When somebody's full of it, I feel it is my obligation to point that out is all. Call it a public service. Consider that the problem might lie with people who are preoccupied with the cars their neighbors drive, and not the other way 'round. Envy is a sin, and so is pride.

cyclone,

Yep, envy and pride are sins. They come from the lizard brain. Thanks for your support, bud

I'm sorry, have been deprived of your freedom to speak? You must have attended the Al Gore/Dixie Chicks school of Constitutional Law.

For the record, I do think liberals practice something dangerous and destructive every day, called liberalism, but that's neither here nor there. And really, I think your argument about SUVs isn't what you claim it is—it's just a way for you to feel better about doing the very thing you claim to oppose, presumably to assuage your own guilt. See, you aren't railing against everyone who uses petroleum, because that would include you, and you don't want to change your lifestyle, but you do want to feel like you're on the proper liberal side of this issue, so you pick one mode of transportation and vilify that. You don't make the target of your witch hunt older, ecologically-damaging vehicles, because those are often driven by the so-called poor, and you couldn't object to the actions of the poor by God, so scratch that. You don't object to low-mpg, high hp cars, for whatever reason--I guess that would implicate all the limousine liberals. And you don't diss the mini-van, even though it gets comparable mpg to an SUV. Oh, that's for transporting people. What the hell do you think an SUV does? I can pack 7 people into mine, pretty comfortably, or a few child car seats (which we've needed on occasion--handy), and the back folds down, so I can transport big sheets of lattice for my deck from home depot, or flats of annuals from the garden store, whatever. Pretty sweet.

Anyway, I digress. My experience has been that people who rail against the SUV are perfectly fine with whatever they themselves drive. It would be one thing if you all were roller-skating to work, or at least driving hybrid cars, or geo metros, or something. But you're not--you drive Toyota Camrys, or Lincoln Town Cars, and cluck your tongues at the horrible SUV drivers, people who (you presume) don't NEED them. And that's what this whole thing boils down to: you feel like you should be the arbiter of what people NEED. Everyone should have to come to you, beg their case, and have you pass judgment. Though I have a feeling you would be suitably indignant if anybody questioned the way you live your life, or spend your money, but hey--you're a liberal, you're exempt. That's why this seems like a blatantly hypocritical situation. I have talked to ONE guy who appears to walk the walk on this issue--rides his bike to work, sold his car for a hybrid. He probably has earned some credibility on this issue, but he's the only one. The rest of you have zero credibility, IMO—you just want to tell other people how to run their lives.

this thread is getting WAY off base and non-constructive. Debate the issues. Do not resort to bashing members personally. If this continues I close this thread and issue strikes.

LIZARD-BRAINS & SUV OWNERSHIP - DEBATE THAT.

Fine, forget it.

I once dated a "lizard-brain" as she drove an Expedition (gift from grandma) although I wouldn't say she was a lizard brain. She had a master's in psychology and was a licensed clinical therapist. She had her problems, namely driving at excessive speeds sans belts...

I doubt its the lizard brain that prompts one to drive such an vehicle. I believe its more of a fashion statement than anything else. Fashion that is marketed on power/safety(LOL) and status.

If you could make the lizard brain connection with SUV's, it would also have to apply to clothing, housing, appliances, lawnmowers, private schools, neighborhoods etc...anything where there is a consumer choice.

What bothers the public most is the threat to this freedom of choice.

OK, so they can leave their SUV at the dealership. As soon as they take it out on the road, it does affect me. It affects my safety, it affects my insurance rates, and it affects the air I breathe. Those costs are real, even if they don't fit into a simplistic model of all economic activity as a simple exchange between two parties. The idea that costs should be paid by those who incur them is a cornerstone of free-market theory, and the government has a legitimate role in ensuring those not-so-hidden costs are fully paid by the SUV drivers who incur them. Unfortunately, the regulation actually done by our government, particularly in the area of insurance, actually pulls things in the opposite direction, and amounts to a subsidy of SUV drivers by the rest of us. That's right: there is less money in my pocket because you drive an SUV than there would be otherwise, and I resent that. Why shouldn't I?

I will not argue about insurance being less than clean but I disagree with the rest...and add in we should not treat driving as a right.

