I hate SUV's.....

[ranajja]

I can't decide whether to laugh...

...or get steamed.

Geez, Blue, you, Topher and Bill O'Reilly...

I also have a large family and own an SUV--hey, I loved my mini-van, but my oldest son quickly outgrew it for us. I've never had an at-fault accident in it, nor have I received a ticket for moving or parking violations in it. I consider myself to be a conscientious and courteous driver--even when some asshole rides my tail in a little compact car.

Oh, and by the way, newbie:

My theory is that a person in a larger vehicle with air bags, ABS, proximity detectors, a fully paid comprehensive insurance policy...

Get your terminology straight if you're going to start throwing out theories.

"Comprehensive" coverage doesn't cover collision with other autos or stationary objects. The term you want is "Full coverage" or "Collision coverage". Comprehensive covers animal collision, acts of God, or deranged wild-eyed little Cajun women who've gotten steamed over reading Lit threads...

 

[Texan]

just another thought

Suppose it were absolutely necessary to send your children into a situation that was dangerous. Just to make the point, pretend it were absolutely necessary to send your son into a battle. Would you clad your son with all the armour you could afford, or would you look to see what the other combatants were wearing and only put as much armour on your own son as the competition was wearing? Would you protect your son, or try to make it a "fair fight?"

Frankly, I want my own children (and my wife) to be driving the vehicle that provides for them as much protection as possible, within the constraints of practicality. I am not as concerned that someone else might be more seriously injured in an accident because they are driving a smaller car. I want to insure my own children are as safe as possible.

I know, I know; why don't we all drive Volvos? I put that comment in about "within the constraints of practicality" to explain that.

Driving IS a dangerous situation. In the U.S., there have been more trafic deaths than all the people killed in all the wars since 1776. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death amoung people between 16 and 34. More than half of all traffic deaths in the U.S. are alcohol related.

When I let my sons drive, I am putting them in the single most dangerous situation they are likely to face in this life. Therefore, I put them in vehicles that I believe will help them survive. (They drive pickups.)

 

[Azwed]

Texan did you ever see the tests the Insurance Institute did on full sized pickups??

Every pickup tested got a poor or marginal rating except for one. That was the Toyota Tundra.

 

[Texan]

Texan did you ever see the tests the Insurance Institute did on full sized pickups??

Every pickup tested got a poor or marginal rating except for one. That was the Toyota Tundra.

Azwed, that's a good point. I did see the test results, and as is my cynical habit, I looked into the "process" as well as the conclusions.

When the I.I. crash tests vehicles, they use a "barrier" that is exactly the same height as the center of the hood of the average vehicle in the class. They use the same standard when testing larger vehicles. Taller vehicle, therefore taller barrier. While it would make the test accurate for a comparison between vehicles of the same class, it does not take into account the advantages of height in an accident with a smaller vehicle.

I know it may sound "cruel" to say I want an advantage in an accident, but those are my kids, and I want to give them every advantage I can.

Azwed, also pickups do very well in "side impact" and "rear impact" crash tests. They tend to do worse in "head on" collisions, at least in part, because of their greater weight and wheel-span.

I also confess, I put price and function into the equation when buying a vehicle. And for myself, I use a criteria called "desire." That's why I own one of the most unsafe and impractical vehicles on the road.... a Jeep Wrangler. But I love it.

 

[Azwed]

Yeah you are right those are all good points. I just liked the whole process since it debunked a lot of the myths that big trucks are tough and indestructable.

I used to have a Jeep Cherokee it was a very fun car and only slight more practical and less safe then a Wrangler.

I survived a very terrible wreck in that jeep and if I had been in almost any other vehicle i probably would have been dead.

If I ever have kids I am going to carry them around in a 1970 Chevele station waggon. I am going to fabricate a NASCAR/NHRA quality rollcage for it and dare anyone to hit me.

