Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Well, in that case, one MAY be what they drive, or may not be. Some buy a sporty car for the attributes...superior handling, etc and couldn't care less about individuality...esp if it's stock. Like mine is
I wonder if there was all this fuss when a guy would buy a 16 hand horse when a 14 hand horse was more than adequate.
If it was a farmer, it's unlikely they would buy more than they needed. Also unlikely that they would get nothing more from the bigger horse.
But in any case, waste is not a new concept, just google Caligula (try saying that 5 times fast).
Are you saying that, if it's not new, it's ok?
Neither do I. But really, it's not that hard to figure, is it? After all, can you think of a practical reason to choose an H2 over a MV (for example) of comparable interior size...assuming one does not tow, heavy haul or off road?
The supposed H2 owners I saw were normal-looking, everyday people...
So is George Bush. And he drives a Cheney and a Rumsfeld :=)
It's just that I live in a famously buttoned-down town (Washington D.C.), and such over-the-top things tend to be eschewed by most of the town's professional residents, which these people clearly were.
I wonder if yuppies finally have their own "blind spot" vehicle: something they think is totally cool, but everyone else mocks as outrageous.
I don't really understand that very last part.
And certainly there's a very big difference to owning a Prius as your only car, as their is to having a Prius in your car collection. Politicians have been seen being driven two blocks in a Prius before getting back into their armored SUVs. Some actors have a Prius and a '60s muscle car in their garage. Or three Priuses. Then it's about image; but plenty of Prius owners live below their means because they despise waste (environmental, not economic). In their cases, the car fits their personality and lifestyle perfectly.
Hmmm...the notion that someone would use 25-50% more gas per mile and put others at greater risk of death and injury just because they want to look like they are "AdventureGuy" on the weekends is ok. Well, mark one down for diversity of POV
Yuppies? A lot of real young urban professionals don't own a car. Most Mahattanites do not own one.
You're supposed to be answering that here, not asking :=)
It probably makes them extravagant....are you surprised?
BTW, most Americans are not celebrities.
Agree with Carlisimo on the rest.
you don't need a hybrid to do that.
if anyone buying a prius lives below their means, those means are above average. they are not inexpensive.
the only prius owners i know are either doctors or their trophy wives(my sister).
her trophy says 'phd in micobiology'. for people like her, it is about the philosophy, not the money.
for me, it is about how close can i get to the philosophy for the money.
According to your "logic", we should all only drive cars that we need. Not SUVs like the Merc Mountaineer I just traded or the F-150 I now have.
My question is this: If we should only drive what we need then why do you drive an Acura when a Honda Civic DX would do? :confuse: Isn't Acura a luxury brand and therefore a "status" symbol. :confuse: Didn't you buy the Integras because you "wanted" them and or features they have? :confuse:
And as far as your argument about safety goes, what do you say to all these folks I see who can't afford a newer car and so they are driving older model Crown Vics and Chevy Caprices that weigh almost as much as a Hummer and have just as much steel, no crumple zones, no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, etc? Are they irresponsible for driving a car they can afford? Are they bad citizens for driving vehicles that are not efficient and pollute the atmosphere?
I personally have no need or want for a Hummer, although an H1 would be fun to play around in! :shades: But my opinion is that if you want a Hummer and you can afford a Hummer, then get a Hummer.
Yeah, I agree. It's probably a lot easier for people with above average means to live below them anyway.
As for the miles thing, that's a much more difficult change to make. A coworker was considering a Prius, and he told me he didn't want to make any huge changes in his lifestyle because while he believed in making small sacrifices for whatever causes, he wasn't going to impose them on his family (like moving). He still hasn't bought a new car though.
Neither have I, and I think it's fair to say in both our cases that we're cheap and undaring.
If one drive only as much vehicle as they need, then most of us should be driving small 4 door sedans. But, the "demonized" SUV's sits at the top of the totum pole. And it is a much easier target for the crusaders against waste.
The thing about this don't buy large SUV's unless you "need" one argument is, it takes all personal responsibility away from the individual and puts it on the SUV. It's not the driver behind the wheels fault someone was killed, it's the "crumple stealing" SUV's fault.But, again it's physics...bigger vehicles take smaller vehicles. SUV's don't need to ask permission to take crumple zones.
