BS: 4 X 4's

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 02:06 PM

Don't all internal combustion engines pollute the air?

What I think is so amusing in all of this anti-SUV stuff, is that I have yet to hear anyone come out against 18-wheelers. If you think SUVs are dangerous on the highway.... well, I suppose you've never sat in traffic for hours because two 18-wheelers collided. I suppose you've never lost a friend because he drove his VW bug UNDER one of those things.

And as far as gas guzzling is concerned, where is the outcry against the large luxury sedans with V-8 engines? Buses? Vans? Hmm? Private jets?

I drive a Jeep Cherokee - the one they don't make anymore. It goes off-road, it hauls firewood (because I have a woodstove instead of gas or electric heat), and it holds two large dogs and camping gear. And one time, we had to sleep in it when our tent flooded on an outing. The only time it has ever been in an accident was when someone in a small car HIT ME in a parking lot. The dent is still there.

Do some people get large vehicles for status? Of course they do. I think it's a little silly. But please don't lump all of us in there together.

Instead of telling people what they can & can't drive, how about we put pressure on the manufacturers to make better engines?

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 01:54 PM

Amos, I don't think you are always mean spirited but I gotta disagree about the most dangerous vehicle. For 2003, I pick the Iraqi T72, its especially dangerous for the driver. Or Maybe Air Force One?

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 01:14 PM

I am not yowling Amos, nor am I satisfied. I am merely suggesting that awareness that one is a problem only starts when we stop pointing fingers at others and deal with our own vices, It is this step that many drivers of polluting vehicles fail to grasp. It is not enough to be against the failing of others, you also have to be against your own.
   In fact, I am not sure I understand your point, really. Are we to attack only other peoples faults then ? That is what happens now and it does not help and it is hypocritical..that is all I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 12:53 PM

We all have blindness in degrees and on different subjects. Yowling about hypocrisy may be satisfying, but it doesn't address the facts or raise the awareness of those whose blind-spots are being discussed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 12:49 PM

This is connected to the hypocrisy thread because when we had a public meeting about banning smoking in the Pubs because it was damaging to the other people...al the fervent anti smokers came in 4X4s. Now don't that beat all. We are awash in hypocrites ..ain't we?

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 08:46 AM

Good on you, now promise to keep it for private use.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,Strollin' Johnny
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 08:31 AM

I don't own a 4x4, nor will I ever need to own one, because I'm perfectly happy with the size of my penis.
Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 08:28 AM

I think it is too late. Not because of the huge damage done to date but we don't get it....at all. All of our resources are finite, if we do not understand that we will contine to run around in the ridiculous cars, we will consume too much, shower tooo often, eat too much and think that jet skis are part of our freedom of choice, this is why it is too late..we are jost so stupid, all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: saulgoldie
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 07:58 AM

When the oxygen level in the air has been so reduced that we are gasping for air, and most of the conveniently accessible oil has been pumped, and we are in our last years of life, what will we tell the younger generations from whom we borrowed this planet and returned it to them in pitiful condition? That is the question.

How much we drive, and how legitimate our needs for such vehicles are questions that pale in comparison to this one supreme question. But it is really already too late.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 07:33 AM

I wonder how people got around in these so called remote places before 4x4's. I am certainly not against them when there is good reason to have them but I would guess that very few people really need them. As for ATV's, I think they are awful things and ought to be banned as they serve no useful purpose, although we seem to live in a world ffilled with things that serve no useful purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 07:32 AM

A pedestrian hit by an ordinary car will be hit in the shin or knee and go over the top of the bonnet (hood). Survival rate, fairly good dependant on speed of vehicle. A pedestrian hit by an SUV or a larger vehicle with Bull bars (Roo bars as they are in Oz) will get hit in the hip and go under the wheels. Survival rate, not so good, recovery time a lot longer.

A child pedestrian hit by an ordinary car will be hit in the upper leg or hip. Survival rate not good, but not bad either. Hit by an SUV, the child will be hit in the head. Survival rate, extremely small.

Conclusion = SUVs and bullbars in pedestrian areas are not good.

There was a move afoot to try to outlaw these bullbars but I don't know what happened to it.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: gnu
Date: 04 Nov 03 - 06:42 AM

Yup. My extended cab 4X4 pickup hauls my equipment. And she's got Kent County racin' stripes (tree scratches) from bumper to bumper, hood and cab too. When I see them yuppies with their shiny, hulkin' SUV's without a strip o' dirt or any scratches, it makes me mad. I call them Homobiles. (PC ? Not. So don't whine.)