SUV's are no more dangerous than any other vehicle. Its the DRIVER that makes it dangerous.

Your insurance is paying for OTHER driver's faults, not some misconstrued notion there are "unsafe" vehicles on the road. And insurance in many states is only a lawyer shield, it does nothing to offset risk except in cases of lawsuit. SUV's are not any measurable part of insurance inflation.
If SUV exhaust is causing you problems, please see a doctor and report that vehicle to your state's authority (EPA equivalent). LEV/TLEV/SLEV all emit only ppm trace levels of HC/NOx/CO, the rest being water and carbon dioxide.

The empirical evidence would indicate otherwise. You claim to have read High and Mighty. Do you dispute the evidence therein, mostly derived from NHTSA data, that SUVs cause more damage to both vehicles and people in a collision than cars do? Do you deny that SUVs are more prone to rollovers and "tripping"? Do you deny that SUVs have longer braking distances than cars? Do you deny that having many SUVs on the road has a negative effect on visibility, with adverse consequences for safety?

Let's try to keep this debate connected to known facts, shall we? The evidence clearly indicates that SUVs are more dangerous than other vehicles. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide proof or explain what's wrong with evidence already cited.



You're looking at this only in terms of effect on the drivers involved, but insurance ties us all together financially. What's important is how much is paid total across the entire set of people paying insurance, and SUVs increase that total cost by increasing both the incidence of collisions and the dollar cost per collision.



Back that up. Be sure to account for Bradsher's evidence to the contrary.



That's mighty flippant of you. Are you saying then, that it's OK for SUVs to create more noxious emissions than cars, and that owners should not be expected to defray the additional health-care costs?



How does that apply to what we're talking about? Do all SUVs meet *LEV standards? Of course not. Mentioning those standards is just a red herring.

Minute Man



Yep, I think you're onto something here. So monster SUVs appeal to a sort of statement someone wants to make having to do with economic/social status. Does this have to do with needs for dominance?

I once read a review on a big pickup truck. The reviewer liked to get up close to other, smaller vehicles on the Interstate, and he enjoyed the intimidation factor.

So dominance and intimidation. Definately part of the lizard brain. I'm not sure dominance and intimidation could be extended to appliances and lawnmowers, however. We have a top-of-the-line stove, but nobody really cares about this but us. When we were house shopping, a retired colonel bragged about his hot water tank , but I don't think that was meant to indimidate us into buying his home.

Hardly anyone uses lawnmowers in the forest, but I suppose in some suburban areas this can be a pathetic little statement. I wonder what the monster SUV equivalent is? A garden tractor?

I can see your point about clothing in the high fashion circles and maybe among teenagers and CEO types.

Private schools? Naw. Prestigious schools, yeah. Graduating from St. Olaf's in Minnesota carries no dominance or intimidation, at least that I'm aware of.

And of course I am not saying that consumers should not have choices. What I am questioning are the reasons behind the choices. I don't have anything against monster SUVs, but I'd never own one.

Doesn't make sense to me.

This statement of yours does make sense to me:



Exactly! So SUVs are also not safer than any other vehicle! Knocking on wood, I have never been in an accident greater than a fender bender and have never been at fault. That's with 34 years of driving experience, some in the worst of conditions (Washington, D.C.; Minnesota winters; Denver's mouse trap). But then I ride motorcycle a lot too, and that tends to make you a defensive auto driver.

The point is that monster SUV consumers do often think they have a safer vehicle. This is, unfortunately, pure wishful thinking. Combine this with the needs to dominate and intimidate, which can lead to aggressive, unsafe driving habits--and there you have it.

A recipe for mayhem.

AM, you are a musician, correct? Does this lizard-brain theory apply to your choice of instrument?

Wouldn't you choose the vintage Les Paul or Strat rather than some lower priced copy that sounds just as good to the untrained ear?

And even if you were not playing to an audience, just for your enjoyment. Wouldn't you still choose the high priced high quality instrument?

Aren't you just as much the lizard brain for choosing the more expensive instrument as the lizard brain who would choose the high priced car or SUV, or the high priced home, or even the high priced clothing?