 

[Texan]

Yeah you are right those are all good points. I just liked the whole process since it debunked a lot of the myths that big trucks are tough and indestructable.

I used to have a Jeep Cherokee it was a very fun car and only slight more practical and less safe then a Wrangler.

I survived a very terrible wreck in that jeep and if I had been in almost any other vehicle i probably would have been dead.

If I ever have kids I am going to carry them around in a 1970 Chevele station waggon. I am going to fabricate a NASCAR/NHRA quality rollcage for it and dare anyone to hit me.

hahahahahaa.a..... I like the NASCAR rollcage idea...... at least until THEY start driving. Then they will think the rollcage is an excuse to attempt a new land speed record.

By the way, one of the reasons I put my boys in pickups is because no one expects them to be fast, so there is no reason to PROVE how fast the can go. It also limits the number of passengers (read liability) they can carry. Also, here in Texas, they don't stand out on the road (to police) as a vehicle being driven by a teenager. When I see a kid in a sports car, I have my own sterotypes. I am often guilt of thinking the kid is spoiled. I also think how impractical it is to pay that much for auto insurance. BUT, then I remind myself how that decision is not mine to make, nor are its consequences mine to deal with.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Talk about worn out cliches! Accusing people of being bourgeois and talking about being "enslaved" by the "corporate world"?

Judging people, assuming political, personality and moral traits based based on what the car they own?

Calling someone a poseur just because they own/drive a 4WD vehicle?

Can you say superficial?

Can you say bigoted?

For those of you who judge people simply on the type of car they own, I have to say that you don't have a clue. All different kinds of people own all different kinds of motor vehicles. They range from poseurs to people who are very serious about using their vehicle to the utmost of its capabilities. I have owned and built 4x4s and I use them such that I regularly break them.

I don't own an SUV right now because I broke my last one so bad that I basically had to give it away.

As for who is dangerous and who isn't; an unattentive and unsafe driver is dangerous whatever vehicle they own/drive.

I have been struck from behind three times. Each time it was clearly the fault of the other person as I was stopped in traffic. The last two times I was in an SUV and the driver who struck me was in a compact car, the first time I was in a compact car and we were struck by a large American car. By the logic proposed by some people on this thread, people who drive compact and large American cars are more dangerous than people in SUVs.

But I know better; I know it wasn't because they were driving a particular type of car, I know it was because they weren't paying attention and that it would have happened regardless of what they were driving. People tailgate - they tailgate in small cars, they tailgate in large cars, they tailgate in huge vehicles (ever had an 18 wheeler ride your ass) - people tailgate and drive unsafely regardless of the vehicle.

Arguments can be made about all kinds of motor vehicles; about small cars where the drivers know they have greater maneuverability, acceleration and breaking, so they dodge in and out of traffic, speeding and tailgating. I see this all the time, often with kids in the Hondas with the huge megaphone tailpipe, clear lenses on the tail-lights/turnsignals, and booming stereo that costs as much as the car, etc.

Yet, beyond guessing that they enjoy modifying their vehicles in that manner, I don't assume that they drive recklessly, or are assholes, etc. just by the car they own, any more than I would guess who they are by someone's dress (whether they wear baggy pants), or whether they have spikey orange hair, or whether they have tattoos and piercings, or whether they dress like a biker and ride a Panhead like Lost Cause, or dress like a Sport Touring rider and ride an old Airhead Boxer like me.

You really can't make judgements about people based on what they drive, what they wear, or even what they do - you have to get to know them.

Locally cops like to profile people here because they ride Harleys, thinking they are in a biker gang and sell drugs - yet about 99% of them are engineers, investment bankers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, etc. and they aren't into violence, crime or any of the other crap their superiors would have them believe. They are prejudged not just because of what they ride, but what they do; they attend biker gatherings (many of them for charities), they lobby for their rights and they have fun.

