# Stupid SUV's



## DGS49

Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?

SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).

Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.

Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.

One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?

The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.

OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.

When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?


----------



## DriftingSand

I had a Ford Explorer in the late 90s.  I liked it.  It was a bit bulky but it served a purpose and filled a niche. If I wasn't so fond of my full sized pickup I'd get another SUV. I wouldn't get a "Smart Car" or a hybrid at this point.


----------



## koshergrl

I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.

Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.


----------



## AquaAthena

koshergrl said:


> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.



True. It's not like they are making station wagons anymore...


----------



## Warrior102

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?



We had an SUV when the kids were little. Did a lot of camping, skiing, traveling. 
Now that they're graduated from college and it's just the wife and I - she drives a VW Eos and I have a Dodge 1500 4WD pickup. Do I need to justify to idiots like you why I need a truck, or are your getting the jist it's none of your fucking business what others choose to drive. 

Idiot.


----------



## martybegan

AquaAthena said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's not like they are making station wagons anymore...
Click to expand...


Most of the car based SUV's are actually closer to station wagons and mini-vans than truck based SUV's. These are the ones that cater to the suburban mommy market. 

I owned an 88 Blazer years ago, that was an SUV SUV.


----------



## Warrior102

koshergrl said:


> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.



He'd like you to all cram in a solar-powered Prius with and Obama/Biden sticker on the back.


----------



## martybegan

DriftingSand said:


> I had a Ford Explorer in the late 90s.  I liked it.  It was a bit bulky but it served a purpose and filled a niche. If I wasn't so fond of my full sized pickup I'd get another SUV. I wouldn't get a "Smart Car" or a hybrid at this point.



A smart car is an enclosed golf cart, nothing more.


----------



## DriftingSand

Warrior102 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He'd like you to all cram in a solar-powered Prius with and Obama/Biden sticker on the back.
Click to expand...


Then drive slow in the fast lane like they do here in Colorado.


----------



## DriftingSand

martybegan said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a Ford Explorer in the late 90s.  I liked it.  It was a bit bulky but it served a purpose and filled a niche. If I wasn't so fond of my full sized pickup I'd get another SUV. I wouldn't get a "Smart Car" or a hybrid at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A smart car is an enclosed golf cart, nothing more.
Click to expand...


I can't stand the idiotic things. They're totally unsafe and they look ridiculous.


----------



## koshergrl

martybegan said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's not like they are making station wagons anymore...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the car based SUV's are actually closer to station wagons and mini-vans than truck based SUV's. These are the ones that cater to the suburban mommy market.
> 
> I owned an 88 Blazer years ago, that was an SUV SUV.
Click to expand...

 
My SUV seats 7, has 4wd, and can tow a horse trailer.

And gets around 22 mpg.

I love it.


----------



## DGS49

Obviously we are all free to do stupid things.  My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra.  No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck.  Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.

God bless 'em.

About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.


----------



## Missourian

martybegan said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a Ford Explorer in the late 90s.  I liked it.  It was a bit bulky but it served a purpose and filled a niche. If I wasn't so fond of my full sized pickup I'd get another SUV. I wouldn't get a "Smart Car" or a hybrid at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A smart car is an enclosed golf cart, nothing more.
Click to expand...



My old man says they should come in pairs...one for each foot.


----------



## Missourian

Personally,  I'm all Ford Truck,  all the time.







There are many others like it,  but this one is mine.​


----------



## koshergrl

DGS49 said:


> Obviously we are all free to do stupid things.  My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra.  No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck.  Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.
> 
> God bless 'em.
> 
> About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.



Meh, 18 per online search. Close enough for govt work. 

Not that I care. I like my suv, I use it every single day, it has been off road an it has hauled a variety of things. 

Take your car and cram it up your ass, thanks. I will keep mine. What's stupid about driving the vehicle you enjoy and that suits your needs?

Nothing.


----------



## Big Black Dog

I live on a farm and drive a Chevy Avalanche LTZ.  My farm lane is 3/4 mile long and gets snow blown in the winter months.  It's my daily driver.  I use it to deer hunt with too.  Great vehicle.  Very comfortable and easy to drive.  It rides great.  I get 20 mpg on the open road with it.  Looks pretty nice when it's cleaned up.  I don't particularly care if you like it or not.  I love it.  Great vehicle.


----------



## Pogo

AquaAthena said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's not like they are making station wagons anymore...
Click to expand...


Ain't that the trooth.  I held on to my '93 Saturn as long as I could.  Would have been happy to replace it with the same thing but noooooooo, they don't make it.

Put well over 400k on that car... and I have to say, if it ever gave me 20 miles a gallon, or even 30, I would have towed it to a mechanic to find the fuel leak.  That's just not acceptable.


----------



## Pogo

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUV&#8217;s (and &#8220;crossovers&#8221 are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, don&#8217;t stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires can&#8217;t handle, then YOU SHOULDN&#8217;T BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  It&#8217;s not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUV&#8217;s &#8211; their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUV&#8217;s.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUV&#8217;s is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS &#8211; for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to what&#8217;s coming because there are so many stinkin&#8217; SUV&#8217;s blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you don&#8217;t need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie O&#8217;Donnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine &#8211; for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows don&#8217;t know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevy&#8217;s and Ford&#8217;s that didn&#8217;t even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isn&#8217;t it?



I hate like hell to admit it but I was talked into a Saturn Vue (I kinda lost a bet that I could find one with a stick shift and there were surprisingly a lot of them).  I figured it would give me more cargo space than the SW, whereas the closest thing I could find to what I had before would be a Honda Fit, which is smaller in terms of cargo space.

Bad idea.  Yes it's got a lot more room but room I don't need, and on a trip to Vermont turned out to be THE worst handling car in the snow I can ever remember driving, ever -- even with the stick shift.  I just knew if I started to slip there would be no getting out of it.  And the fuel economy sucks -- 30, 31 mpg.  The SW would give me well over 40.  And handled like a real car.

Now I've had enough and going to pursue the Honda after all and get rid of this behemoth. 



> It&#8217;s not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUV&#8217;s &#8211; their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUV&#8217;s.



_Bingo._  And then they'll try to tell us with a straight face, "hey we're just giving the public what they want".

Hey, remember back in the 1990s when we the people gathered in vast public demonstrations to demand Detroit make us huge inverted bathtubs with a ridiculous center of gravity that looked like everybody's car had been juicing on steroids? 

Me neither.


----------



## Pogo

DriftingSand said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a Ford Explorer in the late 90s.  I liked it.  It was a bit bulky but it served a purpose and filled a niche. If I wasn't so fond of my full sized pickup I'd get another SUV. I wouldn't get a "Smart Car" or a hybrid at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A smart car is an enclosed golf cart, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't stand the idiotic things. They're totally unsafe and they look ridiculous.
Click to expand...


It is a motorized golf cart, but there's nothing 'unsafe' about it.  Like every car it has to pass "safety tests" (which are not safety tests at all but crash tests) or it can't be sold.  It's designed for city commuting.  First time I saw one, before it was imported here (still had the Mercedes marque on it) the car was parked on a New Orleans street --- _sideways_.  Now that's practical.

The gas mileage sucks though.  I believe it's around 40-45, and that's running premium.  Hell I got that easily in my Saturn SW2 on regular, as long as I used ethanol-free gas.  The Smart should be able to beat that given its size.  And the diesel model does, but it's not allowed to sell here.


----------



## WinterBorn

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?



Want to know what is really stupid?   Trying to justify your claims in this thread.

Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records?  The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy.  And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.

I am 6'2".  My sons are 6'4" and 6'5".   Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?

I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years.  It was far more comfortable than most sedans.  I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.

Yes, families got around without Posi-traction.  They got into more accidents too.  The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.

Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead.  I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown.  Same height and handier with the 8'bed.  The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices.  If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.  

Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).

In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures.  Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.


----------



## WinterBorn

DGS49 said:


> Obviously we are all free to do stupid things.  My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra.  No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck.  Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.
> 
> God bless 'em.
> 
> About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.



Chevrolet Suburban Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos

The Chevy Suburban has a listed MPG of 22-23 on the hwy.


----------



## Mr Natural

I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.


----------



## WinterBorn

Mr Clean said:


> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.



Given how useful a pickup truck can be, I don't see the reason I would want a car.

Trucks now are as comfortable as cars, have all the luxuries and amenities that cars do, and my visibility is much greater. 

For several years I averaged 5k miles a month driving two different trucks.  The Ford F-150 was a better truck, but the Chevy didn't cause me any grief.  Both handled well, drove great, and allowed me the flexibility to do more.


----------



## 007

I have a 1997 1/2 ton, 4x4 pickup truck, lifted.

I have a 1980 3/4 ton, 4x4 pickup truck, collector.

I have a 2002 Chevy Tahoe, also 4x4, that will do EVERYTHING a car will do and more, including having a VERY plush interior and VERY comfortable ride, and gets 24 miles to the gallon.

Do I need to justify owning any one or all of my trucks to some libtard that wants us all to have to drive electric suit cases on wheels? Not only no, but FUCK NO!

If I saw a Prius that slid in the ditch off a snowy road and it had an obama/biden sticker on the back, I'd just drive on by in my big 4 wheel drive truck thinking of the OP and this dumbass thread. In fact I'd probably flip them off.

