Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





You Are What You Drive?

1679111222

Comments

  • jipsterjipster Louisville, KentuckyPosts: 5,444
    do you think any significant number of SUV owners have a need for the specific attributes of an SUV

    Well, I think the question irrelevant, but I'll answer anywho. Based on the criteria you set forth....no. Based on the criteria I set forth....yes.

    But, if you personally know of no one in particular who has a "non essential" large SUV, then I would say your position on the matter is circumstantial and totally based on assumptions. Get out in the real world and talk to some people who own large SUV's. Hopefully they won't punch you in the nose when you speak of their irresponsibility and poor citizenship. Better yet, much safer on these forums. ;)

    and sure there is lots of other overkill

    Overkill is overkill...whether it is in a large SUV, large sedan or midsize sedan. If you argue against one you have to argue against them all...which I don't see you doing.

    Are you going off-topic again and getting personal?

    No sir. I did include a little winkey eyed emotorcon indicating humor and not to be taken seriously. ;)
    But, now that you mention it ;) Your posts generally are difficult to follow at times due to the large magnitude of flip and sarcastic comments. In some of your posting with Brightness awhile back...I knew what you were against (anything brightness posted) but couldn't quite figure out what you were for. A good tactic by the way in having discussions such as these. ;)
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    But, if you personally know of no one in particular who has a "non essential" large SUV...

    I know many. I said I wasn't referring to them, I didn't way I didn't know of any.

    In any case, I think most mid/large SUV owners don't need them, meaning they have no tow/heavy haul/off road requirements. I base that on survey data I've read, trailer reg stats, observation and common sense. Can I prove it? No, but this is a discussion, so I don't have to.

    Get out in the real world...

    I don't know of any other and neither do you. Stick to the discussion, and try to keep the personal snipes down, ok? Seems impossible, so far.

    Overkill is overkill...whether it is in a large SUV, large sedan or midsize sedan. If you argue against one you have to argue against them all...

    LOL. Really. My posts will get very, very long if I agree to that :) Let's just say I reject that assertion.

    Your posts generally are difficult to follow at times due to the large magnitude of flip and sarcastic comments.

    As I said, I respond in kind. If you can find a spot where I'm flip and sarcastic in response to a genuinely objective statement, let me know. You won't find one.

    In some of your posting with Brightness...

    If you've read and or exchanged posts with him as much as I have, you would understand my POV re him. But you don't have to. In any case, please try to keep from being personal, if you can.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,225
    it certainly happens far too frequently amongst the approx 200 million US drivers.

    Precisely, we agree on that. It would then seem somewhat irresponsible to put your life and the lives of your loved ones into a small car that is definetly at a disadvantage against larger, heavier vehicles.

    I think part of this discussion leaves out location. I have not been into NYC. I know in So. CA you are more likely to have an accident with a large PU truck or SUV that is raised 6-12" and has tires the size of Rhode Island, than in NYC. You cannot leave your home without seeing this type of vehicle. They are usually the first leaving the stop light and the last to slam on their brakes at the next. It is a jungle and unless you experience it day in and day out you would not understand. There are no lightly traveled rural roads in So. CA. We have way more vehicles than our roads should be handling. It's the weather. It is always conducive to recreational driving, 365 days per year. Any time of the day you are sharing the road with millions of other vehicles.

    Would I be happy with a smaller vehicle. I think so, if it was the norm. It is not, and I am not willing to be the squashee. I would love to buy a Carrera. Where would I be able to really drive it? And I don't like looking to the right and the left at a stop light and only seeing lug nuts on wheels that should only be used on heavy equipment. At least in a 1/2 ton PU I can look out at the fenders on most of the vehicles.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 8,019
    ...if everyone would stop pulling quotes from each others posts and responding point by point in a personal manner.

    This is pretty easy. The topics of discussion on these boards are not each other.

    Let's get back to the topic with no "parting shots" please.

    Edmunds Moderator

    Need some roadside assistance? pf_flyer@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Just purchased or leased a vehicle? Share your vehicle reviews

    PF_Flyer's 2014 Versa Note Long Term Blog
    How To Start Your Own Long Term Blog

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,054
    what are you if you drive this?

    :shades:
  • jipsterjipster Louisville, KentuckyPosts: 5,444
    I don't quite understand why pf-flyer is asking that we don't put others quotes in our post, it is generally helpful in being able to follow a "lengthy" discussion. But, I do agree with not making personal comments, whether done in kind or not.

    So, you are what you drive(l)? You are what you wear? You are where you live? You are what you eat? You are what your job is? You are who your friends are?

    All of these are a reflection on ourselves, but none by themselves define who we are. Take the recent unplesantness ;) with the large SUV discussion. To define someone(irresponsible) based on their choice of a "nonessential" large SUV is irresponsible in itself in my opinion. It is taking the responsiblity and free choice of an individual, because the assumption is that person is a poor driver and will become involed in an accident. Being responsible and a "good citizen" doesn't mean just taking as much as you need. It's taking what you've got and being responsible with it. Putting someone in "higher risk" is done every day when we get in our vehicles. So, the focus should be on driving the vehicle you have safely, responsibly...and maintaining it properly. Not on, "I can have my large SUV because I off-road and tow...but you can't have yours because you don't use it the way I think you should."
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Hey, that thing gets terrible gas mileage, would crush a Honda Fit and on top of it all, promotes unhealthy eating. Sooo irresponsible! ;)
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    It would then seem somewhat irresponsible to put your life and the lives of your loved ones into a small car...

