A very basic reason why SUVs are so popular: people who are not small fit into them

> those safety "advantages" are outweighed by their lesser
> maneuverability,tendency to roll over or lose control,and greater
> difficulty in parking. Not to mention lousy gas mileage.

My girlfriend's SUV gets better gas mileage than my last two cars, a
sub-compact and a sub-sub-compact.

- B

"Bill" > wrote in
:

>> those safety "advantages" are outweighed by their lesser
>> maneuverability,tendency to roll over or lose control,and greater
>> difficulty in parking. Not to mention lousy gas mileage.
>
> My girlfriend's SUV gets better gas mileage than my last two cars, a
> sub-compact and a sub-sub-compact.
>
> - B
>
>
>

that does not speak well for your last two cars.(or perhaps -your- driving
style)
and maybe her SUV is newer than your 2 cars were,or has better upkeep.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Marc Gerges) wrote in
:

> John David Galt > wrote:
>>
>> Remember, capacity for more passengers/cargo is not an SUV's only
>> advantage. They also tend to be more comfortable (head- and leg-room
>> for the driver)
>
> My first impression on those that I sat in and that I drove is
> different. Space seems not considerably more abundant than in a
> regular car - you sit a bit more upright.

actually,SUVs don't have any more space than a station wagon,they just are
raised up higher.
>
> If you wanted space, an SUV seems like a bad choice to me.
>
>> and have safety advantages (more mass and a longer sight distance due
>> to height).
>
> More mass does not equal more safety. The first bit about safety is
> not drive someplace where somebody else is already. Which means
> changing the course. That works better with less mass.
>
> And the bit about the sight distance is true unless everybody else
> manoeuvers their SUV into one's line of sight.

SUVs being taller,their drivers tend to not see cars lower than them,on the
SUV's sides or rear.I've been nearly sideswiped many times by SUVs because
they "overlook" my Integra when trying to change lanes. Also,their jacked-
up height makes for climbing OVER guardrails or other obstacles instead of
being stopped by them,if the SUV doesn't roll over first.They usually flip
after hitting obstacles,though.
Then there's the TRUCK handling and suspension.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Jun 25, 9:42 am, (Marc Gerges) wrote:
> Larry Bud > wrote:
> >> Or they may just be looking for silly excuses to buy SUV's. ;-)
>
> > Why is it "silly" for someone to buy a legal product? Why does anyone
> > need an "excuse" for buying a legal product?
>
> To some people it may seem silly to spend a bunch of money on a product
> whose specific utility they do not need. In order to rationalize their
> purchase they look for arguments justifying it.

Wow, I didn't realize that "need" is suddenly a requirement for
purchasing a product in a [mostly] free society! Who are you to
decide if the utitility of an SUV is needed by someone who's a
complete stranger to yourself?

I've decided that you don't NEED that 42" TV, or that 2.6 Gig process
in your computer to send usenet message. You sure have made some
silly decisions!

> Let's take the place where I live - peaceful little country right in the
> middle of Europe.

Hmm, I think I've decided that you really don't NEED to live there.


> I do believe in free markets and everybodys own right to make a fool of
> himself, but overall I think we'd be better off limiting those things.

Nice contradicting yourself in a mere 30 or so words. You obviously
don't believe in free markets if you want to limit people's freedom to
buy whatever they want.

> Plus I'm one of these nasty socialists who believes that you should
> behave well. Part of that is not to consume resources that you don't
> need, and not to put more burden on your community than necessary.

All a community is is a collection of individuals. Limiting the
rights of one individual limits the rights of all individuals, thus
creating a burden on the community.

"Marc Gerges" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Meanwhile Volvo joined Fords, a new version of a VOLVO I rented was
>> standard sized vertically. So the
>> search is to start anew. Toyota confirmed that I will not fit into
>> the
>> Prius comfortably and mentioned Lexus cars.
>> Rental car wise only a Mercedes E type was good for my size. Since
>> I
>> do not drive much I hesitate to spend that
>> much.
>
> Go buy a Citroën Berlingo and be done with it.
>
> I could wear a top hat in it without problems.
>
> OTOH, I'm your size and sit comfortably in my Prius, as well as in
> my
> wife's Impreza. The Miata is a bit on the small side, but with the
> top
> down head room's just about infinite.

