All Hank, all the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This is what amazed me. People gripe about gas prices all the time. But how much do you spend on gas a year? Sure, if you drive 20k miles/year, it starts to matter. But even at 20k miles, if you get 20mpg, you're looking at 1000 gallons/year. That's $3000. But if gas were a dollar less, you're saving only $1000. Is that significant? Sure, but it's not the end of the world. And if you're driving 20k miles, it's probably for business, and you're making some money. And if you're not making money, but driving that much, you probably have a car getting better mileage.

To me, the price of gas is nearly irrelevant. I take public transit, so drive less than 10k/year. And I get 25mpg. I buy maybe 300-400 gallons a year. That's a nice dinner out I'm saving, or maybe two nice dinners. per year.

Next time a strident environmentalist tees off on SUVs to you, remind him a considerable number of their owners are soccer moms who don't drive all that far.

The SUV is no worse for the environment or our geopolitical interests than a load of other vehicles no one complains about (diesels, motor homes, 18 wheelers, gas guzzling sports cars, boats, etc...). It's a strawman for people of a certain political bent to to take potshots at sector of society espousing values and a lifestyle they don't like.

The environmentalist movement has a lot of good people in it, but until it gets rid of the large percentage of its rank and file who view it as a fundamentalist crusade, its going to remain a laughinstock, with minimal political influence.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Next time a strident environmentalist tees off on SUVs to you, remind him a considerable number of their owners are soccer moms who don't drive all that far.

Except that I'll be teeing off on that person. SUVs can suck it. They can suck it because I can't see over them, around them, under them. They can suck it because they try to fit into parking spaces for a normal car, but don't fit. So I can't get out, or they give door dings. They can suck it also because they're dangerous--too much mass and not enough driver training--causing wrecks that disproportionately injure and kill people in other cars. They're as odious as McDonald's super-size it campaign--same problem.

And, btw, they are worse for the environment because they use much more gas. My point was not that they don't use more gas. They do. My point was that few people use so much gas that it matters. Even a travelling salesman who logs 40k miles/year isn't spending but a couple thousand extra with gas prices where they are.

(and your facts are wrong about diesel--or at least will be soon. There are a lot of new environmental regs that will make diesels a lot cleaner).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Except that I'll be teeing off on that person. SUVs can suck it. They can suck it because I can't see over them, around them, under them. They can suck it because they try to fit into parking spaces for a normal car, but don't fit. So I can't get out, or they give door dings. They can suck it also because they're dangerous--too much mass and not enough driver training--causing wrecks that disproportionately injure and kill people in other cars. They're as odious as McDonald's super-size it campaign--same problem.

And, btw, they are worse for the environment because they use much more gas. My point was not that they don't use more gas. They do. My point was that few people use so much gas that it matters. Even a travelling salesman who logs 40k miles/year isn't spending but a couple thousand extra with gas prices where they are.

(and your facts are wrong about diesel--or at least will be soon. There are a lot of new environmental regs that will make diesels a lot cleaner).

What about sports cars?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What about sports cars?

What about them? The only of those objections is fuel consumption.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Except that I'll be teeing off on that person. SUVs can suck it. They can suck it because I can't see over them, around them, under them. They can suck it because they try to fit into parking spaces for a normal car, but don't fit. So I can't get out, or they give door dings. They can suck it also because they're dangerous--too much mass and not enough driver training--causing wrecks that disproportionately injure and kill people in other cars. They're as odious as McDonald's super-size it campaign--same problem.

And, btw, they are worse for the environment because they use much more gas. My point was not that they don't use more gas. They do. My point was that few people use so much gas that it matters. Even a travelling salesman who logs 40k miles/year isn't spending but a couple thousand extra with gas prices where they are.

(and your facts are wrong about diesel--or at least will be soon. There are a lot of new environmental regs that will make diesels a lot cleaner).

So I guess you also hate Minivans, which are the same size and height as SUVs. And, well... full sized vans are just the work of the Devil, I assume.

I drive my SUV slow and safely, because anyone who drives one for more than 30 seconds, realizes you can't wind it out like a fucking sports car.* I drive my wife's car, OTOH, like a bat out of hell, because its fun. I get to speed around the way I can't in a SUV.

That mass argument is BS. Got any stats on how many people walked away from accidents because they had the added mass of an SUV? I know a dude who swears he'd be dead if the 18 wheelerhad hit him in anything other than his Tahoe. Any death caused by increased mass is easily outweighed by lives saved by it.

*With exceptions, where I can get away with doing otherwise.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


That mass argument is BS. Got any stats on how many people walked away from accidents because they had the added mass of an SUV? I know a dude who swears he'd be dead if the 18 wheelerhad hit him in anything other than his Tahoe. Any death caused by increased mass is easily outweighed by lives saved by it.

.

Your response is BS for two reasons, putting aside that it's based on a single person's annecdote.

First--you have to compare the number who walked away with the number who died in rollovers that wouldn't have occured in a car.

Second--my point was that the SUV owners are creating less safe roads for others, not for themselves. But it's self-defeating. If SUVs are in fact safer, then everyone will eventually get them. And instead of having 3000lb cars hitting eachother, we'll have 5000lb SUVs hitting each other. Which is more likely to cause fatalities. Prisoners dilemma, etc. While the individual owner may be better off, society is worse off .