The SUV just happens to be the most POPULAR selling vehicle in America. They wouldn't MAKE them if people didn't BUY them.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

These same sanctimonious assholes are the ones begging me to pull them out of deep sand at the beach.
  What kind of idiot drives a pious into deep sand?
I always tell em(when I'm feeling generous)that they have to hook up the tow strap to their own vehicle and I'm not responsible for any damage. This has lead to several hilarious incidents of dragging a plastic bumper down the beach.


----------



## koshergrl

In some parts of the US, we travel on the freeways during snow and ice storms, alongside big semis. The bigger rigs allow us to be able to see over the spray-back. When I was working in central oregon, I had a prius, and a jeep, to drive back and forth for my work on isolated back roads in all weather. The prius had blind spots and was so low to the ground that when the weather was bad, I was blind because I wasn't higher than the blowing snow.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what is really stupid?   Trying to justify your claims in this thread.
> 
> Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records?  The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy.  And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.
> 
> I am 6'2".  My sons are 6'4" and 6'5".   Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?
> 
> I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years.  It was far more comfortable than most sedans.  I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.
> 
> Yes, families got around without Posi-traction.  They got into more accidents too.  The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.
> 
> Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead.  I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown.  Same height and handier with the 8'bed.  The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices.  If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.
> 
> Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).
Click to expand...


I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better".  To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car.  The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes.  Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing.  What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability.  And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat.  I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug.  And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.

Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.

Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'.  That's a no-win.



WinterBorn said:


> In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures.  Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.



Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV _design_ is stupid.  Which it is, no question.  We don't design the cars -- Detroit does.  Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.

Just my read.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously we are all free to do stupid things.  My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra.  No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck.  Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.
> 
> God bless 'em.
> 
> About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chevrolet Suburban Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos
> 
> The Chevy Suburban has a listed MPG of 22-23 on the hwy.
Click to expand...


Your figures are sound, but still --- that's exactly half of what my SW2 would do, regularly.


----------



## Pogo

Mr Clean said:


> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.




I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.

The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.

What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.

So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.


----------



## koshergrl

People can always argue the merits of whatever it is they like...the bottom line is, calling people "stupid" for their personal preference based solely on your own personal preference is..well, stupid.

It's like calling a guy "stupid" because he likes red heads. 

If I want to drive a Monster Truck, how is that indicative that I'm STUPID? It doesn't. Anymore than driving a tiny little electric bucket that you have to fold yourself into is indicative of homosexuality.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> What kind of idiot drives a pious into deep sand?



Uh -  I think you just did.


----------



## koshergrl

Or, perhaps, they like having a truck because it means they can haul their own garbage, move their own furniture. Or maybe because they just like it.

Why do you CARE why they like trucks? How is it any of your business if they use their truck for the things YOU think they should, as frequently as YOU believe they ought to, in order to *justify* having a truck?

See the majority of us never consider our car choice as something to be justified. We don't walk around apologizing for our existence on the earth to everybody who will listen. We don't feel GUILTY that we take up a spot that is 8 foot by 15 feet, as opposed to 7 feet by 10 feet, in a parking lot, or only get 18 as opposed to 25 mpg. We don't care. We like pickups. So fucking what?


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> People can always argue the merits of whatever it is they like...the bottom line is, calling people "stupid" for their personal preference based solely on your own personal preference is..well, stupid.
> 
> It's like calling a guy "stupid" because he likes red heads.
> 
> If I want to drive a Monster Truck, how is that indicative that I'm STUPID? It doesn't. Anymore than driving a tiny little electric bucket that you have to fold yourself into is indicative of homosexuality.



You drive whatever you want.  I think, again unless I missed it, that he's calling the _design_ stupid.  Which it is; it cannot be justified except in terms of pure unabashed profit.  And the foisting of them on the public is cynical, manipulative and selfish.  And those adjectives are aimed squarely at the car industry.


----------



## koshergrl

The aren't foisted upon the public. The public ASKS for them.

And he didn't call the design stupid.

I wish you wouldn't prate on topics you're clueless about. It's so annoying.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> The aren't foisted upon the public. The public ASKS for them.
> 
> And he didn't call the design stupid.
> 
> I wish you wouldn't prate on topics you're clueless about. It's so annoying.



Didn't he?
OP, first words:


> *Stupid SUV's*
> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?



Not unclear at all.

We "asked for them"?  When?  Who?

Hey, remember back in the 1990s when we the people gathered in vast public demonstrations to demand Detroit make us huge inverted bathtubs with a ridiculous center of gravity that looked like everybody's car had been juicing on steroids because dammit, we were just not spending enough on gas? 

Me neither.

"clueless"?  I've been driving a lot longer than you have, dear.  Since the Johnson Administration.  And he left office in 1869.  You could look it up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?



Those Chevies and Fords that we used to get around in had a lot more power than modern SUVs, worse gas mileage, and were all around more dangerous than those stupid SUVs you are ranting about. I know, I used to drive them, and I would much rather be in an SUV with its modern traction control and other safety features.

On the other hand, you did brand yourself as a complete ignoramus when it comes to cars.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

koshergrl said:


> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.



You could get 6 Smart Cars and tape them together.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

martybegan said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a Ford Explorer in the late 90s.  I liked it.  It was a bit bulky but it served a purpose and filled a niche. If I wasn't so fond of my full sized pickup I'd get another SUV. I wouldn't get a "Smart Car" or a hybrid at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A smart car is an enclosed golf cart, nothing more.
Click to expand...


Even people in San Francisco hate those things.

On the other hand, they have invented a new sport.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
Click to expand...


  So you're saying if they dont drive around with something in the bed at all times they dont need it?
   You better get rid of all those extra seats in your car. What a fucken tard.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of idiot drives a pious into deep sand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -  I think you just did.
Click to expand...


   Not sure if stupid.......oh hell you're stupid and we all know it.


----------



## Desperado

DGS49 said:


> Happy as a clam.
> 
> God bless 'em.



When it comes to cars... that is all that matters.  Personal Choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

DGS49 said:


> Obviously we are all free to do stupid things.  My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra.  No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck.  Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.
> 
> God bless 'em.
> 
> About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.



That is actually pretty typical for an SUV.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Mr Clean said:


> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.



Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUV&#8217;s (and &#8220;crossovers&#8221 are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, don&#8217;t stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires can&#8217;t handle, then YOU SHOULDN&#8217;T BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  It&#8217;s not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUV&#8217;s &#8211; their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUV&#8217;s.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUV&#8217;s is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS &#8211; for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to what&#8217;s coming because there are so many stinkin&#8217; SUV&#8217;s blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you don&#8217;t need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie O&#8217;Donnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine &#8211; for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows don&#8217;t know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevy&#8217;s and Ford&#8217;s that didn&#8217;t even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isn&#8217;t it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what is really stupid?   Trying to justify your claims in this thread.
> 
> Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records?  The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy.  And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.
> 
> I am 6'2".  My sons are 6'4" and 6'5".   Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?
> 
> I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years.  It was far more comfortable than most sedans.  I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.
> 
> Yes, families got around without Posi-traction.  They got into more accidents too.  The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.
> 
> Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead.  I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown.  Same height and handier with the 8'bed.  The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices.  If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.
> 
> Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better".  To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car.  The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes.  Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing.  What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability.  And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat.  I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug.  And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.
> 
> Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.
> 
> Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'.  That's a no-win.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures.  Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV _design_ is stupid.  Which it is, no question.  We don't design the cars -- Detroit does.  Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.
> 
> Just my read.
Click to expand...


Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

koshergrl said:


> Or, perhaps, they like having a truck because it means they can haul their own garbage, move their own furniture. Or maybe because they just like it.
> 
> Why do you CARE why they like trucks? How is it any of your business if they use their truck for the things YOU think they should, as frequently as YOU believe they ought to, in order to *justify* having a truck?
> 
> See the majority of us never consider our car choice as something to be justified. We don't walk around apologizing for our existence on the earth to everybody who will listen. We don't feel GUILTY that we take up a spot that is 8 foot by 15 feet, as opposed to 7 feet by 10 feet, in a parking lot, or only get 18 as opposed to 25 mpg. We don't care. We like pickups. So fucking what?



They might use it to park their Prius.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> People can always argue the merits of whatever it is they like...the bottom line is, calling people "stupid" for their personal preference based solely on your own personal preference is..well, stupid.
> 
> It's like calling a guy "stupid" because he likes red heads.
> 
> If I want to drive a Monster Truck, how is that indicative that I'm STUPID? It doesn't. Anymore than driving a tiny little electric bucket that you have to fold yourself into is indicative of homosexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You drive whatever you want.  I think, again unless I missed it, that he's calling the _design_ stupid.  Which it is; it cannot be justified except in terms of pure unabashed profit.  And the foisting of them on the public is cynical, manipulative and selfish.  And those adjectives are aimed squarely at the car industry.
Click to expand...


Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?
Click to expand...


  That and the high water that comes with em.
You can see better out of a truck,they ride just as good as cars do these days,you can haul your crap around,they're safer in an accident,you can look down into cars for that perfect seat belt boob and cleavage view,you dont get stuck on the beach.
   The only draw backs are slightly lower gas mileage,and people asking you to help them move. And the moving thing can be avoided by not having friends who are to cheap to pay someone.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of idiot drives a pious into deep sand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -  I think you just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if stupid.......oh hell you're stupid and we all know it.
Click to expand...


Willfully ignorant is worse than stupid.


----------



## koshergrl

Hey now I have a friend with a pickup helping me move on the 31st lolol...