Face it - judging people on superficial crap like what they own, etc. is just an easy way for you to spout off about a group of people you know nothing about, a group of people who are made up of varying politics, varying morals, etc. - in short a wide cross section of the populace. It is just like judging them for any other superficial thing you can use to conveniently group someone together.

Judging someone for the car they drive is really not much different than judging someone for their religion, their ethnicity, their sexuality. It is intolerance for someone else's differences and it is bigotry, plain and simple.

Just because someone drives a car you don't like you spout off a bunch of intolerant claptrap that has no basis in fact. The only real difference is that this is currently a popular thing to bitch about - if it wasn't popular, if it was as un-PC as race bigotry, none of you who do the bitching would have the balls to utter a peep.

I suspect you would find something else to bitch about though - probably something that puts down a general group of people, and probably to make yourself feel superior, in this case morally superior.

 

[Topher]

bigotry

Vehicle ownership is a choice. Ethnicity is not a choice.
I do make judgements about people based on their choices.
Yes, that includes religion.

The vehicle that one owns does not define him, no. Noam Chomsky could drive an SUV for all I know (but I bet he takes the bus).

But, if vehicle choices did not indicate the traits of people as a group, statistically, then actuaries would be out of their jobs.

It's difficult to define "asshole". The definition will change according to the culture and experiences of the individual making the judgement. But, I have found, as far as I'm concerned, that, if someone drives an SUV, then he is more likely to fit the definition of what I consider to be an "asshole".

Growing up lower-middle class maybe I perceive the upper-middle class to be assholes. SUV buyers tend to be upper-middle class. So maybe it's not that SUV lovers are assholes. It's just that assholes have enough money to buy SUVs.

Notice that I didn't talk much about safety.
I don't think that *I* made any assertions about safety, either for the driver or for the others on the road. I just think the damn things take up more than their fair share of space, and that most of their drivers don't give a shit that they do.

A picture's worth 1000 &c.,&c. ...

I count 3 SUVs in this picture, and that's less than 1/3 of the lot. Is there something unclear about the sign?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: bigotry

Vehicle ownership is a choice. Ethnicity is not a choice.
I do make judgements about people based on their choices.
Yes, that includes religion.

So, all Jews are penny pinchers, all Christians are holier than thou do-gooders, all Moslems are terrorists, and all SUV drivers are bourgeois assholes?

One thing I have learned over my almost 50 years on this planet is not to make assumptions about people until you get to know them - including assumptions based on superficial things such as the clothes they wear, the house they live in, or the cars they drive. I know a lot of people who drive brand new vehicles, including brand new SUVs, that are anything but upper middle class; they are lower middle class and struggling to make it.

Sometimes owning a nice car is part of the image they try to present, but follow them home and they live in a low-rent apartment and are struggling just to pay their bills. That doesn't make them poseurs, assholes, or whatever - it just makes them owners of a nice car that the bank owns 90% of.

I have never owned a new car, but I have owned some nice cars. Right now I own a 12 year old beater. I could own a brand new very nice car if I wanted to spend money on it, but I only need a car to get back and forth to work right now, and I am more interested i nspending money on my bikes. Also, a good portion of my money went to a down payment for a new car for my kids, who needed a decent dependable car more than I did.

A picture's worth 1000 &c.,&c. ...

I count 3 SUVs in this picture, and that's less than 1/3 of the lot. Is there something unclear about the sign?

Two things I noticed; SUVs and compacts; and I am not surprised - both are very popular vehicles. I notice large vehicles park in compact spaces all that time; large luxury cars, pickups, mini-vans, and yes SUVs. It doesn't mean that all the people who drive these cars are assholes - just that assholes also drive those cars. There is a difference.

As for actuaries and insurance rates; insurance rates are only partially based on the vehicle driven, but also based on where it is driven and by who, including their age, experience and driving record. The consideration of the vehicle includes how much it costs to repair such a vehicle involved in a collision as man ySUVs are fully insured as they are financed.