Sleeper

That sounds a little bit like an ad hominem argument to me. Just because lizard-brain phenomena motivate some purchases doesn't have to mean they motivate all purchases - not even for the same person, let alone from one person to another. That being the case, AM's motivation for buying a musical instrument is not relevant.

I'm sorry , I was asking AM. He seems quite intelligent, I am sure he can answer for himself.

How fortunate this lizard brain theory only applies to whatever you are against.

What about artists and their brushes. There are paint brushes out there that cost 10 times what a simple brush from Hobby Lobby would cost.

What about a golfer and his clubs, a hiker and his gear, and so on and so on...

What about an art collector, are they not being a lizard brain because they spend thousands or millions on an original Salvidor Dali, rather than buying a $500 exact lithograph copy?

If an individual has an affinity for a particular profession, sport or hobby. They will desire and acquire the finest(with-in their budget) instruments, equipment, clothing, or collection that is available.

And yes cars are an affinity to some people.

Sleeper

Outside of race car drivers and custom autoshow fanatics, I'm not sure how... and I'm not sure how it would apply to ungainly SUV's with questionable performance and safety. The inclination for the larger SUVs to roll over and cause more severe damage doesn't seem to possess any kind of attractive force unless somebody has a disregard for personal safety.

The original post, as I remember it, was in relation to the massive SUVs rather than the reasonable, useful SUVs. Taking this into consideration, along with the apparent dangers present in these massive SUVs, I would question what affinity they possess?

I'm sure he can, but he shouldn't have to. The question was irrelevant.



An expensive paint brush doesn't weigh two tons, rarely travels at sixty to eighty miles per hour, and almost never smashes into a passenger car with such force above the bumper or the reinforced part of a passenger-car door. An expensive paint brush doesn't emit much pollution, block drivers' views of the road, or increase other people's mandatory auto insurance premiums.

Do you see why those differences matter? If someone buys an expensive paint brush it doesn't affect others. There are no "hidden" costs that are being passed on to other people. That's not true with SUVs. That doesn't mean they should be banned; it just means that their owners should be held accountable for the costs they incur, and currently they are not.



More power to them...as long as I'm not being asked to pay for their choice.

I have seen people exhibit the SAME intimidation tactics in smaller cars...is there an implication that SUV's somehow bring out the "lizard brain" better than any other car?

Statistical studies need to be done BUT before this is done, how about we profile every driver and deny driving privedledges to those with the wrong mental responses?

My parents drive a Suburban and they do not exhibit any of the "bully mentality". Then again, they would easily pass any background check...

The issue of dangerous vehicles is poorly understood here. I am not talking about crashworthy cars because design for crash damage resistance and occupant protection is the FINAL mode in safety. The first mode is environment...here the SUV excels, somewhat at the cost of the shorter-statured cars. The visibility plus the higher angle of sight are the key players here.

SUV's had been designed around looks and with wide, high-profile tires, were highly susceptible to understeer overcorrection instability. The compliant sidewall tires formerly prevalent on this type were the cause of this handling quirk. Ford tried to reduce this by under inflating the tires but this led to reliability problems of high note.

The only solution was to reduce the profile of the tires. This is done with increasing wheel diameters. First 17", then 18, 19 and now even 20" are available. Big help here. Minor improvements in suspension plus a big boost from electronic stability programs have made this instability fade into the past like trailing throttle oversteer on Porsche 911's.

Antilock braking coupled with speed-sensitive steering boost are another large help.

You see the point I am making here. We could go on making improvements in vehicles but until the car drives itself, safety is the driver.

Have you looked at the cost on these large SUV's. They are all $28,000 plus. Also you have more fuel consumption which means higher gas prices, higher insurance costs, higher taxes from tag registration(in certain states).

Compare all these costs to the person who drives an $18,000 Saturn.

And I was not comparing a paintbrush to an SUV as you would like to make everyone think I was doing. I was referring to the lizard brain mentality of having the best, biggest or most expensive.

The price might be higher, but that's just profit for the manufacturers; none of it goes to repay other drivers for the safety or environmental costs of SUV ownership. If SUV owners paid those costs, the total cost of ownership would be even higher, which would result in either fewer being sold or lower margins - eating into auto-company profits either way. That's how a free market works, not by society providing an SUV-ownership subsidy that translates directly into bigger mansions in the Detroit area.