He's moving the big furniture. I'm able to move everything else in my EXPLORER!


----------



## Howey

koshergrl said:


> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.




Don't forget you need a tank to support your fat ass.

For most needs, unless you're towing, a mid size SUV is sufficient. 

However, just like men with their HUGE pickup trucks, I believe both are overcompensating for something. Women - power. Men - penis size.


----------



## koshergrl

No, that's what you would be doing if you drove one. Because you don't have a life.

I do. It includes kids, dogs, luggage and toys...and travel in all sorts of weather over all sorts of terrain.

I like the Explorer. Tell me what you drive, and I'll run you over next time you try to cut me off in your fagmobile.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying if they dont drive around with something in the bed at all times they dont need it?
> You better get rid of all those extra seats in your car. What a fucken tard.....
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying it's space that's not being used; in other words whatever they bought the truck for, they're not using it anywhere near its capacity.  On the whole.
It's not my place to say what they "need", nor did I intimate that.  I'm saying the idea of using the bed to transport things is from empirical evidence not the factor that explains their sales numbers.  Therefore something else is.

And the seat comparison is valid.  I use mine for cargo.  They fold down.  Duh.

Sorry if the point went clear over your head but maybe you should do less ducking.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of idiot drives a *pious* into deep sand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -  I think you just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if stupid.......oh hell you're stupid and we all know it.
Click to expand...


Read your own spelling.  R e a l   s l o w...

Again, duh.  Guess observation isn't your strong suit.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what is really stupid?   Trying to justify your claims in this thread.
> 
> Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records?  The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy.  And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.
> 
> I am 6'2".  My sons are 6'4" and 6'5".   Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?
> 
> I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years.  It was far more comfortable than most sedans.  I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.
> 
> Yes, families got around without Posi-traction.  They got into more accidents too.  The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.
> 
> Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead.  I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown.  Same height and handier with the 8'bed.  The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices.  If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.
> 
> Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better".  To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car.  The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes.  Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing.  What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability.  And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat.  I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug.  And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.
> 
> Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.
> 
> Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'.  That's a no-win.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures.  Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV _design_ is stupid.  Which it is, no question.  We don't design the cars -- Detroit does.  Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.
> 
> Just my read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?
Click to expand...


EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.



Good thing nobody did then.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and the high water that comes with em.
> You can see better out of a truck,they ride just as good as cars do these days,you can haul your crap around,they're safer in an accident,you can look down into cars for that perfect seat belt boob and cleavage view,you dont get stuck on the beach.
> The only draw backs are slightly lower gas mileage,and people asking you to help them move. And the moving thing can be avoided by not having friends who are to cheap to pay someone.
Click to expand...


Ah.  Given the evidence that pickup beds are not being used much for transport, we now have the answer to what their selling point is:

"Boob and cleavage view".  

Actually I seem to have a pretty good boob view right here 

"Safer in an accident" is another part of that myth.  If I didn't complete the point, to spell it out: the safe vehicle in an accident is the one that *isn't in one*.  Therefore the saf*er* vehicle is the one that's able to avoid getting into one in the first place.  I had two serious encounters with pickup trucks with my little SW2 wagon.  That is, they would have been encounters, and really messy.  I got out of both of them unscathed.  Had I been driving what they were driving I wouldn't be here to tell the tale.  Nor would that motorcyclist who was coming the other way.  He got away clean too.


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what is really stupid?   Trying to justify your claims in this thread.
> 
> Someone says they get 22 mpg and you tell them to call Guiness Book of records?  The 2014 Suburban gets 22-23 on the hwy.  And a Suburban is one of the biggest SUVs.
> 
> I am 6'2".  My sons are 6'4" and 6'5".   Think some little sedan will carry all of us comfortably?
> 
> I drove a GMC Yukon for 6 years.  It was far more comfortable than most sedans.  I had 4wd, and I had plenty of room for camping gear, my dogs, or whatever else I needed to carry.
> 
> Yes, families got around without Posi-traction.  They got into more accidents too.  The fact that you dismiss a significant safety feature in your rant against SUVs shows you are not interested in reality.
> 
> Also, it is not just women who want to see farther ahead.  I usually drive a full sized pickup, since my kids are now grown.  Same height and handier with the 8'bed.  The fact that you cannot see is based on your own choices.  If there were no SUVs, you would still have your view blocked by other cars.
> 
> Also, if you look at the survival rates for serious accidents, you will see that the bigger the vehicle the better your chance of walking away from the accident (with few exceptions).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better".  To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car.  The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes.  Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing.  What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability.  And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat.  I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug.  And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.
> 
> Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.
> 
> Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'.  That's a no-win.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, try worrying about your own choices and save the sanctimonious lectures.  Try watching your own life instead of watching your neighbors to see if they drive around without ever putting anything in the bed of their truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV _design_ is stupid.  Which it is, no question.  We don't design the cars -- Detroit does.  Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.
> 
> Just my read.
Click to expand...


The idea of "bigger is better" in an accident works if you base it on the premise that you are not at fault in the accident.  Namely, that you are hit by another driver.  As a careful driver, I can only control what I do.  Most of the near misses I have had were someone else being an idiot.

I took the OP as calling those who drive SUVs as stupid, or that the SUV is a stupid choice.


----------



## boedicca

I love my SUV.  I bought an Explorer in the late 90s and switched to a sedan in 2004.  I never liked driving the sedan, and am now happily back to an SUV.  This time, it's a small Japanese version.  

Given the horrible traffic in the Bay Area, I want a bit of iron around me. I find it shocking when I see morons driving Smart Cars (what an oxymoron) on a crowded freeway. Those drivers must have death wishes.


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously we are all free to do stupid things.  My neighbor drives an Escalade, and her husband has a Tundra.  No kids, nothing but air in the bed of the truck.  Never had either one of them off road. Happy as a clam.
> 
> God bless 'em.
> 
> About that 7 Passenger SUV that gets 22mpg, call the Guinness people; they will want to put that one in their book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chevrolet Suburban Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos
> 
> The Chevy Suburban has a listed MPG of 22-23 on the hwy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your figures are sound, but still --- that's exactly half of what my SW2 would do, regularly.
Click to expand...


The Suburban is never going to be an economy car.  My point was in reply to the comment that an SUV getting 22mpg should be reported to Guinness.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanna zero in on this myth that "bigger is better".  To sustain itself this myth demands we look at not traffic but accidents, the 0.00001% of what you do in a car.  The reality is this is not talking about 'safety'; it's talking about crashes.  Safety is measured in terms of maneuverability-- stopping power, steering agility, center of gravity determining how the vehicle handles in that hairy situation, that sort of thing.  What kind of mass the vehicle has is irrelevant except as it affects that maneuverability.  And on that basis I'll take my 2500 pound Saturn station wagon over the same maker's SUV any day of any week, in a heartbeat.  I dread to think what will happen the day I have to put the Vue through some of the moves the SW2 handled with a shrug.  And I've seen many an SUV flipped over on its roof, legs dangling in the air like a helpless cockroach, because of that ridiculous centre of gravity.
> 
> Bottom line, if mass meant safety, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles would be illegal.
> 
> Moreover, the effect is additive; even if you do accept that more mass means more safety, you condemn the public to a battle of size that can never be won, because as long as there's something bigger than yourself, you're not 'safe'.  That's a no-win.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I missed something the OP's point, granted not well expressed, is that the SUV _design_ is stupid.  Which it is, no question.  We don't design the cars -- Detroit does.  Therefore it seems to me the target of this thread is the automaker pushing dangerous drives on the public to make a buck, not the drivers left with fewer and fewer choices.
> 
> Just my read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
> Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good thing nobody did then.
Click to expand...


Let me see if I understand the position that you are staking out here.

You are claiming that bigger cars are not safer than smaller cars. You also claim that CAFE standards are completely irrelevant to the debate because smaller cars are actually safer. You base this on the belief that smaller cars are more maneuverable, and thus the drivers are able to avoid accidents.

Did I get that right? I just want to know before I tear you a new asshole and you come back and say that wasn't what you said.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chevrolet Suburban Research All Models and Prices - MSN Autos
> 
> The Chevy Suburban has a listed MPG of 22-23 on the hwy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your figures are sound, but still --- that's exactly half of what my SW2 would do, regularly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Suburban is never going to be an economy car.  My point was in reply to the comment that an SUV getting 22mpg should be reported to Guinness.
Click to expand...


And you are correct, that was out of left field.

But at the same time with the volume of driving I do I could never settle for 22.  I'm unhappy right now with 31.


----------



## boedicca

DGS49 said:


> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.



Your premise that one is obligated to JUSTIFY one's private purchase decisions pins the bogometer.

I don't have to justify my choice of vehicle (or choice of ANYTHING) to you or anyone else, with the rational exception of my husband.

So, frell off.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -  I think you just did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if stupid.......oh hell you're stupid and we all know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your own spelling.  R e a l   s l o w...
> 
> Again, duh.  Guess observation isn't your strong suit.
Click to expand...


  I understand that my use of the word went right over your head. 
But I wouldnt expect anything else from a brain of your caliber.


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
Click to expand...


The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.

Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time.  Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time.  But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.