FWIW, the insurance rates on the two SUVs were no different than the insurance rates on my sub-compact. I owned those vehicles outright so I had only liability and medical, no comp/collision. If insurance companies thought that the vehicles themselves or the people driving them were inherently unsafe due to the vehicle, then why didn't my insurance rates change?

BTW, I pay very little for insurance as I am classified as a very safe driver; I pay the lowest rates for what I am covered for - about $30 per month, which is very low considering I am in a metropolitan area with high traffic density (Seattle).

 

[Topher]

STG>So, all Jews are penny pinchers, all Christians are holier than thou do-gooders, all Moslems are terrorists,

Jewishness, above all, is an ethnicity. I think hardly anyone would argue that the stereotype applies to the people and not the believers.

As to the characterizations of Christians and Moslems, well,
atheists cannot by "holier"-than-thou by strict definition, and there's not many atheist terrorists I would wager (though I bet there are one or two at least). BUT ...

STG>and all SUV drivers are bourgeois assholes?

... you are setting up a straw man when you ask this rhetorical
question. The following sentences, I think, fairly represent what I have said:

previous post>The vehicle that one owns does not define him, no.

and

previous post>if someone drives an SUV, then he is more likely to fit the definition of what I consider to be an "asshole".

"more likely"

Where exactly, in the entire thread, did I ever say "all". I think that I was fairly careful to specify "tendencies" and "typicallys", and I stick by that. I think that if I meet someone who drives a hybrid car then I will more than likely like him. Will I be guarranteed to like him? No. I may be put off by his (metaphorically) holier-than-thou attitude about the environment. But I think my chances of liking him are better than my liking the driver of an SUV. But, hell, I already said that a good friend drives an Explorer. Another drives that useless Rav4.
I don't really consider that an SUV though.

STG>It doesn't mean that all the people who drive these cars are assholes - just that assholes also drive those cars. There is a difference

Precisely. It's just my contention that the ratio of assholes to non-assholes among the drivers of these vehicles (SUVs, and, yes, luxury cars, and not-so-much pickups, except for those I forget what you call them the huge ones with the extra set of rear wheels) is larger than the ratio in the set of cars that is the complement of the above-defined set.

STG>If insurance companies thought that the vehicles themselves or the people driving them were inherently unsafe due to the vehicle, then why didn't my insurance rates change?

Now you know a specific instance says nothing about the general rule. This is a logical fallacy. But I mistakenly used this device in my argument because I was related and on my mind. I wasn't saying that actuaries determine that SUV drivers are a bigger liability, I was just saying that they categorize some drivers based on their car choice (red and sports maybe), so there are people who judge personality by consumer choice.

Forget actuaries - ask those in advertising. The idea that you *can't* ascertain a bit about the general personality traits of the purchasers of a certain type of product (say, SUVs) is a bit farfetched. I don't know if advertising has been mathematically proven to be effective, but, if it's not, then someone is wasting an awful lot of money.

STG, in a previouser post>I suspect you would find something else to bitch about though - probably something that puts down a general group of people, and probably to make yourself feel superior, in this case morally superior.


You are probably right, STG. If people like me stop voicing our opinions then I wonder what *you* will bitch about?

 

[Topher]

my car

After all this hot air I thought some of you might be interested in seeing what my car looks like:

 

[Texan]

Re: my car

After all this hot air I thought some of you might be interested in seeing what my car looks like:

Topher, I'm bored with this thread, but you might want to block your license plates in that pic. Someday, you might want to say something to really piss someone off, and your tags are traceable...


just a thought...

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

DDP! (Damn Double Posts!)

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

atheists cannot by "holier"-than-thou by strict definition,

I disagree; atheists can be just as self-righteous as anybody else, and I think this thread has proven that.

and there's not many atheist terrorists I would wager (though I bet there are one or two at least).