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: JenEllen
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 06:16 PM

I have a 4WD, and am not ashamed to admit it. Living and working in the places I do, it'd be difficult not to have one. However, there are adjustments people can make that lessen the impact of those (or any) cars on the environment and lives around them, but that would require thinking about something other than themselves, so I don't see folks taking to it any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,KateG at Work
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 05:58 PM

There's a big difference between OpenMike, who drives an SUV for all the right reasons -- and humanitarian ones at that -- and the suburbanite who uses the biggest thing s/he can find for status purposes. I was facing one of those behemoths at my gas station the other day and realized that the bumper was on a level with my windshield. Frightening thought.

On the other hand, I confess to being fond of four wheel drive. I live in a hilly rural area, and there have been times when it has been a godsend. However, you don't need a gas-guzzling Suburban Assault Vehicle to get a 4x4. My last three cars have all been small 4WD station wagons getting around 30 mpg: a Honda Civic (no longer made), a Toyota Tercel (no longer made) and a Subaru Impreza. Plenty of space for me, my groceries and my rottweiler.

Several years ago I rented an Explorer to go on a winter business trip -- the company was paying and my Toyota was on its last legs. My companion for the journey owned an old Volvo wagon. We pulled up in our respective cars next to the Explorer and opened the hatch. We couldn't believe it. There was less room behind the back seat in that monster than in either of our little wagons. Two wheelie suitcases (the kind that fit under airline seats), two briefcases and two overcoats filled it. And since neither of us are overtall, we had to have the seat so close to the wheel we could practically steer with our tits. The handling was also quite scary. I'm used to going between 40 and 50 mph on our wiggly, hilly roads...but this thing felt like it was going to go into orbit if I went over 35 on the same roads. A scary beast, thank heaven someone else was footing the bill.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 01:43 PM

I agree about the jetskis..obnoxious things.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 12:44 PM

Now I'm gonna go get all introverted. Dang. :>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 12:43 PM

Thanks, open mike. We rural Americans will fight big-brother -isn and get what we need to get by. Maybe some people have bigger cars than they need and some people have bigger houses than they need, but that is why we call this a free country.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: open mike
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 12:36 PM

I live 1/2 mile from the nearest "black-top" road, and
nearly 8 miles from the nearest highway. (80 curves in
the road leading to our driveway) In my fore-runner
(used to drive an Exploder, and before that a
Colt Vista--all 4WD) I carry 3 bags of fire gear..
structure gear bag for house and car fires,
wildland safety gear - all equipment needed for
forest fire response, and a medical bag with Oxygen
tank, blood pressure cuff, rubber gloves, etc.
This life-saving equipment goes with me every where I
go and that sometimes means to remote areas for rescue.
No apology here for remaining ready to help others.
also when it comes time to carry instruments, amps,
speakers, etc. I am ready. SUV stands for sports
utility vehicle and i do make use of it for UTILITARIAN
purposes. I also live in the mountains, and today
there is snow on the ground, the 4X4 makes the difference
between being able to get in and out. One of the only
obstacles to travel and transport are the vehicles
not able to make it up or down the road, which get
stuck and block traffic. the nearest shopping mall is
over 30 miles away and i maybe go there once a year...

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Willie-O
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 11:34 AM

I drive a 94 Mazda B4000 extra-cab pickup. Strictly 2-wheel drive. Properly weighted in back it will go through almost anything a 4X4 will, (except long uphill unplowed snow) and it's a helluva lot cheaper to buy or service--mileage is about 26 mpg, or 10litres/100 km

If I ever get my new career as a technical writer started, guess I'll look at getting a commuter car...but of all the Mazda's virtues, "PAID FOR" is #1.

Willie-O
and pdq has a point, but calling Amos "always mean-spirited" is just plain silly. I don't think Barbra Streisand or Bruce Willis' lifestyle is at issue here--does everything have to be left vs right?

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Midchuck
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 10:20 AM

Maybe we need to control the population growth, not SUV ownership.

What's with the "maybe?" Until we get population growth under control worldwide, all attempts to manage either world hunger and poverty, or environmental degradation, are mere stopgaps.

The vehicles I would like to to more tightly controlled are ATV and snowmobiles.

Amen. But you forgot "personal watercraft" commonly known as jet skis. The same plague, but spread to the lakes, rivers, etc.