No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool.  But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did your big government loving ass forgot about the EPA and CAFE? Or are those among the trillions one of things you conveniently never heard of before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
> Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that every point he raised to make the claim that the design is stupid is based on the fact that he knows less than you do about cars, which is a pretty remarkable feat of ignorance, if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good thing nobody did then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand the position that you are staking out here.
> 
> You are claiming that bigger cars are not safer than smaller cars. You also claim that CAFE standards are completely irrelevant to the debate because smaller cars are actually safer. You base this on the belief that smaller cars are more maneuverable, and thus the drivers are able to avoid accidents.
> 
> Did I get that right? I just want to know before I tear you a new asshole and you come back and say that wasn't what you said.
Click to expand...


I didn't even bring up CAFE, dood.  YOU did.  Once again barging in appending shit nobody said just so you can see your name on the internets.  Get OVER yourself already.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying if they dont drive around with something in the bed at all times they dont need it?
> You better get rid of all those extra seats in your car. What a fucken tard.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying it's space that's not being used; in other words whatever they bought the truck for, they're not using it anywhere near its capacity.  On the whole.
> It's not my place to say what they "need", nor did I intimate that.  I'm saying the idea of using the bed to transport things is from empirical evidence not the factor that explains their sales numbers.  Therefore something else is.
> 
> And the seat comparison is valid.  I use mine for cargo.  They fold down.  Duh.
> 
> Sorry if the point went clear over your head but maybe you should do less ducking.
Click to expand...


  How do you know whats in my SUV? And how the hell do you look down into the bed of a truck from a car in the first place? Your whole story sounds like bullshit. Unless of course you jacked up your Accord.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they know what happens when a hurricane blows through town and all those nice safe cars gets stuck in the 3 inches of mud that gets left behind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That and the high water that comes with em.
> You can see better out of a truck,they ride just as good as cars do these days,you can haul your crap around,they're safer in an accident,you can look down into cars for that perfect seat belt boob and cleavage view,you dont get stuck on the beach.
> The only draw backs are slightly lower gas mileage,and people asking you to help them move. And the moving thing can be avoided by not having friends who are to cheap to pay someone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah.  Given the evidence that pickup beds are not being used much for transport, we now have the answer to what their selling point is:
> 
> "Boob and cleavage view".
> 
> Actually I seem to have a pretty good boob view right here
> 
> "Safer in an accident" is another part of that myth.  If I didn't complete the point, to spell it out: the safe vehicle in an accident is the one that *isn't in one*.  Therefore the saf*er* vehicle is the one that's able to avoid getting into one in the first place.  I had two serious encounters with pickup trucks with my little SW2 wagon.  That is, they would have been encounters, and really messy.  I got out of both of them unscathed.  Had I been driving what they were driving I wouldn't be here to tell the tale.  Nor would that motorcyclist who was coming the other way.  He got away clean too.
Click to expand...


  So you enjoy staring at your own breast? Ooooookay.......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> EPA and CAFE have nothing to do with either the Myth of Motoring Mass or the observation that the OP was describing car design, which was what this post was about.
> Thanks for those ten seconds stating the obvious that I'll never get back.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing nobody did then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand the position that you are staking out here.
> 
> You are claiming that bigger cars are not safer than smaller cars. You also claim that CAFE standards are completely irrelevant to the debate because smaller cars are actually safer. You base this on the belief that smaller cars are more maneuverable, and thus the drivers are able to avoid accidents.
> 
> Did I get that right? I just want to know before I tear you a new asshole and you come back and say that wasn't what you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't even bring up CAFE, dood.  YOU did.  Once again barging in appending shit nobody said just so you can see your name on the internets.  Get OVER yourself already.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, asshole, where the fuck did I say you brought up CAFE? I am asking if I understand your position, which is, in part, a response to me mentioning CAFE standards. Does that help clarify the question, or should I dig out the Dick and Jane children's books for you?


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
> 
> Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time.  Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time.  But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
> 
> No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool.  But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
Click to expand...


Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.

And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.

I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
> 
> Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time.  Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time.  But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
> 
> No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool.  But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
> 
> And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
> 
> I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
Click to expand...


All vehicles choices are a matter of compromises.  And few people either have enough money, or are willing to spend enough money, to have a nice pickup as a vehicle that remains parked most of the time.  For example, if a married couple needed a pickup often enough to buy one, they wouldn't want to have to buy 3 vehicles just to have the truck only used when they haul stuff.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
> 
> Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time.  Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time.  But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
> 
> No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool.  But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
> 
> And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
> 
> I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
Click to expand...


  Still haven't answered...How do you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box car? For all you know the guy has 2x6's stacked to the rails.
   What a fucken liar!


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
> 
> Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time.  Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time.  But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
> 
> No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool.  But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
> 
> And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
> 
> I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All vehicles choices are a matter of compromises.  And few people either have enough money, or are willing to spend enough money, to have a nice pickup as a vehicle that remains parked most of the time.  For example, if a married couple needed a pickup often enough to buy one, they wouldn't want to have to buy 3 vehicles just to have the truck only used when they haul stuff.
Click to expand...


Sure. You strike a balance between your relative needs (or in some cases you're relatives' needs  ).  Clearly there is *A* market for pickup trucks and always has been; clearly they have always served a need.  What we're talking about here is degree; the market for such vehicles has exploded in recent years, and it's equally clearly not because the public suddenly started needing to move more stuff; a significant portion of that increase is the same reason for this shift from normal cars to SUVs: because the advertiser told them to.

Just seems to me there are a lot of people who never stop to think "wait -- why am I doing this again?"

Many, if they did, would have to answer, "oh yeah-- so I can haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" -- as they hit the button on their automatic garage door opener and pull into their garage in Shaker Heights.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that you only see the trucks at specific times.
> 
> Whether the owner "needs" a pickup would be based on the use of the bed all of the time.  Someone may only haul something in the bed of my truck 30-40% of the time.  But that still means they need a pickup, since renting one that often would get expensive.
> 
> No doubt there are those who buy trucks because they of the power of suggestion or because they think it looks cool.  But then, that same rational can be used on almost anything that is not based strictly on efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
> 
> And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
> 
> I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still haven't answered...How do you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box car? For all you know the guy has 2x6's stacked to the rails.
> What a fucken liar!
Click to expand...


I don't owe you an answer; I'm ignoring you along with that other troll.

Why am I ignoring you?


HereWeGoAgain said:


> How do you know whats in my SUV? And how the hell do you look down into the bed of a truck from a car in the first place? Your whole story sounds like bullshit. Unless of course you jacked up your Accord.



I don't know (or care) what's in your SUV:
I don't need to look "down";
My story is not bullshit;
My vehicles (3) are not "jacked up"; and
I do not have an Accord.

0 for 5 with 5 strikeouts.  That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".

Adios.


----------



## Sallow

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?



I hate them, but I can see having one if you are in a rural area.

But in urban areas? They are obnoxious and you can't see over them.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
> 
> And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
> 
> I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't answered...How do you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box car? For all you know the guy has 2x6's stacked to the rails.
> What a fucken liar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't owe you an answer; I'm ignoring you along with that other troll.
> 
> Why am I ignoring you?
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know whats in my SUV? And how the hell do you look down into the bed of a truck from a car in the first place? Your whole story sounds like bullshit. Unless of course you jacked up your Accord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know (or care) what's in your SUV:
> I don't need to look "down";
> My story is not bullshit;
> My vehicles (3) are not "jacked up"; and
> I do not have an Accord.
> 
> 0 for 5 with 5 strikeouts.  That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".
> 
> Adios.
Click to expand...


  So how did you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box?
It's physically IMPOSSIBLE!!!  Why do you make shit up?
   You're either lying or you are so stupid that it never occurred to you that the truck may be loaded to the rails.  So which is it?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Yeah,thats what I figured.


----------



## Skull Pilot

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?



So don't buy one.

Personally I think my next everyday driver is going to be a Toyota FJ






I rented on for my vacation in Utah and fell in love with it


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
> 
> And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
> 
> I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All vehicles choices are a matter of compromises.  And few people either have enough money, or are willing to spend enough money, to have a nice pickup as a vehicle that remains parked most of the time.  For example, if a married couple needed a pickup often enough to buy one, they wouldn't want to have to buy 3 vehicles just to have the truck only used when they haul stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. You strike a balance between your relative needs (or in some cases you're relatives' needs  ).  Clearly there is *A* market for pickup trucks and always has been; clearly they have always served a need.  What we're talking about here is degree; the market for such vehicles has exploded in recent years, and it's equally clearly not because the public suddenly started needing to move more stuff; a significant portion of that increase is the same reason for this shift from normal cars to SUVs: because the advertiser told them to.
> 
> Just seems to me there are a lot of people who never stop to think "wait -- why am I doing this again?"
> 
> Many, if they did, would have to answer, "oh yeah-- so I can haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" -- as they hit the button on their automatic garage door opener and pull into their garage in Shaker Heights.
Click to expand...


Some people just like a truck.  If they are willing to pay for it, and pay for the gasoline, why is it stupid to follow their personal preferences?

And the whole "...haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" is simply nonsense.  I doubt most owners come anywhere near the towing capacity of their pickups.  But if I have to haul bales for my straw bale garden, wood for my fireplace & firepit, my dogs after they have played in the river & mud, I would prefer a pickup truck.  None of that involves an asteroid, and I rarely wear anything resembling a cowboy hat.


----------



## WinterBorn

Sallow said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate them, but I can see having one if you are in a rural area.
> 
> But in urban areas? They are obnoxious and you can't see over them.
Click to expand...


