of physics apply to other vehicle types too.
On the baggage thing, I suspect you'll find that they think equally unflattering things about people who sneer at the car they drive, or who tell them they are single handedly killing the planet etc... Telling people how they should act and think quite often has that effect.
Also, as someone pointed out earlier, american SUVs are quite often significantly different to the 4wds on NZ roads.
Actually, Nick, I do think less ad agencies trying to tell us how to suck eggs would be nice. I object to the assumption that I'm some mindless drone that has to be bombarded with redundant information so that I can function. Maybe its just me.... :-)
-
I think the rhetoric against the boring old 4wd that is coming out on this thread has very little to do with reality. In this thread, a number of quite good factual points have been made about why things may not be as black and white as people might like, and the 4wd might not be the planet killer that everyone wants it to be.
There does seem to be some fairly widely held opinions about how SUV drivers are objectionable for various reasons. I'd suggest that if the situation is simply that there is some sort of widespread dislike of the 4wd due to perceptions around the sorts of people who drive them, then just say so, and be clear that it is the owner, not the vehicle that is the issue. Disentangling the two might help drive the discussion to a useful point no-one has got to yet.
-
Keep people off the road?
Well, maybe restrict that to: keep stupid and inconsiderate people off the road....
-
If we are talking about modern small cars vs modern big cars then the thirst of the small one, no matter how hard you have to drive it up the hills, will be more modest than the larger car.
Not with the motor I had in that escort it won't. A full tank generally got me about 250km, less if I drove it hard. That was open road driving too....
Mine was basically powered by a the equivalent of a works rally engine. Lets just say that economy wasn't a consideration in the design of the motor....
I hear what you're saying though. I made mention of the escort because I didn't want to be equated to some big car driving road hog :-)
-
SUVs don't kill people, people kill people?
How about treat the disease, not the symptoms?
If you have a problem with drivers, then focus on them. Focusing on an inanimate object as the epitomy of evil seems a bit pointless.
If a particular type of driver is not courteous, or drives unsafely, it is a driver education issue. This suggests a response aimed at improving driving standards is required. Railing against their vehicle seems a bit stupid, and unlikely to address the issue of driver behaviour.
-
Andrew G, aside from taking that statement slightly outside the context in which it was made, I don't drive an SUV or big car so your assertion doesn't apply in this particular case.
The slower on corners thing of big vehicles is true, but by the same token, small, underpowered cars can also be equally useless on a hilly, windy road. The apparent inability of a significant chunk of NZ drivers to pull over if they are holding up a queue of traffic also applies to drivers of small, as well as large cars.
My favourite car for the Akld to Wgtn run was my escort sport. Not a massive car by any stretch of the imagination, weighing in at around 600kg all up. It did, however, have in addition to great handling, and pretty impressive performance, a phenomenal thirst, which put many friends larger cars to shame. Again, size and impact don't always line up.
-
The article linked mentions "a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe".
Holy hell, 4 tons? WHat does a typical SUV in NZ weigh?
Quite a bit less. At that weight, I think an HT license would be needed to drive it in NZ.
The normal 4wd in NZ probably weighs up to about 2,500kg, but usually a lot less I suspect. The normal family sedan/station wagon weighs up to 1700kg or so, but again, usually less.
-
But ultimately, the problem I and many others have is that you are imposing costs (externalities) on others, when that vehicle is compared to a lighter vehicle that performs almost better under almost all use scenarios.
The externalities are a consideration, although I'm unconvinced that they relate specifically more to SUVs than to any other mid-large size passenger vehicle. What I'm struggling with, though, is that most of the externalities that have been raised here, prior to the ones you point to, are perceived externalities.
I started off pointing out that a modern SUV (and let's face it, how many remmers tractors are more than a couple of years old? after all this particular type of driver seems to be the ones everyone hates in this discussion) is probably kinder to the environment than an old, poorly maintained jap import. Since then we've wandered slightly in terms of direction.
Most of the comments thus far come down to a perception that SUV drivers are nasty people. That has bugger all to do with the vehicle itself. It's like blaming aerosol cans for tagging, it just doesn't make sense.
You're correct that an outback is probably better than an SUV. It is, however, probably one of the worst station-wagons in terms of fuel use/impact, and many other station wagons are far more fuel efficient and have a lesser impact. That said, why should I criticise you for the decisions you made on what to drive? You buy, you pay to run it, your call.
Like you said, it is the preachy attitude I've been surprised by too.
-
Just a niggly little point. SUVs don't really have a single stated purpose. By definition, they are supposed to be able to do many things, hence the Utility part of SUV.
Again, the rationale of the debate extended thus far smacks of dislike, rather than any compelling reason to change.
If I should ever choose to own and SUV, it is my call. I pay for it, I pay to run it, I determine how I wish to use it. If you want to tell me what I should drive, perhaps I should come around to your houses and tell you what to read, or what music to listen to, or what causes you can support. How successful would that be? In my experience, telling people what they should, or shouldn't do, drive, believe, or think just doesn't work.
Just to state it again, a subjective dislike for something does not equate to any useful rationale for doing away with it.
-
Driving in parts of Auckland where SUVs are common is quite frustrating as they block your line of sight.
Vans, trucks, buses and horsefloats need to be that big by virtue of their function. Likewise, by virtue of their function, they are quite rare.
By the arguments put forward, I would expect that vans would be equally hard to see past etc.
Buses and trucks would have worse, and if you live in cities, I'd argue that bus drivers are by far more dangerous to all and sundry than the average SUV driver.
Actually, SUVs are damn useful for their intended purpose. They are also very handy people movers, with good load capacities and ability to seat multiple people.
The point I've been trying to make is that the hatred of SUV's seems to be based on emotion, rather than rational thought.
My personal hatred of idiots who insist on trying to drive the length of the country in underpowered toy cars, and who insist on impeding my progress along the way shouldn't result in a call to ban cars of less than a certain power output from the roads.
Nor should my contention that anyone wearing a hat whilst driving is a congenital idiot result in a new police ticketing regime.
In the end, the dislike of SUVs and their drivers is just as pointless as a motivation for trying to get rid of them.