I agree - I think that the Cadillac Escalade (and anthing like it) is a poster-child for why SUV's are a lightning rod. It's American excess in all it's glory - wasteful on multiple levels. A vehicle like that is purchased because you can, not because you need. However, I'd draw a distinction between that and SUVs that are used for what they were designed for (and smaller, less wasteful), however they all seemed to get lumped into one group.

I also agree about trucks - A decent % own them and don't need them, and drive them like they're at a monster truck rally. It's interesting that they don't draw the same kind of stigma like an SUV. BanPickups.com may just start another Civil War...

Funny, I used to live in Omaha for 4 years and thought truck owners were some of the worst drivers...Seemed like they'd get a truck and thought the laws of physics didn't apply anymore. Saw more trucks slide through icy intersections or wound up in ditches. They were, however, a very small percentage. Most of them had snow plows, which are very appreciated during the winter.

 

Just came across the picture of the compressed air city cars and looked at their site. They were developed by one of Renault's engineers who worked on Formula 1 cars with the Benneton Team before Renault bought them out. So the idea can not be all too far out.
Anybody with more info on this?

 

I'm a big fan of the Air Cars. What did you want to know about them?

The person who invented them (Guy Négre) also invented a W12 engine for F1 cars, so he definitely knows how to design high performance, high efficiency engines.

here's an article that sums up the issues they are having: http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0..._story_related

 

Okay, to take this reasoning to an extreme - why do you NEED a 1/2 mile long driveway, or a large piece of property with hard to access areas? Why do you NEED to camp, or ski, or travel over rural roads at all? Are you a farmer producing food? If not, why can't you live in the city. Maybe we need to ban commutes over 10 miles, or 5, or two. Make everyone live in large apartment buildings near the city where they work. Require public transportation.

Obviously I am being facetious. People have the right to live where they want and have hobbies and do outdoor activities. If anyone wants to propose some sort of criteria to own an SUV then what next? Maybe limit people to two kids so they don't need big cars. Dogs? You don't need a dog, nevermind two of them. Ban soccer too so all the soccer moms can stay home and not pollute needlessly. Come on, where does it end.

Ban SUV's? Right.

 

Hey, I was just answering someone's question as to why anyone would need an SUV. Obviously, there are lots of good reasons to have them, that was my only point. While it does annoy me a bit when I see people driving large vehicles when they SEEM not to need them, who am I to know what they're up to? For all I know the guy driving the 18-wheeler in front of me is just taking it down the freeway to get groceries, but I don't assume that and get mad at him. (I know, law of probabilities says he isn't, but that's the same kind of reasoning that leads to racial profiling and all sorts of bogus prejudice. We really don't know, same is true of the SUV driver.)

Really, what it comes down to is that *I* don't like the bigger "SUV"s because they have created an image of an "SUV" as "an unnecessarily large massively-polluting gas-guzzling vehicle" rather than what they were originally meant to be, Jeeps and the like, true specialty vehicles that had different kinds of capabilities than the typical passenger car or van used for ordinary transportation. But that may be changing back, as some companies are focusing more on the smaller SUVs -Subaru has a new one out (just saw an ad for it tonight), Ford has some "SUV/Wagon" like thing (is it the Freestyle? I forget), etc.

Another thought, for those of you who object to SUVs for safety reasons... now that they've covered every available inch of the interior with airbags, maybe they will start putting them on the OUTSIDE of SUVs too - with a proximity sensor, so they will only deploy if another vehicle is within, say, 6 inches, and the "padded car" is going more than 30 mph, or something like that. Someone else can work out the details...

 

sweetbeet - my response wasn't directed at you, I just used some of your response to illustrate how banning things can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. I don't advocate banning SUV's for whatever reason. I know a lot of people moaning about how much it costs them to fill a 30 gallon tank every few days - some self imposed bans may be in their future.

 

I probably win the contest for asking that question most. It's motivated by the fact few of SUVs were sold in the mid-1980's, were 10% of new sales in 1993, 24% in 2003. Not so obvious is my concessions that some people have legit needs to haul a lot of stuff or drive off-road.