I guess by your rules, people who live and work in urban areas should be using mass transit anyway.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All vehicles choices are a matter of compromises.  And few people either have enough money, or are willing to spend enough money, to have a nice pickup as a vehicle that remains parked most of the time.  For example, if a married couple needed a pickup often enough to buy one, they wouldn't want to have to buy 3 vehicles just to have the truck only used when they haul stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You strike a balance between your relative needs (or in some cases you're relatives' needs  ).  Clearly there is *A* market for pickup trucks and always has been; clearly they have always served a need.  What we're talking about here is degree; the market for such vehicles has exploded in recent years, and it's equally clearly not because the public suddenly started needing to move more stuff; a significant portion of that increase is the same reason for this shift from normal cars to SUVs: because the advertiser told them to.
> 
> Just seems to me there are a lot of people who never stop to think "wait -- why am I doing this again?"
> 
> Many, if they did, would have to answer, "oh yeah-- so I can haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" -- as they hit the button on their automatic garage door opener and pull into their garage in Shaker Heights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people just like a truck.  If they are willing to pay for it, and pay for the gasoline, why is it stupid to follow their personal preferences?
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was 'stupid'.  I'm saying it's gullible.  I'm saying there are a whole lot of people buying things not because they do something useful but because they're told to.



WinterBorn said:


> And the whole "...haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" is simply nonsense.  I doubt most owners come anywhere near the towing capacity of their pickups.  But if I have to haul bales for my straw bale garden, wood for my fireplace & firepit, my dogs after they have played in the river & mud, I would prefer a pickup truck.  None of that involves an asteroid, and I rarely wear anything resembling a cowboy hat.



You prolly don't live in Shaker Heights either.  It's just illustration.  And Asteroid-Cowboy man is based on the ads.  I'm satirizing them, as I find that more satisfying than buying their spiel.


----------



## WinterBorn

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?



I have news for you, Police & Fire are not the only ones who have to be out, regardless of the weather.  There are plenty of times that I have had to work in weather that a regular car would not have gotten me there.


----------



## koshergrl

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. You strike a balance between your relative needs (or in some cases you're relatives' needs  ). Clearly there is *A* market for pickup trucks and always has been; clearly they have always served a need. What we're talking about here is degree; the market for such vehicles has exploded in recent years, and it's equally clearly not because the public suddenly started needing to move more stuff; a significant portion of that increase is the same reason for this shift from normal cars to SUVs: because the advertiser told them to.
> 
> Just seems to me there are a lot of people who never stop to think "wait -- why am I doing this again?"
> 
> Many, if they did, would have to answer, "oh yeah-- so I can haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" -- as they hit the button on their automatic garage door opener and pull into their garage in Shaker Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just like a truck. If they are willing to pay for it, and pay for the gasoline, why is it stupid to follow their personal preferences?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was 'stupid'. I'm saying it's gullible. I'm saying there are a whole lot of people buying things not because they do something useful but because they're told to.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the whole "...haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" is simply nonsense. I doubt most owners come anywhere near the towing capacity of their pickups. But if I have to haul bales for my straw bale garden, wood for my fireplace & firepit, my dogs after they have played in the river & mud, I would prefer a pickup truck. None of that involves an asteroid, and I rarely wear anything resembling a cowboy hat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You prolly don't live in Shaker Heights either. It's just illustration. And Asteroid-Cowboy man is based on the ads. I'm satirizing them, as I find that more satisfying than buying their spiel.
Click to expand...

 
What on EARTH makes you think they like trucks because they're TOLD to?

What the hell is wrong with you that you think the entire world that prefers a pickup over a prius is *gullible*?

Are people who like Arabs instead of Thoroughbreds idiots as well?

You're an ignorant elitist. Yuck.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just like a truck. If they are willing to pay for it, and pay for the gasoline, why is it stupid to follow their personal preferences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was 'stupid'. I'm saying it's gullible. I'm saying there are a whole lot of people buying things not because they do something useful but because they're told to.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the whole "...haul an asteroid up that dusty hill with my cowboy hat on" is simply nonsense. I doubt most owners come anywhere near the towing capacity of their pickups. But if I have to haul bales for my straw bale garden, wood for my fireplace & firepit, my dogs after they have played in the river & mud, I would prefer a pickup truck. None of that involves an asteroid, and I rarely wear anything resembling a cowboy hat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You prolly don't live in Shaker Heights either. It's just illustration. And Asteroid-Cowboy man is based on the ads. I'm satirizing them, as I find that more satisfying than buying their spiel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on EARTH makes you think they like trucks because they're TOLD to?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you think the entire world that prefers a pickup over a prius is *gullible*?
> 
> Are people who like Arabs instead of Thoroughbreds idiots as well?
> 
> You're an ignorant elitist. Yuck.
Click to expand...


Again, I didn't say anyone was "idiots".  You did.  Along with 'ignorant elitist' and whatever other poo tantrum you fling when a point doesn't go your way.

For that matter I didn't say they "like" their trucks.  I don't even know that, and I doubt it's the case anyway.  I just don't think they've thought it through.

You have a nice day though dear.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Skull Pilot said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So don't buy one.
> 
> Personally I think my next everyday driver is going to be a Toyota FJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rented on for my vacation in Utah and fell in love with it
Click to expand...


   I love mine. It'll go damn near anywhere. Jack it up three inch's and put some bigger tires on it and it's true beast!!! Put the factory blower on it and it's down right nasty!


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.



He will be HAPPY to tell you exactly what vehicle you may drive..


----------



## Uncensored2008

AquaAthena said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's not like they are making station wagons anymore...
Click to expand...


Dodge makes a wagon.


----------



## koshergrl

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will be HAPPY to tell you exactly what vehicle you may drive..
Click to expand...

 
And I will happily drive whatever the hell I want to drive.

Did you catch the whole psychoanalyst thing about what it means if you like a truck?


----------



## koshergrl

BTW, limpwristed douches:

"
Some observers and California officials seized on the announcement to criticize what they said is California&#8217;s business climate for high taxes and onerous regulations. But Toyota officials said the move to a Dallas suburb had nothing to do with cost-cutting and everything to do with fostering efficiency and collaboration. "

hahahaha

"...it claims the move is to increase efficiency by putting its headquarters where 75 percent of its vehicles are made&#8212; in the South. And, why pray tell, are 75 percent of their cars made in the South?"

Yeah, WHY? After all, southerners and republicans are just gullible dill holes who don't want to tax the shit out of the working man...hey now!

"...today, about 75% of the Toyota branded vehicles sold in the U.S. are built in America &#8212; *many of them at plants in Texas, Mississippi and Kentucky."*
By the way, Toyota peaced out of California, took thousands of jobs to Texas « Hot Air


----------



## koshergrl

As always, the comments are hilarious:

"Aw, come on, Toyota. Just spike the ball already and get it over with. Saying the south has a better business climate would be like saying Rock Hudson was gay! Everybody knew it, just no one wanted to say that out-loud either. LOL
gryphon202 on May 19, 2014 at 9:47 PM 


"Bring the company. Don&#8217;t bring the Libs.
KCB on May 19, 2014 at 9:47 PM "

By the way, Toyota peaced out of California, took thousands of jobs to Texas « Hot Air


----------



## AquaAthena

DriftingSand said:


> I had a Ford Explorer in the late 90s.  I liked it.  It was a bit bulky but it served a purpose and filled a niche. If I wasn't so fond of my full sized pickup I'd get another SUV. I wouldn't get a "Smart Car" or a hybrid at this point.



I have loved all 5 of my SUVs but my needs downsized to a more sporty car, which I have had several of and love to drive. I like to sit HIGH or LOW in a car. I love to turn on a dime and whip in and out of traffic. Love that thrill. 

The only time I hate driving my_ low to the road car,_ is when I am behind anything on wheels that isn't at least going the speed limit, or those I can't see over the top of or around.  But hey....no big deal...I am going to be passing them the first chance I find. And that is going to be a rush for which I will be grateful.  It's all good.


----------



## Desperado

Uncensored2008 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's not like they are making station wagons anymore...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge makes a wagon.
Click to expand...


Not since 2008....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and I noted it was just empirical evidence and don't profess to know what they 'need'; just saying they aren't being utilized.
> 
> And (further anecdotally) though I was only counting moving vehicles on the road, I also see an awful lot of big, large, very empty pickups on a mission to do nothing more complex than run to the grocery to pick up eggs.  All of which simply suggests whatever reason drives much (much, not all) of the pickup sale market has nothing to do with practicality.
> 
> I'm also looking at the advertising-- the Marlboro Man driving along the edge of the cliff  at sunset.  Clearly "practicality" is not the sales angle.  And sales angles are usually designed on what's effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't answered...How do you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box car? For all you know the guy has 2x6's stacked to the rails.
> What a fucken liar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't owe you an answer; I'm ignoring you along with that other troll.
> 
> Why am I ignoring you?
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know whats in my SUV? And how the hell do you look down into the bed of a truck from a car in the first place? Your whole story sounds like bullshit. Unless of course you jacked up your Accord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know (or care) what's in your SUV:
> I don't need to look "down";
> My story is not bullshit;
> My vehicles (3) are not "jacked up"; and
> I do not have an Accord.
> 
> 0 for 5 with 5 strikeouts.  That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".
> 
> Adios.
Click to expand...