    So I should drive an SUV or PU? For that reason? Gee, then some folks might say "do as I say, not as I do, scooby-dooby doo". Imagine the thought :=)

    I drive what I drive because it closely matches my vehicular requirements. I think that's a good idea. You are free to do otherwise, even if it means stealing crumple zones.

    You're right about NYC. I live in Suffolk County, though, an exurb where there are lots of SUVs and PUs as well as large trucks.

    Would I be happy with a smaller vehicle. I think so, if it was the norm.

    Fleet-wise, cars ARE the norm.

    At least in a 1/2 ton PU I can look out at the fenders on most of the vehicles.

    From above, you mean :)
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    To define someone(irresponsible) based on their choice of a "nonessential" large SUV is irresponsible in itself in my opinion.

    Actually, I think to define someone who defines someone based on that choice is irresponsible.

    Hope your sense of humor is intact, I thought I would treat silliness in kind :)

    ...the assumption is that person is a poor driver and will become involed in an accident.

    No, an average driver. For whom the odds are average. This is indisputable.

    So, the focus should be...

    The focus should match the context. When the context is safety in driving technique, it should be on driving safely. When it's on vehicle choice and its impact on the system, it should be on that.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    So, you are what you drive(l)? You are what you wear? You are where you live? You are what you eat? You are what your job is? You are who your friends are?

    I think that what you drive often reflects, to varying degrees, who you are. I drive what I would describe as a sporty but practical car. It's a hatchback and gets great mpg, that's the practical part (hatchback is an absolute requirement for me). It handles superbly and effectively and can move quickly when I need it to. Even at my age, I engage in a lot of recreation activities, the most laid back of which is sailing. Primarily, I'm a runner, cyclist, kayaker and hiker. I feel the RSX matches me pretty well.
  • jipsterjipster Louisville, KentuckyPosts: 5,444
    I drive a minivan and a Buick Regal. I guess that would make me about 100 years old? But, the minivan is a Mazda(Zoom Zoom), and the Regal one of Buicks "sportier" vehicles...so maybe I'm not that old...just "practical"...like you. :cry:

    I will agree it makes financial sense to only buy as much vehicle as you need. But, no matter how hard I try to look at it from your point of view sailor...I just don't see it. Does anyone else out there in cyberspace see it? I know it a faint possibility...but perhaps I am missing something in this discussion.

    My main problem with your argument hinges on the principal that you can use big SUV "only" for the reasons you stated. If it a dangerous "crumple zone stealing, gas guzzlin, rootin tootin pollutin" vehicle...then no one should drive it...period. Which is a position many have taken. People can pull their row boats and go off roading in the pick-up trucks.

    If someone wants to use large SUV for recreational purposes,( defined as enjoyment of life in non essential activites during ones spare time)then I don't understand how you can seperate pulling a sailboat and buying a large SUV solely for entertainment value of a big rig. I know your response, so no need to rehash old notes. But, if you have anything new to add?
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    My main problem with your argument hinges on the principal that you can use big SUV "only" for the reasons you stated.

    I don't think I've ever claimed "you can only use it for...". I simply said what I think it makes a person that uses a big SUV when they don't need it. And that's based on the wasted gas, extra pollution and increased danger to others. Those externalities are incurred, no doubt. The are incurred for no practical reason.

    If one thinks that incurring those for a good reason is the same as for no reason, then there's no point in discussing it. That's really it in a nutshell.

    If it a dangerous "crumple zone stealing, gas guzzlin, rootin tootin pollutin" vehicle...then no one should drive it...period.

    Again, I've said nothing of the sort. I think that if it makes sense to own one, like if one tows something that requires an SUV or PU but that is a practical family vehicle like an SUV, then an SUV has a benefit that outweighs the externalities.

    If someone wants to use large SUV for recreational purposes...

    The fallacy lies in your categorization of "recreational use" as equivalent to "no use". Sorry, but that really makes no sense. By that definition, all use is for "no use" since we don't really "need" anything.

    The difference is whether one actually has a use for the vehicle's HD capacity (which is the cause of the higher externalities) or if they don't. What they actually use those capabilities for is irrelevant.

    To cut it down to a basic example, if someone drives a truck which gets 12 mpg because "they like driving a big truck" when they could drive a "non truck" and get 28 mpg while losing nothing except that "big truck feeling", then they are being irresponsible, "good citizen" wise. The endangering others and extra pollution just adds to the assessment.

    Of course, no one is required to be a good citizen. It's one of the "features" of a free country. Or it is a bug?

    :=)
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    "Of course, no one is required to be a good citizen. It's one of the "features" of a free country. Or it is a bug?"