All my very humble personal opinion, of course.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 09:23 AM

Where I work the parking lot is full of huge suv's. They all drive from one suburb to the other. The vehicles I would like to to more tightly controlled are ATV and snowmobiles. They do huge damage to remore areas, farm land, beaCH AND SO. aND LETS NOT HEAR ANY OF THAT 9 OUT OF TEN DRIVES DRIVE RES[ONSIBLY CRAP CAUSE IT JUST AIN'T SO. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS...THE KEY STUCK.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: fishhead50
Date: 03 Nov 03 - 12:47 AM

Once upon a time it was the station wagon. Not cool enough for the boomers it was replaced by the van. Full sized vans at first but quickly replaced by the much more practical mini-van. When the mini-van lost its cool the SUV became the latest incarnation of the family wagon. The SUV's were always there, I first drove a Chevy Suburban in the late 60's for Florida State University.

The car salemen will tell you its primarily women who are buying the SUV's and if you talk to the ladies, they will tell you they like the visibility and carrying capacity. Incidentally if you look closely you'll notice most aren't really 4 wheel drive, just big.

If you have 2.3 kids you're often hauling 6, plus all the stuff kids haul in those overstuffed backpacks... and don't forget the dog, groceries and soccer balls.

'Course in the goodle days down South we got by with a pickup and several lawn chairs in the back. Couldn't afford 4WD so you always kept a couple of boards and a come-along in back.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 10:31 PM

Maybe we need to control the population growth, not SUV ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Rara Avis
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:40 PM

Here in New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the nation, most of the land has been paved over so the only off-roading most folks do is when they turn into a mall parking lot and surely a standard auto can handle that task. It is vexing to drive behind one of these monsters, few of which look like they've ever hauled anything, because of the blocked view. I'm seeing a new problem, which the 4 x 4 amplifies, and that is a sudden reluctance to park anywhere near the kerb. My town is old with narrow streets and many houses don't have off-street parking. Trying to drive down the street lined with super-sized vehicles parked two feet from the kerb can be a challenge in my small car. It must be hair-raising to the 4 x 4 drivers.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Phot
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 01:37 PM

Oopps! 955cc fof the Triumph, and 3528cc for the Landy(216ci in USA speak!) Sorry!
Chris

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Phot
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 01:24 PM

I've got a Land Rover 110 V8, she drinks fuel at 14 mpg, costs a fortune to service, is a total nightmare to insure, (12 seats) won't fit in any of the car parks in Exeter.
That said, she's the only car I own, she's 16 years old still going strong, and great in the winter, I get to see parts of the country, that are not accesable to most motorists, spares grow on trees at the bottom of the garden, and no matter where you go it'll get fixed!
And as for gas guzzlers, the Triumph only returns 27-30 mpg! 995cc who says small is economical!!

Wassail, Chris

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 10:31 AM

Mind you, in a bad winter here sometimes I wish I had a 4X4 !!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: saulgoldie
Date: 02 Nov 03 - 08:29 AM

If people consumed at more reasonable levels (and not just in the car arena) and distribution was not so economically and politically controlled, Mother Earth could support all her children in a very satisfying comfortable life-style. 90% of the world's people will never even drive a car, much less a resource-intensive 4x4. It is not fair. It is not sustainable. And sorry to say, Bobert, this IS the last me generation. Humanity will not survive into the next century. Or at least, it will be a humanity much changed in profound ways that we cannot even contemplate at the moment in our limited thinking and approach.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 08:16 PM

".... he can't be a man 'cause he don't smoke the same cigarettes as me..."

Monkey see, monkey do...

But bottom line, it's terribly Narcisitic for these folks to think they have a right to cunsume as much as they can... and that's what most SUV'ers are guilty of. Consumption! Why?

Because we can, you commie!!!

I hope this is the last *Me* generation becuae the earth can't stand too more generations who think it is their *job* to consume as much as they can...

Carpe diem gonna burn this earth up...

Okay, I got a 4X4. 1975 Dodge M880 Military. It gets driven maybe 300 miles a year. It gets 14 mpg. I also have a 1991 Toyota Camry which gets driven for everything other than deep snow. Gets 35 mph...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 07:07 PM

You're right, Greg F. I'll stop critiquing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 06:28 PM

Judging from Bradsher's title he's being an alarmist on purpose

Tell you what, Amos- why don't you at least take a peek at the book before you critique it, OK? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 04:54 PM

OK. How about a social contract to reduce interference with each other to the lowest level possible?