Buy your Hummer or Monster SUV. Buy your stocked sports car. Buy the old Crown Vic. Buy the minivan even though you are an old maid. It doesn't matter if you bought that monster SUV or sports car for "need"... or just to pick up chicks. You are a responsible citizen as long as you drive responsibly and keep your vehicle maintained.
You become irresponsible when you become a "reckless" or inattentive driver.
LOL. Sure, or perhaps go live in a cave :=) Or drag your place of business closer to home. I work in Rockefeller center, that should be an interesting exercise. Or move relatives, stores and parks closer to you.
Generally speaking, we drive a certain amount. Not saying that can't be optimized, but making the vehicle more efficient the is best way to address the issues of externalities.
In any case, the relevancy to this topic of that (drive less miles) is marginal, IMO.
How do you know "what would do"? Do you know my vehicular requirements? Are the physical attributes of a Civic identical to an RSX?
Isn't Acura a luxury brand and therefore a "status" symbol.
Isn't any motorized vehicle a status symbol? Some folks cannot even afford a bicycle. Isn't the ability to post on TH a status symbol? May I ask what relevance this has to excessive overkill in a vehicle with respect to externalities? Do you know what the externalities of an RSX are? If someone thinks using a skateboard is a status symbol, does that make that criteria a bad tradeoff for the externalities? Can you miss the point by more?
Didn't you buy the Integras because you "wanted" them...
No, I wanted a Ford Econoline van but I picked up the wrong vehicle. Several times
what do you say to all these folks I see who can't afford a newer car and so they are driving older model Crown Vics
What were their alternatives that they picked the CV from? Sounds like they had no choice (couldn't afford). Isn't "bad choice" the issue? How do you get from no choice to bad choice?
...just as much steel, no crumple zones, no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, etc?
Quantity of steel isn't very important, it's the configuration: ladder frame, total weight, frame height, etc. All vehicles have crumple zones, it's a question of what weight they are tuned to crumple for. I fail to see the relevance of airbages (and ABS), virtually all vehicles have them now, almost none had them X years ago.
my opinion is that if you want a Hummer and you can afford a Hummer, then get a Hummer.
At least I know where you stand, tho who knows why
Other than the above, I agree with you completely :=)
Astute. After all, I say: don't get a big honkin SUV when you have no vehicular requirement for one and I own a big honkin SUV and have no requirement for one.
Oh wait, not true, I don't. Something's wrong here, can we figure it out?
If large SUV's are so dangerous, and waste so much gas, pollute the atmosphere...then logically they shouldn't be driven at all.
Irrefutable. After all, tractor trailers are very dangerous and use an enormous amount of oil and must often be driven empty. That's why they have been banned in the US for years. Oh, wait....um, never mind.
...some people maintain it's okay to put other peoples life in increased danger, pollute and waste...as long as you have a good reason for doing so.
Who are these people that think it's ok to drive a motorized vehicle? Have they not heard of walking?
The thing about this don't buy large SUV's unless you "need" one argument is, it takes all personal responsibility away from the individual and puts it on the SUV.
Really. You know, I've never seen an SUV walk into a showroom and buy an SUV. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
...it's the "crumple stealing" SUV's fault.
There is some confusion here. I think it's the owner's fault, if the SUV is not needed to meet any vehicular requirement.
It doesn't matter if you bought that monster SUV or sports car for "need"... or just to pick up chicks.
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. Reasons? We don't need no stinkin reasons! :=)
You are a responsible citizen as long as you drive responsibly and keep your vehicle maintained.
Sure. And if you have a big SUV you don't need and are unlucky enough to have a collision with a car...and instead of minor injuries, the other folks wind up dead...hey, maybe they were drunk or child molesters. You never know! And if you use twice the gas you need, so what? If we can afford $3 gas, why can't we afford $4 or $5 gas?
Good citizenshipis all about looking out for #1...period, end of story. Glad we've settled this and can move on.
It's like punching a brick wall and breaking your hand, and blaming it on the wall! That wall didn't break your hand...YOU broke your hand!
Worried about your crumple zone? Then watch how you drive! Don't tailgate. Watch your blind spots. Don't blindly speed ahead the moment a light turns green, until you notice that cross traffic has indeed stopped. All good advice, no matter WHAT you drive.
