Saw a report on 60 Minutes last night that linked BIG (Yukon, Hummer class) SUV ownership to the desire to be big and powerful, a primitive way of survival thinking located in our lower brain functions--often referred to as our "lizard brain."

Why would anyone want to drive an SUV? It gets really bad gas mileage, doesn't fit into these tiny parking spots we have now, costs a lot to buy and maintain, rolls over rather easily (happened to see a big one on its side with a crushed top on the way down Ute pass on Saturday), doesn't do well on narrow back roads and tight mountain switchbacks (you want a CJ or Wrangler for that--or better, a motorcycle!), and even might have tires designed for off road that fall apart in 80 mph highway traffic.

Are they safer? Show me statistics.

Are they roomier? Vans do better for room.

Traction? Our front-wheel drive Saturn does better than the Jeep a lot of the time! Studded snow tires all around.

Ground clearance? OK, I'll buy that. But you don't need to be so big. A Cherokee-class does quite well.

Towing power? Get a diesel pickup.

Appeasement to the knee-jerk lizard brain? I think so. It is all illusion.

As we passed around the flipped over Yukon (or whatever it was--pretty banged up), and while one of the passengers (driver?) was waving us by furiously (don't look at my stupidity), I did not have a self-satisfied smirk on my face because we were in a '94 Saturn (40 mpg, paid for) and upright. I felt sorry for the guy. This is going to cost him big time on insurance rate hikes (if he doesn't get cancelled), car rental, new purchase--will his lizard brain win again for the new purchase?

So, tell me. Why drive a BIG SUV?

Because, the sooner we run out of oil the sooner we will have peace in the Middle East.

I agree that a lot of the huge SUV's are a waste, but I drive a Nissan Xterra, which is about the same size as a Cherokee, if not a bit smaller. I know for a fact that the last few snows we had, a Saturn would not have had a chance of getting around, but our Xterra can go just about anywhere. I have 2 labs, and I take them to the lake every weekend, and the Xterra makes sense because they can just hop up in the back and I do not have to worry about the interior getting messed up. It does not get great gas mileage, but that is why my wife drives it to work (about 20 miles round trip) and I drive a little Sentra to work (about 60 miles round trip.) I just think some people do not want to drive a mini van, which is their prerogative. I for one would not really want to drive a mini van, and some of the new car based "crossover" SUV's get mileage as good or better than a mini van. I think it all comes down to personal choice, and many people choose SUV's. It still is a free country, and even though we may think some things are wasteful, the people can drive what they want.

I drive a Nissan Pathfinder. While it is not in the same mammoth class as Yukons or Hummers, it is still a SUV.

It's a great grocery-getter, dog transport vehicle (Got a GSD myself), hunting vehicle and can be a good night-on-the-town vehicle as well.

6-banger, so gas mileage is so-so.

OK, so my question to those that think that a Van is OK, but a SUV is not I'd like to ask, WHY?

Van is big, unsightly, poor gas mileage. Honestly, whasa difference?

I honestly do not think there is a difference between regular size SUV's and Vans. I think it is mainly the gigantic Excursions and Hummer types that are in the cross hairs of most critics. I have to agree on some point that they are wasteful, but I do not feel it is anyone's place to tell people what they should drive. I am getting ready to trade in my Xterra for a Nissan Murano, which is car based, and with its CVT, its gets about 26 mpg on the highway, which is as good or better than most mini vans, and better than any full size van out there. I try conserve energy myself whenever I can, but I do not scream at people driving Yukons that they are funding Osama and nonsense like that. Again, it is none of my business what they drive, and they are the ones having to pay for the gas.

I have a 2001 Dodge Durango, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. In my job, I frequently have to transport soldiers to activities. Loading them all in my SUV negates having to take two or more vehicles. The capability to carry loads of building supplies or gear is incomparable to other vehicles, save a big pickup.
I'm not sure about more expensive upkeep. Tires are a little more, but you can get better deals on the internet than places like Sears or Firestone. I do most of my own maintenance, so maybe I don't pay as much as someone else. I have great traction, and have towing power, and this is from a six cylinder.
I don't have a problem with anyone who chooses a smaller car for the reasons AM listed but I couldn't get a Saturn into the places I frequently go hiking, biking or for my job.