I do like the idea of a consensual limit on total energy use but I believe it must be voluntary.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,Jimmy Crinigan
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 02:33 PM

4 X 4's are the saddest thing on the roads of Britain. Driven by suburban housewives as a fashion accessory they do nothing for the driver, but draw laughter from other road users.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 12:46 PM

Amos: My points about "social contract" and "total energy use" are serious and deserve more consideration than your normal flip remarks. Also note how many assumptions you made which were wrong. There is also a problem that most liberals (which you are) attack the messenger and ignore the message.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 12:36 PM

Gee, PDQ -- how unkind! I'm sorry to say that I disagree on both points. I withdraw my remark about trucks. I like big vehicles, but I don't own one because I don't really need one. Nothing mean-spirited about that. What do you mean, actually?

A

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 12:32 PM

Aw, don't start a squabble, pdq and Amos--you are two of my favorites on these threads!

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 12:29 PM

Amos: My 4WDs are 4 cyl types which I restore. Say what you want, you are usually wrong anyway, and always mean-spirited.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 12:10 PM

PDQ:

If I were a knee-jerk liberal, which I am not, I would suggest that that "total energy use" line was just massive rationalization because you like big powerful cars, right? But I am not, so I won't.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 11:28 AM

As usual, I would like people to look at things from a different perspective. Everyone uses energy to cook, heat their homes, run their appliances and fuel their cars. If we were all responsible citizens we would allow a reasonable amount of enery for all the jobs "in total". I have spent most of my life in small houses with no air conditioning. I keep the temps low in the winter and never travel by airplane. My total energy use is quite responsible even though I own three four-wheel drive vehicles and plan to buy the biggest 3/4 ton 4WD Suburban next week. Barbara Streisand, on the other hand, owns four mansions which she keeps heated in winter and air conditioned in summer, even though she a can only be in one at a time. She travels accross the country in the most outrageous gas guzzlers of all time, the airplane. Maybe we need a thread on "social contract".

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Midchuck
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:49 AM

What is really fun is living in snowy country, but relatively close to metropolitan areas, so that lots of skiers/snowboarders/snowshoers/snowmobilers/common drunks drive up from the cities for their winter sport.

They all seem to have SUVs. And they all seem to believe that having 4 wheel drive means you can go just as fast on a snowy highway as you can on a dry one. (It doesn't. All modern cars have 4 wheel brakes, so a 4 wheel drive car can't stop any better than I 2 wheel drive car, for example.)

They will often blast past you on the road, momentarily blinding you with the snow they kick up. Then you see them in a ditch a few miles later on, and they want you to stop and help pull them out.

I don't stop. But I wave. Usually I keep all my fingers extended when I wave, but sometimes only one.

I guess I'm not as nice a person as I should be. But then, I'm not a Christian, which means I don't have the Christian obligation to be nice even when people aren't nice to me. You've noticed how that's the way all Christians are, haven't you...

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:35 AM

There is no need to "endanger" other vehicle's doors with a large vehicle in the parking lot. The trick? Don't try to park as close to the building as you can. That's what 95% of the folks do in malls, grocery stores, etc. I always avoid the high-traffic at the door anyway by heading down to the far end of the lot. I do park in such a way that doesn't invite anyone to park close to me (usually by straddling two spaces that normally people would park nose-to-nose in).

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:31 AM

My Blazer is 2 inches wider and 18 longer than Jenn's Prizm. It is shorter than most 'full-sized' sedans, and fits into a normal parking space with over a foot on either side.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: mack/misophist
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:29 AM

There are positive aspects to the SUV craze. Have you noticed how high off the road they sit? Very high center of gravity. Thus, in the hands of the unskilled, they exhibit a very high tendency to turn over. Couple this with the fact that the tops of almost all the crash barriers in the US are well below that center of gravity and you have evolution at work. The negative side is that the bottom of an SUV's front bumper is above the floor boards of normal cars. So if one hits you broadside, the person sitting at the impact point is almost certain to die. Perhaps the designers could all be indited for conspiracy to commit murder.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:24 AM

I own one vehicle that has to be many things, so I own a large pickup truck (two wheel drive--I have no intention of driving far off of the pavement with it). I have a camper shell on the back and sometimes people confuse this with the Suburban because of it's size.

How do I use this? I lug lots of stuff around all of the time that would never fit in a car. I moved the entire contents of an over-stuffed apartment to this house (except for the upright grand piano). I regularly haul hundreds of pounds of mulch, lumber, and lots of other stuff as I work on this house and this yard.