You can't avoid EVERY single accident, but very few crashes are truly an accident. Many of them are caused because of inattentiveness, laziness, aggressive driving, trying to prove you're the pack leader, macho man, etc.
In theory, I actually like this idea, because it actually affects everyone. People with more fuel-efficient cars or people who don't drive alot would still pay more, but wouldn't get hit nearly as hard as people who drive guzzlers or commute long distances or worse, do both. But it doesn't actually make owning a guzzling vehicle illegal, or make it illegal to live more than XX miles away from work, etc.
The downside, of course, is that you know full and well those tax dollars would NEVER go to their originally intended purpose. They'd end up going into some politicians or other's pet project. Or pockets! :mad:
It's like punching a brick wall and breaking your hand, and blaming it on the wall!
Well, no. Unless one chose to place a wall somewhere for no practical reason. In which case, I agree, it's the same
Worried about your crumple zone? Then watch how you drive!
Really, this is an oversimplification that misses the point. Accidents happen, and will continue to do so, as long as humans are directing and even afterwards. The question is what happens when they do. And I can watch how I drive all day, but if I'm hit by some pinhead that's driving an H2 when all they need is a Camry, the difference in outcome is (mostly) out of my control. Thinking you can avoid 100% of accidents by good driving is a fantasy. You can reduce the chances, but not eliminate them.
...very few crashes are truly an accident.
Except for intentional vehicular homicide cases, they are all human error of some sort. Avoidable to some degree, but unlikely to change from today's rate much. Anything we can do to increase the safety of the system is desireable, within reason. That's why we put up safety barriers etc...because we, as a society, do NOT say "if you make a mistake, tough luck, pal".
That's being ridiculous. You know very well explorer means less "unnecessary travel". Which is on topic if one is "exploring" the issue of unnecessary waste in SUV's.
I've never claimed otherwise. The point is that it's certainly possible for the individual to make a better choice, system-wise. This is not rocket science.
Personally, I’d be for adding a one dollar per gallon federal gas tax.
If we were serious about addressing the problem of oil, we would. And it would certainly incent folks to make better choices relative to that.
While true, strictly speaking, in context, it doesn't matter. As a purchase disincentive, it doesn't matter even if you just burn those dollars as fuel.
But that was my point...there is very little "unnecessary travel". Folks don't generally go driving in circles for fun. And recreational driving has a practical value.
Maybe, he knows others vehicular requirements the same way you do?
May I ask what relevance this has to do with excessive overkill in a vehicle...
Well, that's just your opinion that it is excessive overkill. Some would say the same thing about Oprahs Mercedes...or her hairdo.
Sounds like they had no choice(couldn't afford)
Sure they had a choice. They choose an old beat up gas guzzlin Crown Vic instead of an old beat up Geo Prism with good gas mileage.
At least I know where you stand, tho who knows why
I've been asking that myself, about your posts, for the last 2 years.
Very similar indeed.
Isn't any motorized vehicle a status symbol?
Do you want a list of those which are not? All you have to do is reference the Wouldn't be caught dead driving one board to see that not every vehicle is a status symbol, particularly the Aztek! :P
And on a more serious note, many people own vehicles strictly for work. How can you possibly assert that they are "status symbols".
How did you get to be such a hater of SUVs anyway? And why pick on SUVs? There are just as many people driving full-sized pickups or large cars who don't need them. One of my best friends drives an F-250 Crew Cab with a diesel engine just so he can pull a camper every now and then, a task which many smaller trucks could do.
I think you should start your own board to further this discussion. You could call it: SUV haters SPEAK UP! or 1001 Reasons you should own a small car. :surprise:
I was speaking of your sports vehicle. Which I believe to be overkill using your formula for "good citizenship"
After all tractor trailers are very dangerous
No they're not. The person behind the wheel is "dangerous" That's why every driver of all vehicles large and small must practice safe driving. Poor anology anyhow. Tractor trailers are needed for commerce, can't be said for SUV's.
Who are these people
Well...that would be you.
I've never seen an SUV walk into a showroom
I take it you don't drink? But, I've never seen an SUV wrestle control of the steering wheel from the driver and ram into a van full of kids.
its the owners fault
Only if they are responsible for the accident. In golf, I slice one of my monster drives 3oo yards into an alligator invested pond...I don't blame the driver.(no pun)
Reasons
That's right. I owe no reasons as it is no ones conern if I buy a monster SUV...as long as I drive safely and responsibly.