I saw the 60 Minutes piece on SUV's, and I think it was there that I (again) saw how people are ticketing, , or putting bumper stickers on SUV's. Why would anti-SUV people resort to crime if they are so virtuous in their thinking?

I'd just like to point out than in a supply and demand system that everyone pays. With fewer SUV's (and there are certainly sufficient numbers to affect demand) prices would be lower.

We also pay in terms of pollution and personal safety. You get a whole lot more smog-per-gallon with an SUV which you can pay for with your kid's inhaler, your sister's costly emphysema (sp?) treatment or your own inability to work outdoors.

That being said I can see how something like an SUV could be very useful for some people. But I have personally talked to some SUV owners in the neighbourhood and very few of the people I talk to ever take their SUV offroad or use it's capacity in a way that would rule out a car as the vehicle of choice.

Good replies, all. We only use the Jeep to go off road (actually, on trail--off pavement or decent dirt). A few spring seasons back, we were coming up Rampart Range Road from the Springs and this big Ford (Excursion?) was stuck in the snow. I tried to tug it out with the Jeep Cherokee Sport (26 mpg, 1,500 lb. towing, bash pans and long shocks) but couldn't budge the behemoth. Put the cables on the Jeep's front tires and just dug nice holes in the snow. Also broke a brake line.

So, this guy's teenage kids pile into the Jeep for a ride down to Woodland Park with me using the gears and emergency brake all the way. That was fun for some grins! Poor kids. They were scared.

Anyway, the guy with the Ford should never have tried a rough, unmaintained, still snowy road--for his first adventure. The heavier you are on the snow, the deeper you get stuck. Same holds for mud. The longer you are, the fewer places you have to turn around too.

So, why buy a BIG SUV? I know why to buy a medium-sized one. I don't really care about why people don't like SUVs or having freedom of choice. I want someone to defend the purchase decision.

Maybe this will help: Can you think of reasons to buy a BIG SUV, assuming money was no object?

DTOM--You'd be surprised at the places I can get a small car into. It's all in driving technique, but it has to be a beater car that I don't care about, and I need either chains or straps. And a jack

Same reason some folks buy a big ole van, I suppose? I dunno... They can carry a lot of people and/or a lot of gear. Me with only my wife and I, don't need that much.

I do get irritated when people in SUVs of any size think they can go at break-neck speeds in wintery conditions. Big and heavy might help......but it's also a lot harder to stop when it loses control.

I have a 15 speed mountain bike that gets me where I need to go

Herc & Moif,

Thanks! These are great replies too. When it comes down to it, there's no real reason to buy the BIG HUGE parking lot speed bump jumpers.

Yet they are the fastest growing market.

So Americans are fearful. A lot of us make big bucks (not your's truly and not the people who have replied). With money as no object, the reasons fall back to . . .

Fear from the lizard.

This has helped *tremendously* on a writing project.

Agreed. But some people can afford it



DEFINATELY agree with that one



Disagree. What makes them so much more costly to maintain than a Lexus or Beamer? Luxery cars will run you more because...well... rich people buy them, so the mechanics really stick it to 'em

It's true however, that manual transmissions and 4x4's are more expensive to repair, but that applies to a lot of vehicles, not just SUV's.



Disagree. Your gonna have to show me some stats about this. Because I have seen many more small compact cars on their top, than I have SUV's. Personal experience shoudln't be the only piece of proof for that statement.



Yes and no. Depends on what you mean by "doesn't do well" I had a full size pickup for many years, and regularly traveled several steep mountain passes with it. I think it did just fine. It might depend on the driver though, and how compentant he/she is behind the wheel of a large vehical on dangerous roads.



Not really. But there is something to be said for being surrounded by more metal/steel. Stats? I have none.