Maybe, maybe not, but the worst mass-murderers in the world were atheists (Stalin and Mao Tsé-Tung) and could qualify as terrorists in my book.

You are probably right, STG. If people like me stop voicing our opinions then I wonder what *you* will bitch about?

Oh lot's of things, but I don't have problems with opinions per se, just ignorant ones that generalize. Especially those opinions that pretend to classify people accoding to superficial factors.

People are complex and whether you classify someone by how much money they make, what they drive, etc., or by religion, etc., you are falling into the trap of stereotyping people.

I personally dislike people making assumptions about me, especially ignorant general assumptions, such as saying I am an asshole because I drive an SUV, even if you surround the assertion with weasel words.

 

[Topher]

I'm not afraid

Anybody who wants to go to the bother of image amelioration can bring it on.

Anybody (outside of Siddharta Gautama perhaps) who claims that he doesn't generalize is a hippocrite. Human beings naturally classify things.

Call me ignorant. That doesn't bother me. I'm a member of Mensa. Ha! Talking about being elitist!

I suppose next you'll be telling me that you and Texan *didn't* vote for Dubya!

If I had been unsure of my assessment of some of the people in this thread based upon the vehicle that they were driving then their opinions on the issue as expressed in this thread would have clarified my assessment.

I'm tired of this thread too. Obviously I touched a nerve with some of the road hogs. Y'all take the last word if you want. I'm saying no more. Thanks whateverblue for opening this can of worms!

 

[FlamingoBlue]

Well, we finally got a decent snowfall=>

And some of the dumb fucks in their SUV's are driving like they are impervious to the elements. They love to drive fast and tailgate, regardless of the road conditions. If those assholes only knew that they were firting with death....

blue

p.s. Topher, that's a mighty nice looking Ferrari in your photo. Your's or a dream??

 

[Azwed]

Ok I am done with this thread becasue it has gotten beyond silly. The only thing I will mention is in regards to the picture of the Compact car lot.

The two SUV's that I can identify are both considered Compact SUV's by the EPA. The red SUV is a Jeep Cherokee and it was classified as compact. The white SUV in the foreground is a Nissan Xterra which is also considered a Compact.

I can't tell what the White SUV in the back is because I can't see enough of it.

Here is the Glossary of definitions from the EPA website.

http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb20/Glossary.pdf

The size classifications are on the second page.

Compact is defined as car between 100-110 cubic feet of combined cargo and passenger space.

A regular cherokee was classified as a compact. I can't find any interior volume data for the Cherokee anymore because it is no longer made. I do remember it being classified as a compact though.

I am not sure if the Exterra is classified as a compact. I have not seen the EPA classifications for it since it is fairly new. I think it probably would be classified as a compact because it is about the same size as a cherokee.

My own very rough calculations of the Exterra's interior volume show that it has a combined passenger/cargo volume of just over 110 cubic feet. I am not sure what measurments the EPA uses for its calculations so I don't know how far off I am.

 

[Azwed]

Fucked up double post.

 

[Topher]

ok I'll bite

I'm closed on the vehicle-personality correlation topic, but I'll post this for clarifications.

Ok, it's being pedantic and sticklerish, but I don't consider an SUV a "car". It's an automobile. It's a vehicle. It may even be a "compact" (though I have a hard time swallowing that one for anything but a Rav4 or CR-V).
But the sign doesn't say "COMPACT SUVs ONLY" or even "COMPACTS ONLY". Of course, we all know what they mean don't we? But I can pretend otherwise. <grin>

Regardless, there're huge SUVs and pickups in that lot *all the time*. I'll keep my camera with me; if not for use here then for use elsewhere.

Anyway, the real reason for this post is this - the make of the other SUV:

 

[Mae13]

Well Mr Unregistered

Well, I'd say that you are just citing myths. 4x4s cannot go anywhere. Sure, they have decent ground clearance, but their 4WD systems, responsible for the distribution of power, are far less sophisticated than systems found on most all-wheel-drive sports cars. 4WDs do not handle like rally cars, but here in Oz most of the local yokels think that they do. Serves 'em right when they collect a tree and the ladder frame mashes their legs.

