All Hank, all the time.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So me being in a large truck when someone broadsides me causes me and my car and the other car more damage/injury than if I'd been in a small car? If I were in a smaller car, wouldn't I suffer greater injury from a braodside hit? If that's not true, can you explain why? I'm not a science guy.

Getting hit by a heavier car means you will sustain more damage. I can say this for certain.

If your heavier vehicle that is getting hit is not in motion, it is not contributing any enerfgy to the crash. It's absorbing the energy of the crash. How well it absorbs the energy depends more on on how well it is designed than how much it weighs. You may be safer simply because you are seated higher off of the ground in an SUV.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Your argument would be better if it were a right. As a privilege, there's no basis for objecting to any and all limits imposed on those who avail themselves of that privilege.

I don't understand why the argument came up in the first place. SUV sales are down. Ford is about to go under. GM had to get rid of the original, deeply discount the H2, and invent the ridiculous H3. The most recent survey of new car buyers indicated that fuel economy is the number one consideration in choosing a car, even before price. I'm a current SUV driver, but there's little chance that its replacement will be an SUV. I suspect the same would be said for a lot of other SUV drivers. That the automakers are churning out sportswagons like their existence depended on it sort of tells you which way the automobile market is headed. Hell, they're bringing the Smart Car to the US.

However, I don't know how my parents could have done it any other way with four kids and two dogs than with a Suburban. Which is why I always check the back seats before calling an Excursion, Tahoe, Expedition, Navigator, or Suburban driver a fatass.

I think the market is taking care of this particular problem without any "ban" having to be implemented.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
However, I don't know how my parents could have done it any other way with four kids and two dogs than with a Suburban. Which is why I always check the back seats before calling an Excursion, Tahoe, Expedition, Navigator, or Suburban driver a fatass.

Short bus.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The more you talk about how reasonable it is, the worse it sounds.

And as for statistics:

Timothy McVeigh
John Walker Lindh
John Reed

Any of these guys ever hijacked an airplane?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Your argument would be better if it were a right. As a privilege, there's no basis for objecting to any and all limits imposed on those who avail themselves of that privilege.

But if its a right, you have a stonger argument for regulation. 6 or half a dozen, I guess.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think the market is taking care of this particular problem without any "ban" having to be implemented.

I don't want to ban SUVs. However, the tax policies that lead to their proliferation are just nuts.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...e-credits.html

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And the only reason there are more Blacks than Whites in prison is because the Blacks commit more crimes. So, if I'm a cop in Rancho Mirage and I see a balck male in his 20s, it only makes sense for me to stop and search him, right?

I mean, sure, he is an American and he theoretically has the same rights as the rest of us, but you can't ignore statitstics, can you? How else are we gonna keep the White women safe?

You have a right not be randomly searched on the street without the cop having "reasonable articuable suspicion". As far as I know, being black doesn't not qualify.

You have no right to fly a plane. If you don't want to get searched, don't fly.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Short bus.

Heh. We did have, at one point, a Ford conversion van called "The Texan". Two console chairs in the middle, fold out bench seat in the very back, carpeted from floor to ceiling, small television in the back, CB radio (my dad's handle was "the Polish Tortilla"). I remember seeing Mary Lou Retton's perfect ten while driving down I-10 about halfway between Houston and San Antonio.

This was, of course, in the middle of the oil boom. Thing must have sucked gas. Had two tanks. It was replaced by an Astro mini-van when the oil markets busted, which sadly was the car that I ended up driving when I turned 16.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Like the gun argument? Just get one yourself for protection? Or nuclear weapons?

Are you saying the world is a better place for the escalation of the arms race, or the heavy cars race? I'm saying it's not.

No, I won't go that far. But I will say I'd rather have the option to choose how to keep myself safe than let somebody else enforce an even playing field they think is safest for me and everybody else.

I know, I know... You didn't argue in favor of such regulation. But then how else would we effect the result you admit you'd like?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't want to ban SUVs. However, the tax policies that lead to their proliferation are just nuts.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...e-credits.html

That, I agree, was sheer silliness.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But if its a right, you have a stonger argument for regulation. 6 or half a dozen, I guess.

Huh? This I don't understand.

I never anywhere argued for a ban. I gave my reasons why I dislike the proliferation of SUVs. I would dissuade their use in two ways. 1) Impose gas taxes that accurately reflected harm to the environment (which, in fact they may already) as well as damage to roads (this is harder to measure, but one 6000lb SUV does more than double the damage of two 3000lb cars). 2) Make sure that insurance rates accurately reflect the harm SUVs cause to others and tax that harm to the SUV owner.

If people want to pay the price, that's fine. But as shifter points out, one of the reasons why SUVs are popular (or were) is because they are "more car for the money", which is to say, they have lower costs for the amount of car because of byzantine regulation.

ETA: Lest you think I'm an enviro junkie, I just reread the thread title. I have even more disdain for Priuses. Why? Because many states (at least around here) give them carte blanche for the HOV lanes. They use gas. They take up space and cause congestion. They don't get that much better fuel mileage than some other econo-boxes. Yet they get to use the HOV lanes? Suck it. And DC can suck it more for giving them tax-free registration. Everyone else pays 7% of purchase price and they get in free? Suck that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have a right not be randomly searched on the street without the cop having "reasonable articuable suspicion". As far as I know, being black doesn't not qualify.

You have no right to fly a plane. If you don't want to get searched, don't fly.

Interestingly, while you have a right not to have your saddlebags searched when the cops pull your horse over, you have no such right when you are driving in a car, hovercraft or Segway.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Any of these guys ever hijacked an airplane?

One tried. Any of your brain cells ever wrapped itself around a nonlinear thought?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have no right to fly a plane. If you don't want to get searched, don't fly.

One might say the same to all non-Arab males. Think about it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
One tried. Any of your brain cells ever wrapped itself around a nonlinear thought?

Any of your brain cells ever wrapped itself around a rational argument? Do you really believe that at the airport race, religion and national origin should not be a factor on whom they choose for a more thorough search?