Depends on the van and SUV. That's a pretty large blanket you just rolled out



In some conditions. But I will take my 4x4 Wrangler anyday over a front wheel drive car. Sorry



Many people who complain about SUV's, also complain about large pickups for the same reasons. Gas, mileage, size, etc etc.



Oh, you must be his insurance agent then Sorry no, you can't possibly know what this will do to his insurance. He could have had a brand new Saturn, < 1 mo old, and have multiple accidents on his record, and his insurance could have canceled him just the same. Or, perhaps, the driver had a spotless record for years, and this will do very little to him.

Whether his insurance gets cancelled or not, does not matter on the vehicle, but the record of the driver.

Yes, they are more expensive to insure. But so are luxery cars that get great gas mileage.

Just about the only thing with your post I agree with, is the whole Lizard brain thing. Men especially, think bigger is better. Men are proud of their trucks or SUV's. It's a guy thing

Oh, one last thing (if your still reading this )

- If you want to pull something, you get a truck
- If you want to carry a lot of people, you get a van
- If you want good traction in the snow, you get a front wheel drive car

but if you want ALL of those things, you get an SUV. They're more versatile.

--cheers

*whew*

Ok, here ARE some statistics courtesy the Public Citizen webpage:

Occupant Fatality Rate

For those of us who don't have adobe it breaks down like this:

SUV: 17.78 (Deaths per 100,000 vehicles registered)
Passenger Car: 16.44
Pickup Truck: 16.24
Van: 11.87

Source: NCSA, Characteristics of Rollover Crashes, DOT HS 809 438, (Apr. 2002) at 22.

Here's a good passage:



SUVs’ Menacing Designs Assure High Death Rates

As far as rollovers are concerned, it's not just the frequency that is a problem in SUV's... the severity has to be considered because of the shape and weigh distribution. Here are some more stats from this link:

SUVs: 11.17 (rollover fatalities per 100,000 registered vehicles)
Passenger Car: 3.72
Pickup Truck: 7.22
Van: 4.46

Sounds like we need better drivers, might not have much to do with cars.

CP

A lack of statistical evidence was noted, and I have attempted to correct that situation. Please respond to what I have provided instead of making a glib dismissal.

I am not dismissing it, my point is, there is no way of proving whether the problem is driving, weather, ect, there is no control variable that I see to that investigation.

CP

The statistics provided were from various sources that STUDY STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IN TRAFFIC SAFETY. I would consider them eminently qualified to provide valid evidence in the exploration of vehicle safety.

What I'm saying is that there are more than one thing that can happen to cause an accident, it might not be the car's fault.

CP

I understand what you're saying. You're dismissing my evidence without looking at it. That is your prerogative. The fact remains that there is statistical evidence that SUV's are more dangerous in several ways. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. I'm waiting...

Okay, please don't tell me my perogative, if you have read and tried to understandwhat I am saying you will note that it is physically impossible to back up a fact with a fact in this situation.

CP

First of all, my saying [QUOTE]"That is your prerogative,"/QUOTE] basically means "that is your right" so I don't understand what you're upset about.

As for the substance of your post, you have to prove that facts are unreliable in this example. You can't simply say that "other things can happen." Instead try to find a source that identifies HOW these statistics are unreliable. If they are then surely someone somewhere has comissioned some sort of research or statement into the validity of traffic safety information gathering.

[QUOTE=Ultimatejoe,Mar 4 2003, 11:23 PM] First of all, my saying [QUOTE]"That is your prerogative,"/QUOTE] basically means "that is your right" so I don't understand what you're upset about.

As for the substance of your post, you have to prove that facts are unreliable in this example. You can't simply say that "other things can happen." Instead try to find a source that identifies HOW these statistics are unreliable. If they are then surely someone somewhere has comissioned some sort of research or statement into the validity of traffic safety information gathering. [/QUOTE]
I prove that by thinking, in my mind I say, "Well, is it possible that non-SUV related conditions could have an effect on accidents, yes, yes there are." It's that simple, it is a fact that SUV' aren't only to blame for accidents. Also I confused perogative for something else, my bad .