And if you have a big SUV you don't need and are unlucky enough to have an accident...
That would depend on who's fault it was. Put the shoe on the other foot and see if it fits.
Good citizenship is all about looking out for #1
I don't like the taste of the words you are putting in my mouth. I have maintained all along that driving safely, responsibly,attentively ...and maintaing ones vehicle in safe operating condition should be the main focus and concern of all drivers. There would be a lot more lives saved advocating this principal than "don't buy an SUV unless you "need" one(which I don't agree with).
Frankly, i do think many people drive SUV's because of the perceived safety, and the thought that if they are in an accident, the other guy will get hurt. I also know that in some cases this makes people more aggressive. I know a woman who drives an SUV for safety reasons, and she admits she is a bad driver who has caused accidents due to her inatentiveness.
In fact, i know more than one person who admits they use the bulk of their SUV to push around smaller vehicles in traffic.
I have a real problem with this mentality.
I'm substantially bigger/stronger than any of the people i know who behave this way, and i _know_ they would be very upset if i just walked into them in person because they were in my way.
I think _how_ you drive says much more about who you are than _what_ you drive. I do think i can observe someone's driving and make some broad ( possibly inaccurate ) judgments as to their character. A person in a compact driving aggressively is not so different than a person driving aggressively in a navigator.
It "doesn't matter" that tax dollars collected from the public aren't used for their intended purpose?
Oh dear - another reason why li_sailor should be kept far away from public office.
I showed that post to my co-workers at the Pennsylvania Capitol and they were rolling in the aisles.
When government asks for extra money from the public - whether it is pitched as a "purchase disincentive" or just an old-fashioned revenue-raising device - it is always advisable to explain exactly WHAT the revenue will be used for, and make sure that the money is then used for that purpose.
Contrary to popular belief in some circles, taxpayers aren't just itching to turn over more of their money to state or federal governments for vague, "it's good for you" reasons.
They expect something in return for that extra cost, so the money had better be earmarked for deficit reduction, new and improved roads, better transit, etc., and then results had better start showing.
Perhaps, yes...but I was asking about something else...knowing a particular individual's requirements. I don't claim to know anyone's in particular.
As to deductions about the population at large...do you think any significant number of SUV owners have a need for the specific attributes of an SUV...namely, tow/off road/heavy haul?
Well, that's just your opinion that it is excessive overkill. Some would say the same thing about Oprahs Mercedes...or her hairdo.
Sure. That's pretty much what gets posted on TH...opinions. That's not news, is it?
And sure, there's lots of other overkill...does one instance nullify another?
Sure they had a choice. They choose an old beat up gas guzzlin Crown Vic instead of an old beat up Geo Prism with good gas mileage.
Ok. It's possible that a given such owner did not make a great choice, system-wise, assuming it was overkill for them. Does this nullify a bad SUV choice? I'm not sure what your point is here.
I've been asking that myself, about your posts...
Are you going off topic again and getting personal again?
My comment was about the lack of rationale in the post in question:
A: I think X is true for Y reason
B: I think it's not true. (no reason given, no reference to Y)
How are the Scion demographics looking these days?
When they first came out, they were pitched at Gen-Y as hip and individualistic while still being economical. However, they ended up selling mostly to older folks who liked the utility.
But I'm seeing a lot more tCs in my area, and they're mostly driven by the target age group that Toyota had in mind. So Scion scores on that...but is the tC's success making the xA and xB more desirable to their target market I wonder? :confuse: Will Scion become the Gen-Y brand, or will it eventually get folded back into Toyota (kinda like what happend to Geo).
As for someone trying to use the bulk of their vehicle to intimidate other drivers, I still look at that as the driver moreso than the vehicle. I've had people in little things like Explorers and Avalons ride up on the rear bumper of my '85 Silverado, trying to scare me out of the way. And I've had Civics and Priuses get up so close I can't see them in any of the mirrors. The point being that aggressive drivers come in vehicles of all shapes and sizes, not just big 'uns.
The only difference is that if the vehicle is bigger than yours, it's intimidation. If it's smaller than yours, it's more akin to a fly buzzing around a cow's [non-permissible content removed], just waiting to get swatted. :P
I don't look at the ability to hurt others as being an advantage to having a bigger vehicle. But I do look at a less likely chance of my being hurt as an advantage!