BTW--who likes minivans? But, yes, they have some of the same problems. But they're not as wide, and usually not as high. I don't like driving behind trucks either. But SUVs, unlike trucks, are not everyhwere.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your position is shortsighted:

1. As long as they have oil, the Middle East will be a major problem for the rest of the world;

2. The only way to rid them of their oil is to use it up;

3. Driving an ultra-economical car actually prolongs the Middle East's oil supply, thus prolonging its strangehold on us, and prolonging our use of the fossil fuel;

4. Driving a Prius gives comfort to the regimes that aid terrorists.

We can either slowly kill off the oil supply over many years, or use it with abandon and kill off the supply more quickly. I say the sooner we rob the Arabs of their stranglehold over the world, the better.

damn I'd never looked at it that way but you're right. I'm going to go around to gas stations at night and lock on the fuel pumps at stations that let you pay at the end. Let that gas run into the street and shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You never need an SUV until that day you're leaving a concert or a football game and the difference between being home in a half hour or two hours is being able to drive over a concrete median or barriers. It's also a lifesaver if you're stuck behind an accident you could get around by pulling off the road through a ditch and driving through some grass. My wife's got a low to the ground car, and I always feel trapped in it.

most footballl stadiums have helioports now. I bought myself a personal Sikorsky a few years back. I don't know from traffic jams.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What about sports cars?

Would you just listen to me and try the Viagra before doing that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Next time a strident environmentalist tees off on SUVs to you,

you keep saying Philadelphia is a hell hole of dull normal idiots- yet you seem to be forever getting into the really deep discussions with people. Are these webchats?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Your response is BS for two reasons, putting aside that it's based on a single person's annecdote.

First--you have to compare the number who walked away with the number who died in rollovers that wouldn't have occured in a car.

Second--my point was that the SUV owners are creating less safe roads for others, not for themselves. But it's self-defeating. If SUVs are in fact safer, then everyone will eventually get them. And instead of having 3000lb cars hitting eachother, we'll have 5000lb SUVs hitting each other. Which is more likely to cause fatalities. Prisoners dilemma, etc. While the individual owner may be better off, society is worse off .

BTW--who likes minivans? But, yes, they have some of the same problems. But they're not as wide, and usually not as high. I don't like driving behind trucks either. But SUVs, unlike trucks, are not everyhwere.

I didn't base my conclusion that people in SUVs do better in accidents than people in cars on one anecdote. I cited that as one example. My point is actually proven in part by your argument, which admits that, in an accident, an SUV owner has greater mass. Greater mass often = better chance of surviving.

Are you suggesting the lives saved as a result of people being in SUVs aren't a valid offset against those you claim are taken by SUVs? That's an interesting methodology. I'd like you to do my taxes. It also assumes, quite arrogantly, that SUVs cannot benefit people more than the shrill anti-SUVers claim they damage them. You don't know and can't prove that SUVs cause more deaths than they prevent. That position, which you cite as though it were fact, is a popular belief touted by anti-SUV people, whose supporting information (if any) most assuredly does not offset the deaths caused by the deaths prevented. You're offering a piece of politically correct rhetoric as fact.

Show me a study confirming deaths caused outweigh deaths prevented.

I see no prisoner's dilemna except the one a certain group of people want to find.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder, responding to Spanky
What color is the sky in your world?

Off my corner, ho.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I didn't base my conclusion that people in SUVs do better in accidents than people in cars on one anecdote. I cited that as one example. My point is actually proven in part by your argument, which admits that, in an accident, an SUV owner has greater mass. Greater mass often = better chance of surviving.

Are you suggesting the lives saved as a result of people being in SUVs aren't a valid offset against those you claim are taken by SUVs? That's an interesting methodology. I'd like you to do my taxes. It also assumes, quite arrogantly, that SUVs cannot benefit people more than the shrill anti-SUVers claim they damage them. You don't know and can't prove that SUVs cause more deaths than they prevent. That position, which you cite as though it were fact, is a popular belief touted by anti-SUV people, whose supporting information (if any) most assuredly does not offset the deaths caused by the deaths prevented. You're offering a piece of politically correct rhetoric as fact.

Show me a study confirming deaths caused outweigh deaths prevented.

I see no prisoner's dilemna except the one a certain group of people want to find.

That increased mass has a high center of gravity that makes SUVs inclined to roll over. And because SUVs are classified as "light trucks", there were all sorts of passenger-safety regs they didn't have to comply with.

I'm not anti-SUV, but there are tons and tons of studies that show the same thing: SUVs increase danger to their occupants and the occupants of other vehicles.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


Are you suggesting the lives saved as a result of people being in SUVs aren't a valid offset against those you claim are taken by SUVs? .

No. You're being obtuse. Of course they can offset. But on balance, it's a negative for SUVs, counted in either of two ways.

First, because of the increased riskof rollover, SUV drivers are, on balance, no safer than if they were in a car.

link here

Second, because of their increased mass, SUVs in two-car crashes cause more harm to the other car. The increase in harm to the other car is not fully offset by a decrease in harm (that is, risk of injury or death) to the SUV driver. While the SUV is better off, the overall benefit to society is negative. This is not a suprise because you have more mass of car, with people no more capable of resisting injuries from metal hitting them.

ETA link for second proposition

4.3 times the number of deaths as a result, is her estimate.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Show me a study confirming deaths caused outweigh deaths prevented.

Yeah, like any of us are ever going to fall into that trap with you again.