CP

The going belief is that SUV's are safer for the drivers of the vehicle - that may be disputable -

But what about other drivers?

An SUV came from behind and slammed a car full of men (from my former neighborhood), and one of men died from the impact.

Are SUV safe for other drivers?

jjirout

Any car can kill people, to single out one is unfair, yes, accidents happen with SUV's but again, the question is why the accident happened.

CP

Accidents will happen regardless of the driver. The fact is that an SUV poses a dramatically higher risk to other cars on the roads (which is true regardless of driver, conditions, etc.) because of what is labelled "incompatibility." They also have a much higher mass and the weight is distributed in a fashion that causes more damage.

Interesting stats you have there. However, I'm not sure how credible they are.

1) The website was founded by Ralph Nader. He's pretty anti-SUV, anti-big business, etc etc. Kinda biased if you ask me. It's almost like getting all your Middle East news from the Jerusalem Post

2) The website has this article on the front page entittled SUVs are deadly behemoths that must be redesigned, Public Citizen tells Congress Again, that seems pretty biased.

3) I didn't see any mention of where this study took place (more SUV's in rural area than crowded cities). Nor did I see anything that talked about the total number of each type of vehicle on the road. For instance, if SUV's were the #1 verhicle in America, then it stands to reason that they will rollover more than other less popular cars. etc etc.

4) This study was done in 1999. Which is 4 years old now. A lot has changed since then.

I apprecaite your stats, and I think they are worth a look. But before I make a decision on the safety of SUV's, I'm gonna want to see Dept of Trasportation stats...or something a little less....biased.

Respectfully

--cheers

That strikes me as pretty irrelevant, since Nader does quote his own sources, thus:



I'd like to know what sources you consider more authoritative than DOT. Ford or GM, perhaps?



For DOT figures, I'd guess the answer to "where" is "nationwide".



Come now, that's just dishonest. The numbers are clearly given as rates per 100,000 etc. and not as absolute numbers.



Yeah. SUVs have gotten even bigger, for one thing.



Less biased than the DOT stats you just dismissed out of hand?



Didn't look very respectful to me.

Thank you for saying what I was going to.

In response to Digital Patriot... If you don't trust the stats, just look at the sources. Everything I cited was carefully sourced according to academic standards. Bias has nothing to do with it. If you have a factual problem with the evidence I will be glad to hear it, but I am getting a bit frustrated with every piece of evidence I advance being rejected as 'biased.' Argue the FACTS (and common sense and anecdotal evidence are not facts) or propose a theory based on your own research.

Ultimatejoe,

Thanks for doing the research--you've got my vote, man

Digital Patriot,

Thanks for challenging my logic. I get so bored sometimes You really worked hard! (don't take that the wrong way)

Also thanks for the big is better observation. However, is it always men who think this way? Could the lizard brain be bisexual?

And how does this relate to houses? Oh, wait, off subject. Or am I?

BTW, a Saturn with studded tires all around will kill your Wrangler with straight rubber--on ice. Sorry. Proven a million times that STEEL shreds ICE, while RUBBER just FLUBBERS (OK, I'm not a rapper).

Lizard brains. How do we deal with them? Eh, maybe not a good next thread subject.

But thank you all for your support/dissupport Much appreciated!

I would say the desire to drive large powerful vehicles that have a raised driving position has a lot to do with the perception of power that such a vehicle and vantage point confer upon the driver.

Just as the Medieval Knight defined his status in part through his powerful war-horse from which he looked down upon the serfs, so too does the modern successful businessman broadcast his status through the ownership of a powerful off-road vehicle, from which he looks down upon those who cannot afford one.

It's the psychology of dominance.

JB
So how does that compare to the rich who drive around in stretched limo's?

Joe
Thanks for the links and info. I don't care if it is biased. EVERYTHING is biased. Like AM, you got my vote.