From what I've seen, the tC seems to be pretty broadly appealing, with the exception of the older crowd. I see lots of young 'uns driving them, but also people in their 30's and 40's, maybe even 50's, and enough of a mix between men and women that it doesn't get classified as a girly-car or macho machine, either way.
The xB seems like it appeals to mainly young guys, although I did see this old dude at work with a tricked out one. I actually kinda like the xB myself. Didn't at first, until I started seeing them in person.
It's rare that I see an xA, but with the exception of a girl here at work who's in her lower 20's, most people I see with 'em tend to be older. Or stuff like housewives who just need something cheap and small to run around in. Or solo commuters who just want something cheap and economical to use up.
But forget that, what, exactly, is your point, which appears (in terms of your connection...reply to my post) to be unrelated to mine? I was talking about choosing a vehicle that is significant overkill with regard to externalities for no added function. You are right in one respect re Civic/RSX, their externalities are quite similar (in a good sense). So where's the connection?
me:Isn't any motorized vehicle a status symbol?
you: Do you want a list of those which are not?
You can't give me one. In the context I referenced, a bicycle would be a status symbol. It's a pretty relative thing. In any case, you're missing the point. Trading off status for externalities was the point. Considering the status alone is meaningless.
How did you get to be such a hater of SUVs anyway?
You're making assumptions that are unwarranted. I think SUVs are fine vehicles and for their designed purpose (I'm speaking of engineering, not marketing purpose) they are excellent. If one requires a vehicle that is a family vehicle and at the same time a utility vehicle (HD: tow, etc.) you can't beat an SUV. That's why I owned one once...a Pathfinder...it was a fine piece of engineering. My problem is mis-use.
There are just as many people driving full-sized pickups or large cars who don't need them.
a) PUs: I don't think so
b) large cars do not have the same externalities and again, the case for need is more problematic
I think you should start your own board to further this discussion.
Well, it's your idea, why don't you start it?
Hey, how about this: I Don't Like SUVs, Why Do You?
Put it in the SUVs board and tell Steve I sent ya.
:=)
I think you're right, in a conscious sense, for some, although there are certainly some who are very aware of the situation.
But "safety" is often given as the justification to buy an SUV and one needs only to ponder: "why is that so?". Unlike vehicles that are safer because of passive or active systems (which increase safety without lowering the safety of others), SUVs are safer solely because of their stiff, high frames...and so derive their safety at the expense of others. That's not even addressing the fact that mid-size SUVs roll over more, making them actually less safe.
A person in a compact driving aggressively is not so different than a person driving aggressively in a navigator.
In a sense, yes. But the one in the Navigator can do a lot more damage. A case can be made that they should be more careful, not less. But that's only if one considers someone other than oneself
As for large cars? Well as far as I'm concerned, the large car is a dead breed, almost non-existent. Most of those buyers probably buy big SUVs and pickups nowadays! :P
But now at the same time, you might see someone driving a standard-sized pickup to work one day, solo, and not realize that same person might use that truck on the weekends or after work to do a lot of hauling for landscaping or home improvement project, or other things.
Or you might see someone driving a big car to work one day, solo, not realizing that they take alot of long trips with friends/family where that big car ride and extra room is a big bonus.
Or that SUV might just be used in a similar capacity, hauling and towing, etc.
Personally, I really don't give a damn WHAT people buy, as long as they don't try to annoy me with it. And chances are, if they're bad/aggressive drivers, they're going to annoy me no matter what they're behind the wheel of.
Look at how many people buy these McMansions and have no need for all the space. Just up the street from me, they developed a field into a McMansion orchard, where they've squeezed these houses of up to 4,000 square feet onto lots of 1/4 acre or less. The danged things are so close together that they might as well be townhouses. They're going to have about as much privacy as one...you're going to hear your neighbor's headboard banging at night, and he's going to hear it if there are moans and groans and sultry music coming from your tv set to know that you're not watching the Disney Channel!
Personally I'd rather have a smaller house with thicker walls that's further from its neighbors so that if I turn on the Spice Network and want to learn how to cook something, my neighbors don't hear every detail. But that's just me. Hey, if they want to buy those big things, let them. It's their money. Ultimately the market will decide. Or crash.