As for higher insurance costs, those are not truly paid by SUV owners. Owners of more expensive vehicles pay higher collision and comprehensive insurance premiums. However, the picture is very different when you consider the larger - and mandatory - component of liability insurance. There, the insurance companies do not vary rates by model. Several have tried, only to find that an affluent segment of their subscriber base takes not only their auto insurance but also every other form of insurance to a different provider, and the companies have backed off. When it comes to liability insurance, SUV owners pay the same premiums as the rest of us even though they receive a disproportionate share of benefits because their behemoths cause more damage in collisions. Yet again, this is all discussed in much greater detail in High and Mighty and shouldn't need to be repeated.

Similarly, higher registration costs don't even begin to recover the costs that SUV drivers incur. Yeah, so SUV owners pay more. Boo hoo hoo. They pay more voluntarily, despite being subsidized by the rest of us. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the awful plight of people who pay a $10K "SUV premium" to buy an empty image, adversely affecting my wallet, my safety, and the quality of the air I breathe in the process. Why should I care about their self-inflicted problems when they so obviously don't care about the problems they inflict on others?

You're entire argument is filled with class envy.

There is no use in debating this with you..

Personally I think your post is nothing but a personal attack and should have been removed already, but I'll try to answer anyway. I'll even try to bring this back to the original topic.



That would be interesting, since I'm in the class you claim I envy. I won't elaborate further.

But your mention of envy does bring up an interesting point. You see, envy is a lizard-brain kind of thing. The point of the original article is that SUV buyers quite specifically want to be envied, to be looked up to (literally), to be seen as big and powerful and capable of things others are not. It's very atavistic, and whether the perception is real or not doesn't matter so much; it's the image or the feeling that people want. Do you disagree? Do you deny that the desire to be envied is part of SUVs' appeal, or that catering to that desire is central to SUV marketing?

I don't own an SUV at the moment, but I am considering buying a Chevy Trailblazer for my wife.

Reasons I want one for my wife:

1. Safety. My number one concern is the safety of my wife and child. In the area I live my wife won't be on those 70+ mph highways and she does not take corners at 45+ so I am not worried about the roll over factor you are about to start trying to debunk my safety argument. Larger, heavier vehicles are safer in mid-low speed collisions(for the occupant that is).

2. Utility. My wife does alot of wood work and planting. So she goes to Home Depot and Lowes quite often. As of now it's difficult for her to get any lumber or large plant flats in her Toyota Camry.

3. Comfort. My wife won't have a truck and I don't blame her. Although they fit the utility aspect for her needs, it is not very convenient for her to get my son in and out of as he is in a car seat. Also the ride is very rough because of a suspension designed to carry loads and not designed for comfort.

I don't see any lizard brain mentality in those reasons. Am I selfish because I want more safety for my wife and child than other drivers and passengers that are on the road around her? You're damn right I am.

And since you are not envious then I guess that makes you a hypocrite.

Alright, this thread is getting WAY TOO PERSONAL. Let's address the issues and not attack each other. Otherwise, I could always close it...

Only very slightly, according to statistics. Also, the rollover issue is not only about high-speed turns and sudden lane changes. According to information presented in High and Mighty, most rollovers occur when the SUV "trips" over a guard rail, curb, or debris from an otherwise-unremarkable collision. In any case, some of the rollover danger will still exist regardless of your wife's driving habits, so it's not at all clear the SUV is safer.



That actually sounds like a good reason to have a larger vehicle. I'm not against people owning larger vehicles; some people really do make use of the added capabilities. All I've been saying is that people should pay the true costs for the vehicles they own. They should pay more for liability insurance, for example, and currently they don't. Buy what you want; just don't expect others to subsidize your choice.



Neither do I. Of course, I never accused you specifically of having that motivation.



Will the personal attacks never stop? I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this, but please check the posting guidelines. That's just not constructive, and people have been banned for less. Do yourself a favor and learn how to debate responsibly before you suffer the same fate.