    Not that I want to join this spirited debate, but I can't resist mentioning by way of contrast that being a good citizen as definied by the authorities basically was a requirement in the former Soviet Union. ;)
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    "Not that I want to join this spirited debate, but I can't resist mentioning by way of contrast that being a good citizen as definied by the authorities basically was a requirement in the former Soviet Union. "

    I grew up in the US, and the authorities that matter to me told me to be efficient and respect as well. Golden Rule, 10 commandments, yadda yadda. They must've made a good case, 'cause I fell for it, but I've seen the error of my ways! From now on I'll ask what my country can do for me, I'll sue my neighbors for not letting me host parties past 1am, and I'll run old people off the road. Ohhhhhhh yeah.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    "I grew up in the US, and the authorities that matter to me told me to be efficient and respect as well. Golden Rule, 10 commandments, yadda yadda. They must've made a good case, 'cause I fell for it, but I've seen the error of my ways! From now on I'll ask what my country can do for me, I'll sue my neighbors for not letting me host parties past 1am, and I'll run old people off the road. Ohhhhhhh yeah."

    Actually, not really my point. I was attempting to illustrate the one of the big problems with attempts to define and enforce "good citizenship", that's all. It was meant as hyperbole...my apologies.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    "It was meant as hyperbole...my apologies. "

    No problem, mine was too =].

    I do believe there is such thing as good citizenship, even if its definition can't be narrowed down (but the more extreme an action is, the more people will agree it isn't good citizenship). And I believe that what you drive reflects in your citizenship, a little bit.

    A vehicle that has a loud exhaust, or has loud speakers, guzzles gas, spews smoke, blinds people with its headlights, intimidates other drivers, or is dangerous to others in a crash does say "I don't care about other people to an extent". (Culturally, we accept and encourage some of that, but we all draw the line somewhere and for some, certain street-legal vehicles fall outside that line. Not just SUVs, but anything "annoying" or "dangerous". Some people think it's just as rude to drive an ugly car. The big debate in here seems to be on where that line is, and people don't usually change their minds much on that.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    being a good citizen as definied by the authorities basically was a requirement in the former Soviet Union. ;)

    Well, what they meant by "good citizen" was of debateable value. But the key concept here is that here in the US, we are free. Well, mostly. Point being, free to exercise judgement. Some of us exercise it better than others :=)

    ...one of the big problems with attempts to define and enforce "good citizenship"...

    Again, "enforce" is another context altogether. I'm just talking about voluntary actions. After all, one can choose to buy a vehicle that guzzles gas when they don't have to. Or not.

    And while many aspects of "good citizenship" are debateable, it's pretty hard to argue that guzzling gas is not an act of poor citizenship.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    ...and people don't usually change their minds much on that.

    Boy, did you say a mouthful :)

    IMO, this tiny topic (in the great scheme of things) reflects the theme of our times. Some wear a red uniform and some a blue one. And if your color is different than mine, I really don't care what you say, I ain't listening.

    As Steve Stills once said, the signs (posts) mostly say "Hooray for our side". Certainly, this applies to politics, but it goes beyond that. And while it's tempting to pin "conservative republican" on anyone that thinks it's un-American to put any restrictions on vehicle purchases and to pin "liberal democrat" on anyone that espouses citizenship and ethics in this realm, I think it runs deeper than that.

    But I certainly don't want to start a political debate here.

    But I do think that driving a big honkin SUV when you don't have any need for it makes you one kind of person and having at least some consideration for society as a whole during vehicle selection makes you another. Sorta.

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it. In case you hadn't noticed :=)
  • jipsterjipster Louisville, KentuckyPosts: 5,444
    Those externalities are incurred, no doubt. They are incurred for no practical reason.

    No practical reason to you obviously, but again, you can decide what's practical for you....not anyone else. A good reason for putting peoples lives in danger is hauling that big SUV down to the lake pulling your pollution spewing boats and jetskis, joyriding on your boat...doing cannonballs off the port side...according to your formula for "good citizenship". Taking ones big SUV out in the boonies, doing figure eights in the mud, is also a suffecient reason to risk others lives. But, if one purchases a large SUV for their family safty,for the power and commanding view, the ride or handling, the fun factor, or any other of these so called "non essential" purposes...they become an irresponsible and poor citizen, only looking out for themselves. Nonsense...IMO.

    then a SUV has a benefit that outweights the externalities

    Getting some sun floating on a body of water obviously has a benefit that outweights the large SUV's increased externalities...if one is to believe your position.

    while losing nothing but that "big truck feeling"

    That "big truck feeling" is just as much a part of that "recreational value" to them...as hauling your jet skis down to the lake is for you.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,225
    I would be willing to bet the folks that work in the GMC plant in Indiana that built my Sierra PU truck, would say I am an exceptionally good citizen and show a lot of responsibility. I would also imagine those same folks would consider anyone that bought a car not built in the USA a poor citizen.

    It all has to do with perspective. From the angle on the road that I see things, little cars are a nuisance and dangerous especially to those that are in them. Saving a few bucks a month in gas is hardly a good reason to take the added risk. That was my biggest negative on the Passat Wagon I just sold. I felt vulnerable. That is definetly NOT ME.
Sign In or Register to comment.