Pardon me for generalizing there. I have never assumed 4x4's can go anywhere; I know they can't. I have taken most of my vehicles ('88Mazda(RWD), '86Cougar(RWD), '91Taurus(FWD), '63 Skylark(RWD), '73 Sattelite(RWD) and '01Cherokee, respectively) lots of places they perhaps shouldn't have oughta gone. And from my own experience driving on similar roads (and back roads) in almost all of them, I enjoy the performance of the 4WD more than the others. Again, I happen to be an intelligent driver (at least in Mae's World I am ) in whatever I'm behind the wheel of. I like to have fun, and like to test sometimes, but only at my own expense, lol.

Also, in terms of space, there is not so much usable room as you think. Do some experiments if you doubt me. The problem is that most 4WDs don't have a cargo barrier, so all the space above the rear seats is wasted. Also, the rear seats rarely fold down as neatly as those of a standard family station wagon.

Heh, you've never seen me pack my Jeep! Suspension...it's all about the suspension Actually, I have done a hell of a lot of experimentation with packing all my vehicles as well. Moved my entire life back and forth for 4 years in my Taurus...it's amazing what you can fit in there if you use good physics! But I can fit a hell of a lot more in my Jeep, 'specially if I drop the back seat. And I love the hatchback (and yes, I know there are cars/wagons with those too)

Personally I would go for, say a Subaru AWD wagon for all of the above points, but don't have a problem with your 4WD as long as you recognise that it is a truck and should be driven accordingly (not like an English truckie though!). Most of the serious landowners down here drive AWD utes ("utilities": umm, pickups I guess).

Again, I'll say I feel I'm a pretty damn responsible driver no matter what it is. Anyway, I don't like Subarus, hehe. I don't really go for the whole "flashy" thing with a vehicle, but I do want to drive something I find asthetically pleasing personally

Ever seen a 4WD system fail to perform? On low-traction surfaces they can get seriously out of their depth. Then again, they are still better in these cases than a normal 2wd car.

*sigh* YES I have seen them not perform. My post was not intended to say they are perfect or faultless or not driven by ignorant assholes just as any other vehicle type is. I was speaking of personal experiences. In the year I have owned my one "SUV" (although reading above, I guess my lil cherokee doesn't qualify as one, oh darn...) in the northern high plains, it has gotten me to places where other cars were left behind, and I like that. It's also been used to rescue other folks with cars that couldn't hack the weather here in the winter.

So when somebody screws up in a SUV (as you call them, though where the "Sport" comes from I'm not sure), they have the right to compromise the safety of others?

Nope, not saying that at all either. While we're on this train of thought....why not scrap classics from the road too? My ex's old hotrod was a perfect example. Well over 2 tons of pure Detroit steel, mean as hell with a nice big block. If I had driven that like an ass and plowed into any <insert frail fiberglass bodied vehicle here> you can bet I might have gotten a scratch on the Sat while they were left with a twisted remnant of plastic, no matter how much safer car frames are supposed to be now regarding impact. Same goes for any old car that packs a hell of a lot more weight than cars of the last couple decades do. What this all really comes down to is HOW EACH PERSON DRIVES. I don't have the "right" to compromise anyone's safety, that's why I drive responsibly and defensively. At the same time, I don't think people should have the right to assume I'm a pretentious asshole driver because I have my jeep, anymore than they should be able to assume I'm a shitty driver because I'm a woman. I guess the generalizations piss me off. Perhaps people don't care so much about the shitty drivers in every other type of vehicle because they aren't as deadly? All roses might be flowers, but not all flowers are roses...ya know? That was really the purpose to my whole post here.