In any case, you're wrong. I don't own an SUV; I drive a Subaru Impreza, and my wife drives an Acura Integra. The class to which I referred was the class of people who could afford an SUV, not the class of people who actually own one. I could buy any SUV on the market - even an H2 or Cayenne - out of my liquid assets. I just don't choose to. How does that make me a hypocrite? No, wait. Don't answer that. It was an irrelevant personal attack anyway, and we don't need to make things worse by discussing it further. Try to stay on topic and not take everything so personally, OK?

Allow me to repeat my previous questions. Do you deny that for many people the desire to be envied is a factor in their decision to buy an SUV, and that SUV marketing plays on that desire?

And exactly where did Bradshear get his roll over data? Presenting it in tertiary citing diminishes its credibility.

I used to work for a forensics company, primarily automotive accident investigation. You know what the number one reason for single vehicle MVA was? Avoiding a small animal on a narrow road. Yes, the bunny usually was killed. The driver over-corrected after trying to miss the creature and since the tire sidewall was oppositely loaded, the resultant sidewall snap initiated roll over.

I think you should trade in your Acura for a Honda. Really. And get rid of that other car...you only need one.

I'll take tertiary data over no data whatsoever any day.

You want better figures? Try these. According to http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NC...Ann/TSF2001.pdf passenger cars were involved in 6.7M accidents in 2001, 27429 of them fatal. "Light trucks" were involved in 3.9M accidents, 20722 of them fatal. That means light trucks (including SUVs) were involved in 36.9% of all accidents and 43.0% of the fatal ones. Hold onto those numbers; you'll be needing them in a moment.

Of course, absolute accident numbers are meaningless without knowing how many of each vehicle type are on the road, and those numbers are a little harder to find or interpret. Nonetheless, I think I found what we need at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs98/vehicles.htm. As near as I can tell, these documents show 131,838,538 passenger cars registered in 1998, and 52,205,894 pickups and SUVs - the numbers most closely corresponding the "light truck" numbers from before. Yeah, I know some numbers are from 1998 and some are from 2001, but changes to the percentages during those three years probably won't affect our result much. The important figure here is that pickups and SUVs accounted for 28.4% of registered vehicles.

So, 28.4% of vehicles, 36.9% of crashes, 43.0% of fatal crashes. Do we see a pattern there? Yes, we see that SUVs and pickups are involved in more crashes per registered vehicle than passenger cars, and the disparity is even greater when we look at fatal crashes.

Of course, if you don't like those numbers you're free to cite better ones. So far those seem to be the most authoritative numbers that have been mentioned in this conversation, and they don't seem to support the "SUVs are safer" theory. What do you have to show otherwise, Minute Man?

I see nothing wrong with marketing to an individual's lizard brain side. It means the marketing division of these automotive are doing their job bringing in sales(as SUV sales have done nothing but rise)

Maybe you don't own an SUV, like I said I don't either. Not that it's really any of my business, but if you have the liquid assets to buy an H2 for cash I am sure your home is much larger than mine. Is that really necessary?

And to respond, although off topic:

I used the term hypocrite quite accurately. Not a personal attack at all. If I were to use words like moron and idiot, that would be personal attacks.

It's like using the word ignorant. Some consider this an insult, because they are in fact ignorant.

Hypocrite can be defined as one who is a false pretender to virtue or piety.

Finally, an on-topic answer. Thank you.



Yet again, that's irrelevant. Why do you insist on talking about me instead of the issues? That's the very definition of ad hominem.



In the context where you used it ("if you're in that class...") you were clearly using it in its colloquial sense of indicating inconsistency. Accurate or not, definitional nuances or not, your comment had no place in a serious debate. Apparently the rules have been suspended for your benefit.

Not irrelevant at all. Your argument is with those who drive large SUVs. I just made a lateral move to those who have oversized homes. Unless you have a very large family you are wasting energy by living in such a home.

I used this as an example of the empty argument you are using for those who use large SUV's when they are only transporting themselves. I am sure you don't think it's anyones business how large a home you have, and I don't believe it's anyones business how large a car or SUV a person owns.

What if people came around to your home and hung door hangers on your doorknobs chastising you for owning a large home wasting electricity and land you don't really need? Sound familiar to those flyers that are being placed on SUVs all over the country. How is it different?