About two or so years ago, I got into a heated debate on car safety. "Which is safer in a crash - an Insight or SUV?" - the true safety freak would drive neither. While airbags and such has made every vehicle safer, a little Googliing will reveal a large sedan such as the Volvo is the safest vehicle you could drive. The reason is a large sedan not only has mass, but a low center of gravity.

A little personal history - the person I debated not only purchased a hybrid, but would easily beat me in a hyper-miler duel. He is here.

A lot of today's safety features are negated by the rise of aggesssive and distracted driving. My biggest rant on the bad SUV driver poster boy is the ones in the largest ones (read - larger than an Escape), postured like they are at home in a reclining chair holding a remote. I need a picture of this - few if any here drives like this.

I'm not proud to mention this but I tried that one-armed driving wheel streach. It's very easy to overturn. My Insight spun and flew off the freeway. It's a miracle both the car and myself were completely unharmed. My stupid stunt left me convinced that many SUV's have fliped for this very reason. It's not just the high center of gravity in an SUV, but the way some of those "bad actors" drive.

 

Vacation to Mackinac Island. 08/13/2005: 602.0 miles on 19.686 gallons = 30.58 mpg.

___The wife drove first and was showing a lousy 22.7 mpg from a 27.5 mpg high per the TC after leaving from home. That is when I had about enough and said I will be driving the rest of the way … I drove for ~ 100 more miles to our first fill up. I could only get her TC up to 24.4 mpg before we had to fill. Since my wife did not top off when she filled last, I had no idea what the actual was going to be. It calculated out to 16.7 mpg and I know it was not that low given my top off vs. my wife’s first click fill … So here is my only known tank: 75 miles from the gas station to the campground and I was sitting at 30.3 mpg per the TC. After 101 miles of around town (< 5 minutes, < 5 mile drives) in and around both St. Ignace and Mackinaw City, MI., I was sitting at 27.2 mpg per the TC just before leaving this morning. From there it was a long slow climb. I hit the Shell near our home with 29.4 mpg showing on the TC after 602.0 miles but the calc’s from my top off in Michigan to top off here in Illinois weren’t half bad

___If anyone was really looking, did you see what kind of range I could have gotten from her? Actually, I snapped the pic after I had started refueling and was sitting at only 71 miles range, not 169 miles before the fill began. Either way, you are looking at 700 + miles with the rear loaded to the ceiling with camping gear and the kids watching DVD’s on the OEM RES some of the way there and most of the way back. The date in the camera was wrong by a day and that was probably my fault

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

 

My Dad has been an insurance agent for 35 years. I asked him about this once. He said that part of what makes Volvo's safe is that people who own them are typically safe drivers. They are safe cars no doubt, but probably get a boost in reputation because of the kind of drivers typically behind the wheel.

To that point, I find punk kids in street racers as much a hazard as lazy SUV drivers. I've been cut off, tailgated, and had to outright dodge dozens of cluless kids who can't even hear me honk because that stupid tailpipe.

Lazy, unattentive drivers are not limited to SUVs. Gas guzzling high polution vehicles are not the exclusive domain of SUVs either. In my opinion, if you're going to go after something, address aggressive driving, fuel economy, polutants, and our collective attitude towards natural resources. We should not just focus on what someone is driving.

 

Additional thoughts...

I doubt banning SUVs will ever happen, no matter the pressure from any group, but maybe a ban on SUV advertisements could happen, although probably just as unlikely. If there were no SUV ads then the only people who buy them would be the ones actually in need of such a vehicle, and not so many people buying them as a status symbol. Obviously this won't happen either, as the big 2.5 would certainly curl up and die due to lack of profit from their most profitable segment... but it would certainly be more realistic than trying to get SUVs banned completely. Maybe something like requiring a vehicle to get over 30 MPG to run ads for it instead of a complete ban, that way the SUV segment will have to shape up in order to get air time... that aught to motivate them, and wouldn't bunch up the panties of the "don't limit my choice" crowd.