Is this your admission that you are too stupid to take a position and defend it?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still haven't answered...How do you look DOWN into the bed of a pick up from your econo box car? For all you know the guy has 2x6's stacked to the rails.
> What a fucken liar!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't owe you an answer; I'm ignoring you along with that other troll.
> 
> Why am I ignoring you?
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know whats in my SUV? And how the hell do you look down into the bed of a truck from a car in the first place? Your whole story sounds like bullshit. Unless of course you jacked up your Accord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know (or care) what's in your SUV:
> I don't need to look "down";
> My story is not bullshit;
> My vehicles (3) are not "jacked up"; and
> I do not have an Accord.
> 
> 0 for 5 with 5 strikeouts.  That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".
> 
> Adios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this your admission that you are too stupid to take a position and defend it?
Click to expand...


  She knows she got busted,and her position is indefensible.


----------



## Swagger

I've never actually driven one, but we used to be driven between accomodation compounds and construction sites in the Gulf States in SUVs. Although they used to scream 'white people with money are sitting in here', the way-above-average air-con was invaluable under the merciless sun. 

I drive an Audi A4.


----------



## Zoom-boing

I was raised on big American made cars, that's what we always had when I was growing up, they're what I learned to drive on.  The last big car I had was a Mercury Grand Marquis.  Worst damn car I've ever driven, uncomfortable, kids squished in the back seat, handled poorly, forget about driving in the snow.  Ten years ago decided to get a new car, went with a Honda Pilot.  Love the thing.  Big enough to hold five adults, two dogs and all our crap.  Best part was that ten years ago the kids were little enough to fight a lot of the time.  The 2nd and 3rd row seats do a 60/40 split, so I could separate the kids out and still have room for stuff.  And no, I don't have to remove the seats or anything, just fold them down.  That feature has come in handy more times than I can count.  Seats 8 very comfortably, I'm up high enough to see over most other vehicles but I'm not towering over them either.  Car handles very well in snowy weather ... a real treat.  Minivans were all the rage because they replaced station wagons.  Minivans are gay, hate them, refuse to buy one.  I"m glad they came out with SUVs.  No law says you have to buy them ... nice to have the option though.


----------



## WinterBorn

Zoom-boing said:


> I was raised on big American made cars, that's what we always had when I was growing up, they're what I learned to drive on.  The last big car I had was a Mercury Grand Marquis.  Worst damn car I've ever driven, uncomfortable, kids squished in the back seat, handled poorly, forget about driving in the snow.  Ten years ago decided to get a new car, went with a Honda Pilot.  Love the thing.  Big enough to hold five adults, two dogs and all our crap.  Best part was that ten years ago the kids were little enough to fight a lot of the time.  The 2nd and 3rd row seats do a 60/40 split, so I could separate the kids out and still have room for stuff.  And no, I don't have to remove the seats or anything, just fold them down.  That feature has come in handy more times than I can count.  Seats 8 very comfortably, I'm up high enough to see over most other vehicles but I'm not towering over them either.  Car handles very well in snowy weather ... a real treat.  Minivans were all the rage because they replaced station wagons.  Minivans are gay, hate them, refuse to buy one.  I"m glad they came out with SUVs.  No law says you have to buy them ... nice to have the option though.



My girlfriend drive a Honda CRV.  It is an excellent smaller SUV.   It has more room than you would think, good gas mileage and handles well.   I would prefer it had 4WD/AWD, but it is pretty good the way it is.


----------



## Zoom-boing

WinterBorn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised on big American made cars, that's what we always had when I was growing up, they're what I learned to drive on.  The last big car I had was a Mercury Grand Marquis.  Worst damn car I've ever driven, uncomfortable, kids squished in the back seat, handled poorly, forget about driving in the snow.  Ten years ago decided to get a new car, went with a Honda Pilot.  Love the thing.  Big enough to hold five adults, two dogs and all our crap.  Best part was that ten years ago the kids were little enough to fight a lot of the time.  The 2nd and 3rd row seats do a 60/40 split, so I could separate the kids out and still have room for stuff.  And no, I don't have to remove the seats or anything, just fold them down.  That feature has come in handy more times than I can count.  Seats 8 very comfortably, I'm up high enough to see over most other vehicles but I'm not towering over them either.  Car handles very well in snowy weather ... a real treat.  Minivans were all the rage because they replaced station wagons.  Minivans are gay, hate them, refuse to buy one.  I"m glad they came out with SUVs.  No law says you have to buy them ... nice to have the option though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My girlfriend drive a Honda CRV.  It is an excellent smaller SUV.   It has more room than you would think, good gas mileage and handles well.   I would prefer it had 4WD/AWD, but it is pretty good the way it is.
Click to expand...


The head room in the Pilot is impressive.  There's a few tweaks I'd made on the interior (probably just personal preference) but overall I totally like this car.  Still have it ten years after purchase.  The newer Pilots look like squished hummers to me, prefer the older model.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was raised on big American made cars, that's what we always had when I was growing up, they're what I learned to drive on.  The last big car I had was a Mercury Grand Marquis.  Worst damn car I've ever driven, uncomfortable, kids squished in the back seat, handled poorly, forget about driving in the snow.  Ten years ago decided to get a new car, went with a Honda Pilot.  Love the thing.  Big enough to hold five adults, two dogs and all our crap.  Best part was that ten years ago the kids were little enough to fight a lot of the time.  The 2nd and 3rd row seats do a 60/40 split, so I could separate the kids out and still have room for stuff.  And no, I don't have to remove the seats or anything, just fold them down.  That feature has come in handy more times than I can count.  Seats 8 very comfortably, I'm up high enough to see over most other vehicles but I'm not towering over them either.  Car handles very well in snowy weather ... a real treat.  Minivans were all the rage because they replaced station wagons.  Minivans are gay, hate them, refuse to buy one.  I"m glad they came out with SUVs.  No law says you have to buy them ... nice to have the option though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My girlfriend drive a Honda CRV.  It is an excellent smaller SUV.   It has more room than you would think, good gas mileage and handles well.   I would prefer it had 4WD/AWD, but it is pretty good the way it is.
Click to expand...


I like the looks of the older CRV (the one with the tire on the back end, not sure what years).  Never got to drive one but I'd try it.

I like 4WD too, when I can get it.  Especially for the rain.


----------



## koshergrl

A friend of mine just got this puppy:






It's cute...but it's funny cuz he drove it home yesterday..this weekend he has to drive back to the dealership to get his truck (which he needs on the 31st) and he's going to have to lay down blankets in the back for his dogs.

LOLOL!

I would have gone with him to pick up his truck since I'm the one who wants to use it...but unfortunately, there isn't enough room for me and mine! Darnit!

hohohoho


----------



## Borillar

Don't knock SUV's and minivans. I've owned station wagons, full size vans, and a couple minivans. If you have to haul around a bunch of people and all their stuff, you can't beat them. I have a sedan now, but will probably go back to a minivan or SUV because I really miss the useful utility. They are roomy, fuel economy on a par with full size sedans, and you can carry 7 people and a bunch of stuff. Wish they would just make a diesel or hybrid version available here in the US.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Mr Clean said:


> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.



I know a couple of people who drive trucks, and WON'T drive a car anymore!  One prefers his F-250 to his wife's Charger R/T for road trips.  His father bought a truck (Suburban) 20 years ago & hasn't owned a car since. (Currently has a diesel Econoline.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
Click to expand...


I have owned a pickup for almost 20 years.  For many years, I owned heavy-duty pickups...a Jeep J-20 and two different F-350's.  I used them hard, including snowplowing...but I also drove them to work with an empty bed.  Now, I drive a Dakota.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa

DGS49 said:


> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUV&#8217;s (and &#8220;crossovers&#8221 are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, don&#8217;t stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires can&#8217;t handle, then YOU SHOULDN&#8217;T BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  It&#8217;s not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUV&#8217;s &#8211; their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUV&#8217;s.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUV&#8217;s is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS &#8211; for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to what&#8217;s coming because there are so many stinkin&#8217; SUV&#8217;s blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you don&#8217;t need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie O&#8217;Donnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine &#8211; for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows don&#8217;t know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevy&#8217;s and Ford&#8217;s that didn&#8217;t even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isn&#8217;t it?