For goodness sake, we've been over this with the paintbrush red-herring already. If I own a big house, it doesn't affect your safety and you're not subsidizing my insurance. If I own an SUV neither of those is true. They're different. The difference has been explained to you, you haven't even attempted to deny that there is a difference, and yet you persist in bringing these irrelevant matters up to attack me personally instead of addressing the points I've raised. Do you have no answer to the data I cited regarding safety and accident rates, or the information about liability insurance?

Sheesh. Why do I try? You're the one not worth talking to, Sleeper. You don't even read what I say before you go on the attack. Why should I keep trying to keep things on topic and fact-based when there seem to be no consequences for just flaming randomly? I can get random flames in an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup; I came here hoping for something better.

Sleeper, there are a couple of things I think you should consider before buying an SUV. None of these points by themselves are very compelling, but combined they should weigh in your decision. Ultimately, like I said, I lost this argument with MrPigpen, and I really do like my SUV (accept for the gas mileage, which stinks). I would just prefer a van.

1) Are you planning to expand your family? If not, one child (which I think you indicated you have) is very easy and portable, so an SUV is no problem. If so...infant seats are extremely cumbersome for an SUV, and very easy in a van. Also, the toddler has to climb way up, which means you'll need to assist (carry) them into the car for about the first 3 years of their life. With a van, pretty much as soon as they're walking they can get into their own seat. Also, if you have an SUV and your child is having a problem, you have to get out and walk around the outside of the car to help them. In a van, you can easily pull over and get to the back from the inside.
2)Do you take a lot of road trips? On the surface, an SUV is a great traveling vehicle. It definitely beats a car. However, most SUVs don't actually have that much passenger room, after loading up all your things. Many don't offer the type of television that is already installed, so you have to use a portable one, which doesn't fit very well in the vehicle. A van can truly buy silence (a bargain at any price). My friends with vans have a system set up so the kids can either watch television, videos, or use the playstation. The kids actually look forward to car trips, and they travel in bliss!

3) Wherever you park, people are going to ding your car. If you have a van, who cares? But, if you shell out 30+ big on a vehicle, you don't want the doors messed up. To avoid this, you need to park rather far away from the store you wish to go to. It can be annoying, especially if you have a toddler AND are carrying a 20+ pound infant.
Anyhoo...Like I said, just little things that you should be aware of, but they can be annoying nonetheless.

Using this post to respond to your data.


1. You stated 'probably' there won't be a big difference between the figures from the registration in 1998 to the 2001 nhtsa accident figures. Well 'probably' is not very empirical. Sales of SUVs had increased dramatically from 98 to 01. And if anyone needs proof of this I shutter at your lack of common sense. But if you wish so I am sure there is plenty of information from NADA.

2. Since these figures lump all light trucks together. being anything from a nissan pick-up all the way to a Ford Excursion. There is no way to accurately say how many were actually SUVs in these accidents since the nhtsa does not separate these types of vehicles.

3. This handles your entire argument on the registration aspect. I am in the auto industry and when an SUV is registered it is done so as a PASSENGER vehicle, not under the light truck or truck category. So your argument that since only 28.4% of light trucks were of the total registered and that 36.9% were involved in crashes does not hold any water at all. In fact, while doing the paperwork for a customer I did a title application today for a Chevy Tahoe, and sure enough, what do you know it's registered as a passenger vehicle.

Thanks for the advice, but I am in the biz

Mini vans damn near cost as much or more than SUVs now a days.

I get GM employee pricing, so with rebates or 0% I can get a trailblazer at a VERY good price.

We generally don't take long trips, so not much of an issue there.

And just the one boy

This is mostly for my wife. She has always wanted an SUV, but she hated the big bulky ones like the Tahoe and Expedition. The Trailblazer fits her needs perfectly.

Thanks

Sleeper

Sleeper,

Golly, you sure hit some nerves! Permit me to answer you. (Sorry for the delay, we had problems with connectivity--wind turned the microwave antenna 180 degrees--no worky like that.)

I have one brand-name guitar that was given to me as a gift. It is a National Steel Delphi in the green finish, and it is my favorite because 1) I love the thing and 2) it was an impromptu gift from someone I hold near and dear to me. That's Lydia, my sigoth. There are cheaper (but not by much) copies available now; however, at the time they were not available. Lydia just liked the sounds that I made with that guitar.