But here's a question. Whats the difference between an SUV and a Land Rover? Aren't Land Rovers just as dangerous?

LOL - good question Moif.

Penis extension maybe...?

Obviously driving round in a land-cruiser isn't the only expression of power, but I think that it does serve as a status symbol for those who can afford them.

Not at all. In fact, I'll take that as a compliment



Sure it could. That would explain breast implants!



Not really. Same thing. A lot of men like to think of themselves as king of their castle. The bigger the castle, the more powerful the king. heh heh



Oh, I agree 100%. But what about studded tires on my Wrangler and your Saturn? Who would win then?



We don't. It's human nature. Today it's SUV's, tomorrow it could be something else.

--cheers

Freedom of choice. Comparing our motoring likes to any other country is much like comparing our political systems. its not surprising those who rail against vehicle choice are typically socialists.

The other factor killing CAFE is our lofty EPA regulations and general fuel quality. If we had low-sulfur fuels, we could be driving cars that get 25-40% better economy. Unfortunately, this will not become fact until 2006. The EPA factor will still hurt the overall CAFE in that ever-increasing emissions restrictions, especially PM and NOx, prevent the widescale implementation of passenger car and light truck high specific output diesel technology.

Yes, diesel. Not the diesel of Olds fame. Not that slow Rabbit diesel. Honest power with great mileage...a TINY 3.3 liter V8 that generates 225 Hp at low engine speeds and propels a full-sized sedan better than a 4.0 liter petrol V8 while giving 35% better mileage than the gasoline engine. All of that with NO black clouds and no "big-rig" smell. Sadly these engines are only available in Volkswagon automobiles and that only has two engine choices in basically two platforms, that being the A3 Golf/Jetta/New Beetle and the B5 Passats. The Passat is a new addition, it having a new PDI 2.0 liter with 134 Hp (vs the standard 180 Hp gasoline engine). It gets 38 MPG in a medium sized car.

So what prompted the SUV craze? How about the excessive regulation that killed the family sedan out of mileage and soured the public on anything front-wheel drive. While the bureaucrats attempted to kill the automotive industry with legislation, the industry fought back with TECHNOLOGY. This technology reduced emissions, increased power and efficiency making the SUV's possible under LIGHT TRUCK C.A.F.E. standards. No, there is NO LOOPHOLE! Only reduced requirements.


The anti-SUV crowd is long on opinions and short on facts. Attacks of SUV owners is unlikely to change the desires of the motoring public.

Oh yes, in case you think I am a rabid SUV owner, think again. I have a wonderful Jetta diesel and get 48+ MPG AND can outrun nearly any SUV on the road. I modified mine to European specifications with larger injectors, increased turbo capacity and engine management software. 0-60 is a short 6.5 seconds away...and I run biodiesel, a fuel that has NO sulfur and is 100% short-term renewable. It can get rubber in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears...4th and 5th will slip the clutch. See you at the drag strip in your Insight, Prius or other econobox. Shoot, bring your H1 or H2 and get embarassed.

Rubber in 3rd!!?!?!? damn.... nice..heh

However, when you get that little thing stuck in a ditch on the side of the road somewhere, be sure to thank the H2/'burban/Excursion that pulls you out...mmmm kay?



--cheers

PS: Most smaller sporty cars will outrun almost any SUV any day. That is not the reason people get them.... their not speed demons, and I don't think anyone thinks of them that way..(at least I hope not)

Minute Man



I'm not sure that's a real reason for buying a monster SUV. How many people think, hey, I have freedom of choice! Time to spend 50-80 grand or so on something.

The CAFE standards actually allow more big trucks/SUVs to be sold. That's because the standards go on a fleet average--so you put out rollerskates getting 40-50 mpg and price them for the masses. Then the richer people can have their monster SUVs. I'll bet the profit on those things is enormous, not to mention replacement parts profit.

So economy isn't a real reason either. I guess it all has to do with ego gratification.