Jeez, don't ever move to Alaska. lol  Lots of SUVs here, lots and lots!  And, by the way, we have to go to work snowstorm or not, roads covered in ice or not. Got my first brand new car in my life...it's a Hyundai Santa Fe Sport with AWD.  Got it last fall and put studded tires on all around for the winter and thank God! We had some terrible roads last winter and my workplace moved from right across the street to clear across town.  I LOVE LOVE LOVE my SUV! : )

(Previously  drove a 4-door sedan with front wheel drive and studded tires all around in winter. It was okay, handled well, but I feel so much safer in my SUV!)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Quantum Windbag said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any vehicle more conspicuously stupid than an SUV?
> 
> SUVs (and crossovers) are big, heavy, and inefficient.  They handle terribly, dont stop very well, and are markedly less comfortable than cars of comparable price and features.  They require more and costlier maintenance, are more complex, and will ultimately cost much more in repairs and upkeep than a comparable sedan over the life of the vehicle.  (Think tires, brakes, ball joints, wheel bearings, transfer cases, etc).
> 
> Most of the justifications for buying an SUV are preposterous.  If there is a snowstorm that is so bad that a FWD car or RWD car with traction control and four good snow-tires cant handle, then YOU SHOULDNT BE OUT DRIVING AROUND IN IT.  And the likelihood that such a storm will arise under conditions where you SIMPLY MUST drive around is approximately zero.  The schools are closed, and/or you can work from home or call in sick.  Police and Fire excepted.
> 
> Regardless of how much money you are  budgeting for a new vehicle, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A CAR THAT IS BETTER FOR THE SAME MONEY AS THE SUV YOU ARE CONSIDERING.  Its not for nothing that the Car Manufacturers are constantly pushing trucks and SUVs  their profit margins are substantially higher on the trucks and SUVs.
> 
> One of the worst features of SUVs is the one that cause many women to favor them:  You can see over the roofs of cars.  But the fact that you can see over the roofs of cars means that YOU ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF CAR DRIVERS  for no reason other than your own self indulgence.  How many parking lot accidents are caused by the fact that the driver of an AUTOMOBILE is completely blind to whats coming because there are so many stinkin SUVs blocking her view?
> 
> The car manufacturers have made great strides in recent years to reduce the 4WD penalty in fuel economy, but nothing they do can compensate for the fact that if you drive a 4WD/AWD vehicle you are carrying around 3-400 pounds of mechanical apparatus that you dont need.  Think of it as having Rush Limbaugh and Rosie ODonnel in your back seat all the time.  It affects not only fuel economy but tire and brake wear, and the load that is placed on the suspension, transmission, and engine  for the life of the car.
> 
> OK, if you live in an area that has a combination of a LOT OF snow for much of the year, and a lot of hills to negotiate, then maybe 4WD can be justified, and if the snowplows dont know where your street is and you actually have to drive around in foot-deep snow for much of the year, then maybe an SUV can be justified, but for the rest of us, it is a stupid indulgence.
> 
> When I was growing up, most families got around with little trouble with rear-wheel drive Chevys and Fords that didnt even have posi-traction.  Amazing, isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those Chevies and Fords that we used to get around in had a lot more power than modern SUVs, worse gas mileage, and were all around more dangerous than those stupid SUVs you are ranting about. I know, I used to drive them, and I would much rather be in an SUV with its modern traction control and other safety features.
> 
> On the other hand, you did brand yourself as a complete ignoramus when it comes to cars.
Click to expand...


He did that LONG ago! (This is the same doofus who actually puts a Porsche Cayman & a Nizzan 370Z in the same class.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Uncensored2008 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have four kids, two grandchildren and two dogs.
> 
> Please tell me what vehicle I should use when we want to go gomewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. It's not like they are making station wagons anymore...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodge makes a wagon.
Click to expand...


Not since 2008!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Zoom-boing said:


> I was raised on big American made cars, that's what we always had when I was growing up, they're what I learned to drive on.  The last big car I had was a Mercury Grand Marquis.  Worst damn car I've ever driven, uncomfortable, kids squished in the back seat, handled poorly, forget about driving in the snow. .



Pablum!  Driven through plenty of snow in Panther cars without a problem.  Your problem was in the driver's seat!


----------



## DGS49

OBVIOUSLY, there are personal circumstances that make an SUV a rational choice for a FEW PEOPLE.  Maybe everyone in your family is XXL or XLL.  Maybe you frequently need to carry around a lot of people and stuff.  One of my co-workers takes Old Folks to Church and Bingo a couple times a week, and they sometimes need to bring their wheelchairs.  He NEEDS a large SUV.  Maybe you live many miles from the nearest paved road in Saskatchewan.

But for MOST people, it is a foolish indulgence, either to satisfy one's pathetic ego or to satisfy a perceived need that either never, or rarely ever occurs.  Nobody "needs" an Escalade or Sequoia or Expedition or Armada.

And it is an indulgence that comes at a cost.  You are making the roads more dangerous for everyone around you who is driving a car.  Why?  Because your SUV handles, brakes, accelerates, and impacts things like a truck.  If you are in a collision, well, as Scottie used to say, "Ya kenna changes the laws of physics," and when you crash into that Ford Focus, you will likely kill the poor bastards inside.  On a less serious note, you are blocking the view of other cars at intersections and in parking lots.  You are wastefully consuming resources that could be put to better use - or better yet, not consumed at all.

My wife's cousin is the worst driver in North America, but fortunately her husband is a doctor who understands physics.  She drives the big Lexus SUV, which we lovingly call, the "QE3."  She hasn't killed anyone yet, but not for the want of trying.

You have every right to indulge yourself, and far be it from me to suggest that the right to purchase dumb vehicles be limited by regulation or what have you.   And don't forget to keep that cell phone with you when you are driving in case you get an "important" call.  It rounds out the picture quite nicely.  But if you ever hit me on my motorcycle you'd better kill me because if you don't I'll wring your fucking neck.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

DGS49 said:


> OBVIOUSLY, there are personal circumstances that make an SUV a rational choice for a FEW PEOPLE.  Maybe everyone in your family is XXL or XLL.  Maybe you frequently need to carry around a lot of people and stuff.  One of my co-workers takes Old Folks to Church and Bingo a couple times a week, and they sometimes need to bring their wheelchairs.  He NEEDS a large SUV.  Maybe you live many miles from the nearest paved road in Saskatchewan.
> 
> But for MOST people, it is a foolish indulgence, either to satisfy one's pathetic ego or to satisfy a perceived need that either never, or rarely ever occurs.  Nobody "needs" an Escalade or Sequoia or Expedition or Armada.
> 
> And it is an indulgence that comes at a cost.  You are making the roads more dangerous for everyone around you who is driving a car.  Why?  Because your SUV handles, brakes, accelerates, and impacts things like a truck.  If you are in a collision, well, as Scottie used to say, "Ya kenna changes the laws of physics," and when you crash into that Ford Focus, you will likely kill the poor bastards inside.  On a less serious note, you are blocking the view of other cars at intersections and in parking lots.  You are wastefully consuming resources that could be put to better use - or better yet, not consumed at all.
> 
> My wife's cousin is the worst driver in North America, but fortunately her husband is a doctor who understands physics.  She drives the big Lexus SUV, which we lovingly call, the "QE3."  She hasn't killed anyone yet, but not for the want of trying.
> 
> You have every right to indulge yourself, and far be it from me to suggest that the right to purchase dumb vehicles be limited by regulation or what have you.   And don't forget to keep that cell phone with you when you are driving in case you get an "important" call.  It rounds out the picture quite nicely.  But if you ever hit me on my motorcycle you'd better kill me because if you don't I'll wring your fucking neck.



  You could say the same thing about the large Mercedes sedans. Or full size vans.
Or classic cars from 60's. All heavy death dealers.
  Sounds like the only acceptable vehicles in your book are one's like you drive or smaller. Or cheaper....but whatever.


----------



## WinterBorn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OBVIOUSLY, there are personal circumstances that make an SUV a rational choice for a FEW PEOPLE.  Maybe everyone in your family is XXL or XLL.  Maybe you frequently need to carry around a lot of people and stuff.  One of my co-workers takes Old Folks to Church and Bingo a couple times a week, and they sometimes need to bring their wheelchairs.  He NEEDS a large SUV.  Maybe you live many miles from the nearest paved road in Saskatchewan.
> 
> But for MOST people, it is a foolish indulgence, either to satisfy one's pathetic ego or to satisfy a perceived need that either never, or rarely ever occurs.  Nobody "needs" an Escalade or Sequoia or Expedition or Armada.
> 
> And it is an indulgence that comes at a cost.  You are making the roads more dangerous for everyone around you who is driving a car.  Why?  Because your SUV handles, brakes, accelerates, and impacts things like a truck.  If you are in a collision, well, as Scottie used to say, "Ya kenna changes the laws of physics," and when you crash into that Ford Focus, you will likely kill the poor bastards inside.  On a less serious note, you are blocking the view of other cars at intersections and in parking lots.  You are wastefully consuming resources that could be put to better use - or better yet, not consumed at all.
> 
> My wife's cousin is the worst driver in North America, but fortunately her husband is a doctor who understands physics.  She drives the big Lexus SUV, which we lovingly call, the "QE3."  She hasn't killed anyone yet, but not for the want of trying.
> 
> You have every right to indulge yourself, and far be it from me to suggest that the right to purchase dumb vehicles be limited by regulation or what have you.   And don't forget to keep that cell phone with you when you are driving in case you get an "important" call.  It rounds out the picture quite nicely.  But if you ever hit me on my motorcycle you'd better kill me because if you don't I'll wring your fucking neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could say the same thing about the large Mercedes sedans. Or full size vans.
> Or classic cars from 60's. All heavy death dealers.
> Sounds like the only acceptable vehicles in your book are one's like you drive or smaller. Or cheaper....but whatever.
Click to expand...


I was thinking something along the same lines.   Why am I to blame for him buying a short little car?  Buy something bigger and you can see.