Overall you have to admit that safety is NOT a point in favour of 4WDs. Who are the decent drivers? Don't about 90% of people think they're above average?

Honestly? Yes, I do think I am a better than average driver. Wanna know why? Because I drive defensively, use my signals, DON'T run red lights, don't speed excessively, don't succumb to road rage, don't talk on my cell or put on makeup while driving, etc etc etc...all the things it seems "average" drivers do nowadays that aggrivate me to no end. I am truly sorry for the accidents you've mentioned, but it is a story anyone can tell with any combination of vehicle. I have had friends killed in auto accidents with every mix you can imagine. Cars are big, fast, heavy, dangerous things and they'll continue to kill folks due to irresponsibility and bad driving conditions.

You sound like a sensible driver. In a smaller car with good handling, don't you think that you'd be able to avoid those dangerous situations far more easily?

Actually, I have never been hit in my jeep. All those were in my other cars. And no, none of them were ones I could have avoided, unless I just hadn't been out that day. Most of them were being hit while I was at a standstill. I have never hit anyone. Had my license since I was 14 years old (yes, I think that was too young and I'm glad they upped the age, heh) and have never caused an accident yet, nor been at any fault for the few I've been in.

Pretentious relative to what? Unless you live on a rural property, there really is no difference in pretentiousness between a $40k SUV and an $80k.

I guess perceived pretention is something that means "more than what you spent" sort of thing, no? $40k for a vehicle seems rediculous to me as well, but hey, that's just me.

Honestly? If everyone would just SLOW THE FUCK DOWN, chill out, and treat vehicles and roadways with the respect they deserve, this would never be an issue, methinks. Yeah, like that will happen though...*shrug*

What an interesting thread this has become overall...

Be Well,
Mae

 

[Topher]

Bump

HAW HAW HAW HAW

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMP BUMPY WUMPY!

 

[Topher]

I meant to find this when the topic was still current

Canyoneero Theme (SUV parody from "The Simpsons")

-------------------------------------------------

Can you name the truck with four-wheel drive,
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five!

Canyonero...
Canyonerooo!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
it's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero...
Canyonerooo!
(Krusty)Hey hey!

The federal highway commision has ruled the Canyonero
unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonerooo!

Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
sixty-five tons of American pride!

Canyonero...
Canyonerooo!

Top o' the line in utility sports,
unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero...
Canyonerooo!

She blinds everybody with her super-high beams,
she's a squirrel-squashin', deer-smackin', drivin' machine!

Canyonero...
Canyonerooo!
Yah!

Yah, Canyonero!
Yah!

Whoa, Canyonero!
Whoa!

 

[Guest]

I can't stand SUV's either... Can't see around them when you're behind them. Can't see around them when you're parked next to them, trying to back out of your parking space...

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

And what do you drive? A Miata?

Like weapons and dangerous mechanisms of any kind - an SUV is as safe as safe can be, if driven by a driver who understands the "road physics" that a higher center of gravity inflict on most said SUVs.

Fact is I believe that many SUV accidents are caused by ignorant drivers of said vehicles. They drive them too fast into turning situations. They tip over. Dumb. No fucking duh.

How about Big Rig drivers? You hate them too? How about Bus Drivers? Them too?

Anyone with a larger vehicle that will "win" in a collision with your vehicle? What ever that is.

Maybe we should just make all driven, road vehicles exactly the same. Same size, same length, same weight, same dimension. Then we'd all be equal on the Road of Life. Or the Road of Death.

Then when the Brick Layer's came to deliver bricks for your new patio - they could make many more trips - charging you by the trip - but it would be safer for all of us out there. Right?

No motorcycles, no truck of any kind, no busses, no school busses, no SUV's, no pick-up trucks - all the same "safe" vehicle.

Great idea. Are you American? Don't you know that we must kill each other off in varied means?

Vehiclular death is great. Guns are great. Fast food is great. God Bless America.