DP--yep, your Wrangler won

No, the economics of SUV's with CAFE dictate only a limited number of these vehicles can be built. This limited supply is balanced by a greater profit margin from the higher price needed to balance the low supply.

Have you ever heard of the "gas guzzler" tax? That is a tax assessed on a vehicle based on mileage but also the company's CAFE....the "C" is for corporate. A company like AM General that makes only a poor mileage (~12 mpg) H2 and an even worse H1 will have a tremondous GGT penalty despite the "SUV Loophole".


The corporations that offset the SUV penalty with smaller cars sell such cars as loss leaders. These cars are sold for less than their cost to bolster the CAFE. It all works out in the balance. Ford has done something interesting, that is feature loading. The base car is sold as a loss leader but they throw in 16" aluminum wheels, MP3 players etc and these accessories are added by customer choice and thusly, increase the margins. The more econoboxes a company can sell, the more SUV's they can also turn.

Don't really have a lot to say on this topic. I don't much like SUVs, and they're very low on my preferred vehicles list. I value comfort and speed (especially around corners) much more than the SUV advantages, so I like luxury sports sedans like perhaps an Infiniti G35. Can't afford one yet, so I'm driving a Ford Crown Victoria ex-police car bought at auction. All the same, I have no problem with those who do like SUVs so long as they don't drive like idiots. (But unfortunately many SUV owners do, and those folks I have a problem with.)

That's pretty much totally incorrect. The "gas guzzler tax" is on cars; legally, SUVs (even the big ones) are considered "light trucks". CAFE standards for cars and light trucks are separate. In general, SUVs are held to lower standards (mileage, emissions, safety) than cars, and SUVs over 6000 pounds are held to even lower standards than smaller SUVs. There are also other loopholes, such as mileage-measurement techniques that are known to be inaccurate (favoring SUVs, natch) and "extra credit" for dual-fuel vehicles that can run on "E85" (85% ethanol) even if owners are not informed and even though there are only about 200 stations in the whole country that sell E85. Ford does particularly well off that one, and without it they probably wouldn't be able to sell the Excursion.

All of this is laid out in excruciating detail in High and Mighty, which IMO everyone participating in an SUV debate - on either side - should read before they make statements that are clearly untrue. The short version is that there's not one "SUV loophole" but many.

Yes, I have read Bradshear's book. He twists the truth...get it from the source and then tell me what I am missing.

EPA's CAFE program for 2001

Minute Man,



So are you agreeing with my statement:

How about table I-1, which shows a requirement of 27.5 for passenger cars and 20.7 for light trucks? How about scant mention of measurement methodologies, and none of the E85 loophole? How about the fact that the gas-guzzler tax - the real starting point for this discussion - is not imposed by DOT and is not mentioned in their document? Posting URLs to original sources is great, but not if they're irrelevant URLs.

You want the real gas-guzzler URL? Try http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/page/0,,id%3D...3D80196,00.html. It specifically limits itself to vehicles "rated at an unloaded gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or less" - thus exempting large SUVs. Further, it exempts "vehicles treated under 49 USC 32901 (1978) as non-passenger automobiles". OK, let's look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/32901.html. In section (a)(1)(16) we see a definition of "passenger automobile" that clearly excludes vehicles that have "significant features designed for off-highway operation (not including 4-wheel drive, but including things like higher clearance and skid plates) and that are over 6,000 pounds GVW. In other words, quite a few SUVs are exempt. While you're looking at 49 USC 32901, you might as well check out sections (a)(1)(D) and (a)(8) which form the basis of the E85 loophole I mentioned.

Yes, it is important to go to the sources, isn't it? You just never know what you're missing otherwise.

Which SUV's fall into this classification? Only the H1/H2 Hummer @ ~7150/6400 lbs respectively, Chevy/GMC 2500 series 4x4 Suburban and Ford Excursion. 4 vehicles.

The number of large SUV's is capped by this legislation indirectly by the number of economy cars the company can sell. You can see this in the pricing/sales strategies especially at the end of a model year with incentives for the small cars but none of the larger vehicles in stock.