Just because you are the same height when standing, doesn't mean you
have the same head room requirements. I have two sons, both are around
the same height as me (6'3") when standing. When sitting one is at
least 3 inches taller than the other. Therefore he often has to adjust
his seat completely differently - closer to the wheel because of his
shorter legs, and he often reclines his seat more to gain head room. I
can barely get in a car after he has adjusted the seat to his liking.
There is also the problem of "real" interior room versus the specs. I
have a 2006 Nissan Frontier. According to the specs the truck has
plenty of head and leg room. However, in reality it has less room than
my Father's supposedly much smaller Ranger (both are extended cabs). I
find this to often be the case with Japanese designed vehicles. The
reported numbers are misleading. On the other hand, German and English
(UK) designed vehicles almost always are at least as roomy as the
specs indicate.

Ed

Jim Yanik > wrote:
>>
>> My first impression on those that I sat in and that I drove is
>> different. Space seems not considerably more abundant than in a
>> regular car - you sit a bit more upright.
>
> actually,SUVs don't have any more space than a station wagon,they just are
> raised up higher.

Yep, that's what I think, too.

cu
Marc

Larry Bud > wrote:
>> Let's take the place where I live - peaceful little country right in the
>> middle of Europe.
>
> Hmm, I think I've decided that you really don't NEED to live there.

Been there, done that. I like it here, so I plan to stay. Don't really
follow how that relates to the discussion, but so be it...

>> I do believe in free markets and everybodys own right to make a fool of
>> himself, but overall I think we'd be better off limiting those things.
>
> Nice contradicting yourself in a mere 30 or so words. You obviously
> don't believe in free markets if you want to limit people's freedom to
> buy whatever they want.

There's the bit about one person's freedom stops where the next one's
starts.

I've got to admit above sentence was a bit too condensed. The thought I
had in mind was about limiting them by making them less desirable.
Taxing gas, for example.

>> Plus I'm one of these nasty socialists who believes that you should
>> behave well. Part of that is not to consume resources that you don't
>> need, and not to put more burden on your community than necessary.
>
> All a community is is a collection of individuals. Limiting the
> rights of one individual limits the rights of all individuals, thus
> creating a burden on the community.

Is this going to be a philosophical discussion on individuals and
communities?

cu
Marc

>> Bottom line: it's the buyer's decision how to spend his money.

> Yep. And, he doesn't need smart or valid reasons.

Whatever reasons he chooses are valid (unless he were doing it to interfere
with other people, which is unlikely). It's everyone's job to accept that.

> >> Let's take the place where I live - peaceful little country right in the
> >> middle of Europe.
>
> > Hmm, I think I've decided that you really don't NEED to live there.
>
> Been there, done that. I like it here, so I plan to stay. Don't really
> follow how that relates to the discussion, but so be it...

It relates, because you seem to be stuck on allowing people freedom to
do things that are "needed", and not what is wanted. I'm just
following the logical conclusion of that line of thinking, in that
those with the guns can decide exactly what you "need", thus taking
away any freedom that you thought you had. In the end, those that
control can decide that YOU are a burden on society and don't "need"
to live.

> >> I do believe in free markets and everybodys own right to make a fool of
> >> himself, but overall I think we'd be better off limiting those things.
>
> > Nice contradicting yourself in a mere 30 or so words. You obviously
> > don't believe in free markets if you want to limit people's freedom to
> > buy whatever they want.
>
> There's the bit about one person's freedom stops where the next one's
> starts.

My buying a product (which is a free exchange between two parties)
limits your freedom in no way whatsoever.

> I've got to admit above sentence was a bit too condensed. The thought I
> had in mind was about limiting them by making them less desirable.
> Taxing gas, for example.

It's not the government's job to engage in social engineering, at
least not in a free society. In a free society, it's the government's
job to insure and protect individual rights.

> >> Plus I'm one of these nasty socialists who believes that you should
> >> behave well. Part of that is not to consume resources that you don't
> >> need, and not to put more burden on your community than necessary.
>
> > All a community is is a collection of individuals. Limiting the
> > rights of one individual limits the rights of all individuals, thus
> > creating a burden on the community.
>
> Is this going to be a philosophical discussion on individuals and
> communities?

You're the one who brought it up.