Otherwise, I play cheap things. A Dean acoustic/electric, a La Patrie classical (scored on eBay for $200), an Epiphone jazz electric, an Ibanez bass, and my own PA is a slightly damaged Fender 250-watt rig. For recording I use a second-hand 4-track tape recorder. No digital yet, and I'm reluctant to spend for that because other musicians have commented that I will hate it--too much detail!

However, I have already admitted to having my own lizard brain. It is the revolutionary in me, the Che factor. We were listening to Evita last night, a bootlegged British version that has special meaning because Lydia's sister, who has passed on (died), did the bootleg. Anyway, when the tune about Peron's coup came on, we were rockin! Man, I love that stuff. Say you want a revolution and all.

But only in music. I do have issues otherwise that my lizard brain keeps me down, and one of them is with higher education. I hate the bureucrats. I love the education. I hate the system. I love the ideals. I hate the paper chase.

What a mess I am.

Once again, I am not against monster SUVs and simply want to understand: Why?

When I touch my Che side, I don't know why. Where am I going to? (That's from Evita.)

Don't cry for me, Argentina was a GHWB favorite, just FYI.

To repeat (with slight variation): I'll take faulty data over no data whatsoever any day. You claim there's better information from NADA? Show us.

In any case, an increase in sales over a three-year period has little effect on the total number of vehicles on the road. Annual sales IIRC are about 18M vehicles - about 10% of those already on the road. Even a 25% swing in sales from passenger cars to SUVs over a three-year period would have little effect on the percentages we're talking about.



And I shudder (not shutter) at your lack of honesty in interpreting statistics.



If you think you can do a better job of providing comparable numbers, feel free.



I appreciate the disclosure of your vested interest, but not the appeal to authority. I want facts, not claims of hidden expertise.



And yet, somehow, the figures I quoted do make distinctions between cars, pickups, and SUVs. How do you explain that? Would you please at least try?



Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Show us statistics. That's all I ask - that you ground your argument in fact instead of hand-waving and endless personal attacks. What proof do you have that SUVs are as safe as passenger cars? Surely your friends at GM are highly motivated to find or create such proof. Where is it?

Nice spin there.

1. I would never use 'faulty' data. Maybe you enjoy using faulty data, but not I.

2. Your statistics from the nhtsa lump all compact trucks, 1/2 ton trucks, 3/4 ton trucks, 1 ton trucks and SUVs into one category of light trucks. Until they break out an SUV category on it's own, this argument does not hold water. How can you accurately break out the SUVs in this grouping?

3. I will state once again that title registration of SUVs is done so as a passenger vehicle. The nhtsa may group the SUVs in the light truck class, but all title applications for SUVs are done as passenger vehicle.

I am looking at a blank title application right now and the choices are:

1. Passenger
2. Truck Tractor (18 Wheeler)
3. Ambulance
4. Truck
5. Bus
6. Private Trailer (Boat, car, or equipment trailer)
7. Motorcycle
8. Motor Home
9. Truck Trailer (18 Wheeler Trailer)

Any SUV to be titled under this application is titled as a passenger vehicle.

Although the nhtsa groups SUVs into the truck category, the titling process does not. So these numbers cannot be used to correlate to each other.

Please do readers the courtesy of trimming your quotes a little. This conversation is long enough already.



No, you'd apparently use no data whatsoever. That's what you've provided.



I can't, unfortunately. Can you? Will you try, since you claim to have superior sources? Can you provide an explanation for why SUV figures alone would be significantly different from SUV+pickup numbers? Nothing I've seen would support such an expectation.


We're still waiting for you to prove your case, Sleeper, instead of attacking mine (or me personally). Where's your evidence that SUVs are as safe as passenger cars? I won't respond further and will consider you to have forfeited the point until you at least try to make such a case using real numbers that the rest of us can verify. That's what debate requires you to do.

A little link for you to look at while I gather information.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/027,02353.cfm

Be sure to view the PDF

Closed for committee review.

The Committee has decided to keep this thread closed since a similar but more defined, and more civil debate has been started here:
Heavy vehicles(SUVs) safer than lighter ones., CEI.org report

Please join us