Did you actually follow the link? I didn't think you would. One thing I didn't mention is that 49 USC 32901 doesn't fully define "passenger vehicle"; instead, it says:

So how does the Secretary actually "decide by regulation"? I think we all know that such regulatory decisions often defy common sense, and this is no exception. Perhaps the best empirical answer can be found in http://www.cbo.gov/bo2003/bo2003_showhit1....fm?index=REV-38:

But we can be even more empirical than that. Go ahead and ask around. See if you can find anyone who's actually paying the gas-guzzler tax on an SUV. You're right that manufacturers try to meet fleet standards by selling smaller vehicles within a class to make up for the larger ones, but the class boundary between cars and SUVs remains firm and the gas-guzzler tax is hardly a factor.

Yes, it is the lizard brain. We are guilty of owning an SUV. The following is a fairly accurate replay of the conversation my husband and I had before buying:

Me,"We need a bigger vehicle. The kids don't fit in this small car with all their stuff. I think a minivan would be great! All of the other moms-with-small-kids have 'em."

DH"No minivan."

Me,"How about just a van?"

DH,"minivan has the word van in it. No van either"

Me,"What do you have against a van, 'mini' or otherwise? It gets great gas mileage, is about 10K cheaper than the least expensive SUV. I would LOVE all that room, and you could transport your skis and band equiptment easily."

DH,"I don't want to look like a middle aged man with a couple of kids. I want an SUV"

Me,"But, you ARE a middle aged man with a couple of kids!"

DH,"No minivan."

Weird, huh?

mrspigpen,

God bless your souls! You really cheered me up with your story today. The lovliness of humanity comes through with our desire to look like something we are not--it shows our frailty in the face of reality.

The good thing about middle age is that it passes, like adolescence passes. I am proud to be a member of AARP and drive a stinking little Saturn among all the monster trucks.

Even lizard brains mellow with age.

BTW, I rented a minivan some years back and drove it through fairly heavy snow in Minnesota. It did well, and I liked the expansive views through lots of glass, plus the roominess of it. If we ever get another vehicle, maybe that will be it. With AARP stickers all over the place

Hey, how about everyone can drive whatever they want without others incessantly bitching at them. It's no one's business what consenting adults do in the privacy of a car dealership. Drive your saturns and geos and enjoy the smug satisfaction of saving money on gas. Isn't that enough?

P.S.: the average city mpgs for 2002 minivans were between 13-19mpg. Hardly "great gas mileage." The longer this goes on, the more it looks like plain 'ol class envy.

Hm. We sound a bit touchy about our choice in vehicles. Expensive, powerful cars are great. If you feel you need that sort of thing.

I didn't realize freedom of speech could be abbridged by hurt feelings.

Let me ask you, if you felt a group of people, say for example liberals, were practicing something dangerous and destructive; would you stop objecting if they said you were "bitching" at them? I don't think so.

A mini-van gets poor mileage; but they're designed for a specific purpose; carrying groups of people. They aren't designed with extra steel slapped on every-which way. Do they get poor gas mileage? Sure. But I don't know anyone that would get a van without the need to frequently move 5 or more people. Does everyone who buys an SUV intend to go off-roading? The very idea is humourous.

cyclone,



The thing is, as I wrote in the starting post, I don't feel smug. I feel sorry for the guy who bumped up against his lizard brain. He looked to be about my age or older, and he was feeling real bad about the situation.

As I scoot around in our rollerskate among the monster trucks, I feel sorry for their owners. As I top off the tank with medium-grade petrol and notice other folks topping up gas tanks twice or thrice the size of mine, I feel sorry for them. That dang lizard brain again!

Listen: I got one too. I have done stupid things due to it. Smugness has nothing to do with my intention here. I'm trying to understand and maybe get a few yuks from the likes of mrspigpen (bless you, dear--and a little prayer goes up for mrpigpen).

Oh, and class envy. Yeah, but you know what? I think that is more important of an issue for those who bow to their lizard brains than to those who choose not to.