Perhaps someone else's formula, not mine. I used it to tow my boat and also be a family vehicle. I required a minimum 5000 lbs tow capacity, so it wasn't overkill.
on tractor trailers:
No they're not.
Go check NHTSA stats on accidents with large trucks. They are.
The person behind the wheel is "dangerous"
And the vehicle makes no difference. LOL. Ok, I'll pick the H2 and you get the Corolla.
Poor anology anyhow. Tractor trailers are needed for commerce, can't be said for SUV's.
Although the second part is obviously false, the first was actually my point. Really not sure where you're going here.
me: Who are these people that think it's ok to drive a motorized vehicle? Have they not heard of walking?
you: you
You, too. Glad we settled that
But, I've never seen an SUV wrestle control of the steering wheel from the driver and ram into a van full of kids.
Neither have I. You know, we seem to be agreeing more now. But....what was your point again?
Only if they are responsible for the accident.
Ah, some substance. Sorry, but if you choose a vehicle that is overkill and that overkill is related to it being more dangerous, you ain't off the hook in my book. One has responsibility for the impact of one's choices.
In golf, I slice one of my monster drives 3oo yards into an alligator invested pond...I don't blame the driver
But if you slice it into a crown of people and the ball was unnecessarily made of lead, you're responsible. Maybe that's why you slice so much
I owe no reasons as it is no ones conern if I buy a monster SUV...as long as I drive safely and responsibly.
Only if the externalities magically disappear when you drive it.
I don't like the taste of the words you are putting in my mouth. I have maintained all along that driving safely, responsibly,attentively...
I'm not putting them there, you are. You are claiming that putting others at higher risk for no good reason is perfectly ok. That is basically saying that the impact on others is not your concern. If you don't actually think that, you can choose to say so.
Driving a big SUV when you don't need one is not driving responsibly, IMO.
Within the context of the discussion you lifted that from, yes. If the purpose is merely to disincent gas use, it doesn't matter what happens to the dollars. The point is to make the gas more expensive, period. Of course, from a fiscal POV, the $ should be used, duh.
Oh dear - another reason why li_sailor should be kept far away from public office.
Ok, you stay away from editing and I'll stay out of office
I showed that post to my co-workers at the Pennsylvania Capitol and they were rolling in the aisles.
Did you explain the big words first?
When government asks for extra money from the public...
This unsolicited "education" is superfluous...see above.
Contrary to popular belief in some circles, taxpayers aren't just itching to turn over more of their money to state or federal governments for vague, "it's good for you" reasons.
What offbeat, lunatic fringe groups are you listening to with beliefs like that? In any case, go google the term "sin tax" and then explain to us why your co-workers never told you about the thousands of such examples that exist today.
Just to make it clear, the discussion was about increasing the gas tax to lower consumption. The question of what to do with the money is a totally separate issue and irrelevant in the context it was brought up. Got it?
Obviously the vehicle makes some difference. However, how the vehicle is driven is still the key factor. A vehicle is only dangerous if the driver makes it so. Now HOW dangerous a bad driver in a vehicle is is partly dependent on WHAT they're driving and WHAT you're driving. Unless you're a pedestrian. Then ALL vehicles are dangerous. The only difference is the xA might get totaled in the process of killing you, while the tractor trailer driver wouldn't even notice.
Driving a big SUV when you don't need one is not driving responsibly, IMO.
what about a big SUV that's driven responsibly, though? Driving responsibly is driving responsibly, regardless of what that vehicle is. One of the most irresponsibly used vehicles I see is the one that's actually the LEAST risk to motorists...the bicycle! Size has nothing to do with it.
Now BUYING responsibly is a different story. But if you have the money to do so, that's your personal matter. Or that of you and your lending institution.
Trouble is, you can't disconnect the two! The only reason you are less likely to be hurt is because the car's crumple zone is being used by YOU...and at the other's expense.
How the vehicle is driven obviously is extremely important in terms of if/when/how bad, etc. an accident occurs. No doubt about it.
But that wasn't the issue...it was "what is someone that drives an H2"...to pick an example, albeit an extreme one. And the answer I gave was, to summarize, irresponsible, in a societal sense. Why? Because, all else being equal, the vehicle puts others at greater risk in the event of an accident. Whether/why the accident occurs is a different issue...they do occur, unfortunately.