I also haul my kids and their friends, so it is an extended cab pickup. Looks pretty big. How do I accomodate the less than wonderful mileage (with a tail wind on the highway I get about 20mpg, usually it's around 16 on city streets)? I don't drive it when I can avoid driving. I telecommute two or three days a week for work, so it stays parked in the garage. The kids know I won't make extra trips between their father's house and here, so they'd better figure out what they need for the weekend on the first trip. I keep a list of chores and do my shopping in loops of several places, not one place then back home then back out again later. I spend around $85 a month on gas, filing it about every 8-10 days. I challenge myself every time I drive it to make the trip efficient, because my goal is lower fuel bills, since those will also equal less pollution.

I don't drive in places where I have to negotiate tight spaces--they are always easy to avoid, and most of the parents who think they MUST drop their child off at the door to the school rather than 200 paces away at the corner where we have a very good crossing guard, are the real problem in traffic congestion. I never drive over there--those folks don't seem to notice when they've blocked all lanes of traffic as they sit half-way through a left turn into the drive to drop little Suzy at the door. They don't seem to notice that Suzy is pudgy because she never gets to walk anywhere and get some exercise.

There are folks who drive these vehicles to show that they can, because they have the money, or perhaps they want everyone to think they also have a big penis and powerful pecs. I ain't one of those.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: saulgoldie
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:17 AM

The genuine need for these vehicles by average drivers is negligible, at best as has already been said. This is a perfect example of where individual liberties collide with the needs of society. One 4x4 out of 10,000 vehicles will not bring down the driving experience or the environment. Neither will 2. But when you have 100, 500, 0r 3000 out of that group, you now have some major environmental impact. You also have, which few people who beat up on these fail to mention is that they can't park in normal parking spaces, thus endangering everyone's car doors, and when the move they effectively "block out the Sun" so that you have a more limited picture of what is going on on the road to be able to avoid accidents. In addition to their emmissions and physical danger to other vehicles, that is.

Those who choose them should have to justify the need, or pay a hefty surtax to compensate the rest of us for their increased impact on the surrounding community.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:12 AM

I currently drive a '96 Blazer, and I'm waiting for the Saturn Vue with the hybrid engine.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 10:07 AM

I've always felt that you should buy to your needs, not to your neighbors. I drive a Civic, that's all I need to do most of what I do. We felt that an Element would answer the rest of our needs here, as the environment we live in has changed from urban to rural and semi-rural.

I do NOT need a Hummer, for instance, but I can envision the circumstances where I might (granted, they're remote!). If I needed a five-ton truck, I'd buy one.

It makes lots of sense to analyze your needs and buy to them instead of buying to what folks are telling you you need. You can save a bunch of money, for one thing.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 09:53 AM

Frankly, folks, I admire and enjoy 4x4 vehicles, but they look awful silly in the hands of someone barely graduated from skateboards, or being used as a commuter car. I don't own one myself but I might. Except that while I could use the cargo space, i don't go anywhere as a rule where I would need the traction. And I am sensible neough to know it.

But let's not be mindless about this. THe miles per gallon of a new Highlander, for example, is a lot better than that of an old Chevy sedan -- about 25 mpg average. Judging from Bradsher's title he's being an alarmist on purpose. As far as I know the world's most dangerous vehicle is the Abrams M1A1 battle tank...

A

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 09:45 AM

We're going to replace our 1993 Accord with a Honda Element. Four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive can be a near-necessity here in Idaho, especially if we ever get a real, old-fasheioned winter again (shovel off the roofs, etc.).

But the Element gets about 30 mpg, not much less than our Accord and well within the range of my Civic. It's floor is urethane, not carpet, so it can be hosed out if need be. It's got decent cargo space. It's well engineered. And it's funky enough looking that my wife likes it, even though she won't buy the green one with the black trim so that I can paint brown splotches on it to complete the camouflage pattern.

We did think long and hard about it, though. Most folks don't need four wheel drive. Most folks should learn to drive well, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: 4 X 4's
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 03 - 09:36 AM

Big 4X4's- and especially the so-called SUV's- SHOULD offend you- they cost you money thru increased gasoline prices, through increased insurance premiums, they make it less safe for others on the roads not driving these unnecessary behemoths- AND they are inherently unsafe for those in them. They are an American disease- spawned by auto manufactureres to get around a loophone in emissions regulations, lets not forget- now being exported to the rest of the world.

The U.S. pickup truck- once a REAL utility vehicle- has now become a luxury, gussies-up SUV with an open box in the back- jacked up so high as to be impractical, extended cabs, truck beds so small they'll just about carry a six-pack- just more hype and bullshit.

Give the book High and Mighty: SUVs--The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way by Keith Bradsher a read and then we'll talk.