A vehicle is only dangerous if the driver makes it so.
Sure, but all moving vehicles have drivers. At least I hope so, or they're even more dangerous.
Now HOW dangerous a bad driver in a vehicle is is partly dependent on WHAT they're driving...
And that's the only part that's relevant to a discussion of vehicle choice and overkill.
what about a big SUV that's driven responsibly, though?
Driving responsibly does not preclude the possibility of an accident. Since an accident can occur, disregarding the effect of one's choice and how it affects that consequence is not being responsible. I'm amazed at how folks will spin that around as something unreasonable.
Driving responsibly is driving responsibly...
And choosing irresponsibly is choosing irresponsibly.
But if you have the money to do so, that's your personal matter.
If we, as society, really thought that, why do we care about making the system safer through better roads, lighting, absorbing barriers, etc.? Is it not to protect us from accidents, whether from good or bad drivers?
We have a speed limit because we think personal choices that affect others are NOT a personal matter. Same for vehicle inspections, standards, etc. Why would choosing a more dangerous vehicle that is not needed be different? Again, I am not talking about legislation here, I am talking about voluntary choices.
Why is it so unreasonable to suggest a simple consideration of the impact (pun intended) of one's choice on others?
But only if I'm the one that's doing the hitting. I know the IIHS or NHTSA or whatever says that the head on collision is the most common accident that occurs, but I can count how many head-on collisions I or any of my friends or family have had in my memory on one hand, without even holding up a finger! That's right, ZERO!
In my life, I've rear-ended a car (very low impact, although my 1980 Malibu nosedived under that Cavalier and messed me up badly, but luckily since it was my grille hitting their bumper, I took most of the damage and not them). I've been run into a traffic light pole once (1969 Dart GT). I've been T-boned once (1986 Monte Carlo). And I've been sideswiped twice (1968 Dart...first time a '94-ish Ram hit me, second time a '96-ish Tacoma bounced harmlessly off me and back into its own lane). Also got rear-ended once (2000 Intrepid, did very little damage)
Most people I can think of have been involved in either rear-end collisions (both giving and receiving) sideswipes or T-bones, or single-car crashes (usually involving doing something dumb like driving too fast in the rain or something)
If I actually hit someone head-on with my car then yeah, I'm using their crumple zone. Crumple zones really don't come into play in T-bones, side impact airbags are the key here. And while cars have rear crumple zones, in this case they're usually not as important because in a rear-ender both cars are either going in the same direction, or the stationary one soon will be. If you get rear-ended, design of the seats is probably the biggest issue.
However, in the real world, there is literally a smorgasboard of accidents to choose from out there, so if I'm driving a big, hulking, vehicle that's not designed to fold up, the chances that I'm going to "take advantage of someone else's crumple zone" are relatively minor.
Also, in case any of you are taking things too literally, when I say things like "smorgasboard of accidents to choose from", obviously I DO understand that you can't pick and choose which accidents you have! That's simply called Metaphor. Or something like that. :P
Even with head-ons aside, someone is always the hitter. If one could guarantee, in making the choice, that they could never be the hitter, it would be ok. But how could that happen?
Crumple zones really don't come into play in T-bones...
Absolutely, since there basically is no crumple zone on the side. But then the increased danger from an SUV is even greater! An SUV tends to be heavier, stiffer and higher...making t-bones FAR more dangerous in SUV:car collisions.
Yes, rear enders are not very significant and serious ones occur far less often, as well.
so if I'm driving a big, hulking, vehicle that's not designed to fold up, the chances that I'm going to "take advantage of someone else's crumple zone" are relatively minor.
First, "folding up" is a desireable attribute in an accident, not a liability. You want the vehicle to absorb the impact forces, not the occupants.
Second, whether it's a stolen crumple zone issue (and that includes angle collisions, not just head-ons) or not, the fact is that any collision between a car and SUV is far more dangerous to the car occupants than a comparable (in terms of speed, angle, road conditions, etc.) car:car collision.
What is a meta for, anyway?
Actually, this is a lot like the "it won't affect me, cuz I'm a good driver" rationale. Folks that would go ballistic over a 1% rise in gas tax have little problem with having draconian speed limit fines cuz they think "the other guy" will pay that, not them, LOL.
Proposing higher taxes of any kind is pretty near political suicide these days. Even grbeck knows that