Also, shitty drivers are shitty drivers, regardless of what they drive.  I put 5k miles a month for 12 years on full sized SUVs and pickup trucks without a single accident.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OBVIOUSLY, there are personal circumstances that make an SUV a rational choice for a FEW PEOPLE.  Maybe everyone in your family is XXL or XLL.  Maybe you frequently need to carry around a lot of people and stuff.  One of my co-workers takes Old Folks to Church and Bingo a couple times a week, and they sometimes need to bring their wheelchairs.  He NEEDS a large SUV.  Maybe you live many miles from the nearest paved road in Saskatchewan.
> 
> But for MOST people, it is a foolish indulgence, either to satisfy one's pathetic ego or to satisfy a perceived need that either never, or rarely ever occurs.  Nobody "needs" an Escalade or Sequoia or Expedition or Armada.
> 
> And it is an indulgence that comes at a cost.  You are making the roads more dangerous for everyone around you who is driving a car.  Why?  Because your SUV handles, brakes, accelerates, and impacts things like a truck.  If you are in a collision, well, as Scottie used to say, "Ya kenna changes the laws of physics," and when you crash into that Ford Focus, you will likely kill the poor bastards inside.  On a less serious note, you are blocking the view of other cars at intersections and in parking lots.  You are wastefully consuming resources that could be put to better use - or better yet, not consumed at all.
> 
> My wife's cousin is the worst driver in North America, but fortunately her husband is a doctor who understands physics.  She drives the big Lexus SUV, which we lovingly call, the "QE3."  She hasn't killed anyone yet, but not for the want of trying.
> 
> You have every right to indulge yourself, and far be it from me to suggest that the right to purchase dumb vehicles be limited by regulation or what have you.   And don't forget to keep that cell phone with you when you are driving in case you get an "important" call.  It rounds out the picture quite nicely.  But if you ever hit me on my motorcycle you'd better kill me because if you don't I'll wring your fucking neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could say the same thing about the large Mercedes sedans. Or full size vans.
> Or classic cars from 60's. All heavy death dealers.
> Sounds like the only acceptable vehicles in your book are one's like you drive or smaller. Or cheaper....but whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking something along the same lines.   Why am I to blame for him buying a short little car?  Buy something bigger and you can see.
> 
> Also, shitty drivers are shitty drivers, regardless of what they drive.  I put 5k miles a month for 12 years on full sized SUVs and pickup trucks without a single accident.
Click to expand...


  I've totaled two vehicles in my life,none of them involving other vehicles.
The first was total driver inattention. The second was dodging a deer. The first one was my first new car I'd ever owned,a Mitsubishi Precis. Drove off the road into a corn field and it was totaled. And I cracked some ribs.
  The second was in a King Ranch Ford F150 which rolled four times. There wasn't a piece on it that could be salvaged,and I walked away from it.
   Had I been in that Precis I would surely be dead.
I'll stick to the bigger vehicles...just in case.


----------



## g4racer

mitsubishi power for the "Smart Car" not electric.  It has been a couple of tears since the Smart Car was in the top 10 for mileage they must be about 25 or 30 on the list by now.
There isn't much wrong with the handling of an SUV the problem is the drivers.  The handling of an SUV can be improved; but it requires a lot of work and expense and the improved handling will not stop accidents.  When people stop doing everything except driving the rate will start droping.  Maintain tires, brakes, suspension and lights.  Drivers must learn the charactoristics and limits of the cars they drive.
4WD may not be better than 2WD just as FWD may not be better than RWD.  FWD is cheaper to build and easier to get thru crash testing.  ABS is not always better.  (I prefer pulse braking and have adapted to cars with ABS.)
Turn your phone off when driving
Pay attention to driving and those around you
Think about what you are doing


----------



## Pogo

g4racer said:


> mitsubishi power for the "Smart Car" not electric.  It has been a couple of tears since the Smart Car was in the top 10 for mileage they must be about 25 or 30 on the list by now.
> There isn't much wrong with the handling of an SUV the problem is the drivers.  The handling of an SUV can be improved; but it requires a lot of work and expense and the improved handling will not stop accidents.  When people stop doing everything except driving the rate will start droping.  Maintain tires, brakes, suspension and lights.  Drivers must learn the charactoristics and limits of the cars they drive.
> 4WD may not be better than 2WD just as FWD may not be better than RWD.  FWD is cheaper to build and easier to get thru crash testing.  ABS is not always better.  (I prefer pulse braking and have adapted to cars with ABS.)
> Turn your phone off when driving
> Pay attention to driving and those around you
> Think about what you are doing



Mistubishi doesn't make the Smart -- Mercedes does.  And I don't think it's ever been in the top for mileage, which is its biggest drawback -- for its size, it should be.


----------



## WinterBorn

g4racer said:


> mitsubishi power for the "Smart Car" not electric.  It has been a couple of tears since the Smart Car was in the top 10 for mileage they must be about 25 or 30 on the list by now.
> There isn't much wrong with the handling of an SUV the problem is the drivers.  The handling of an SUV can be improved; but it requires a lot of work and expense and the improved handling will not stop accidents.  When people stop doing everything except driving the rate will start droping.  Maintain tires, brakes, suspension and lights.  Drivers must learn the charactoristics and limits of the cars they drive.
> 4WD may not be better than 2WD just as FWD may not be better than RWD.  FWD is cheaper to build and easier to get thru crash testing.  ABS is not always better.  (I prefer pulse braking and have adapted to cars with ABS.)
> *Turn your phone off when driving
> Pay attention to driving and those around you
> Think about what you are doing*



THIS!!!

The number of inattentive drivers I have seen is staggering.  Not just cell phone users and people texting, I have seen people reading books or watching dvds while they drive!  WTF??

And yes, turn off your cell phone.  Hands-free doesn't mean anything.  People do not wreck because they are holding something.  They wreck because they are paying attention to the call and not the road.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OBVIOUSLY, there are personal circumstances that make an SUV a rational choice for a FEW PEOPLE.  Maybe everyone in your family is XXL or XLL.  Maybe you frequently need to carry around a lot of people and stuff.  One of my co-workers takes Old Folks to Church and Bingo a couple times a week, and they sometimes need to bring their wheelchairs.  He NEEDS a large SUV.  Maybe you live many miles from the nearest paved road in Saskatchewan.
> 
> But for MOST people, it is a foolish indulgence, either to satisfy one's pathetic ego or to satisfy a perceived need that either never, or rarely ever occurs.  Nobody "needs" an Escalade or Sequoia or Expedition or Armada.
> 
> And it is an indulgence that comes at a cost.  You are making the roads more dangerous for everyone around you who is driving a car.  Why?  Because your SUV handles, brakes, accelerates, and impacts things like a truck.  If you are in a collision, well, as Scottie used to say, "Ya kenna changes the laws of physics," and when you crash into that Ford Focus, you will likely kill the poor bastards inside.  On a less serious note, you are blocking the view of other cars at intersections and in parking lots.  You are wastefully consuming resources that could be put to better use - or better yet, not consumed at all.
> 
> My wife's cousin is the worst driver in North America, but fortunately her husband is a doctor who understands physics.  She drives the big Lexus SUV, which we lovingly call, the "QE3."  She hasn't killed anyone yet, but not for the want of trying.
> 
> You have every right to indulge yourself, and far be it from me to suggest that the right to purchase dumb vehicles be limited by regulation or what have you.   And don't forget to keep that cell phone with you when you are driving in case you get an "important" call.  It rounds out the picture quite nicely.  But if you ever hit me on my motorcycle you'd better kill me because if you don't I'll wring your fucking neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could say the same thing about the large Mercedes sedans. Or full size vans.
> Or classic cars from 60's. All heavy death dealers.
> Sounds like the only acceptable vehicles in your book are one's like you drive or smaller. Or cheaper....but whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking something along the same lines.   Why am I to blame for him buying a short little car?  Buy something bigger and you can see.
> 
> Also, shitty drivers are shitty drivers, regardless of what they drive.  I put 5k miles a month for 12 years on full sized SUVs and pickup trucks without a single accident.
Click to expand...


Seems to me what he's saying is more along the lines that using an SUV is a selfish act.  Aside from being a poor automotive design.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.

I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.

I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could say the same thing about the large Mercedes sedans. Or full size vans.
> Or classic cars from 60's. All heavy death dealers.
> Sounds like the only acceptable vehicles in your book are one's like you drive or smaller. Or cheaper....but whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking something along the same lines.   Why am I to blame for him buying a short little car?  Buy something bigger and you can see.
> 
> Also, shitty drivers are shitty drivers, regardless of what they drive.  I put 5k miles a month for 12 years on full sized SUVs and pickup trucks without a single accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me what he's saying is more along the lines that using an SUV is a selfish act.  Aside from being a poor automotive design.
Click to expand...


He chose fuel mileage and handy size.  I chose spaciousness and a better view.

It doesn't seem to me that either is actually stupid.  Simply a choice.


----------



## koshergrl

According to Pogo, the only people who use suvs use them because somebody told them it was cool.

True story.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.
> 
> I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.
> 
> I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.



See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys.... 

I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:

If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".

If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.

Can't have it both ways.

Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.

Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.


I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.

And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.


----------



## koshergrl

Good for you!

But I know that if I had been driving a smaller car, my two sons and my nephew and I would all have died.  We didn't see the deer, we came around a wide bend doing 65 and there were 3 deer standing in our lane. Two jumped to each side, we caught the one in the middle.


----------



## koshergrl

BTW, I'm not reading all your drivel. I find you long-winded, sanctimonious and painfully misinformed.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking something along the same lines.   Why am I to blame for him buying a short little car?  Buy something bigger and you can see.
> 
> Also, shitty drivers are shitty drivers, regardless of what they drive.  I put 5k miles a month for 12 years on full sized SUVs and pickup trucks without a single accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me what he's saying is more along the lines that using an SUV is a selfish act.  Aside from being a poor automotive design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He chose fuel mileage and handy size.  I chose spaciousness and a better view.
> 
> It doesn't seem to me that either is actually stupid.  Simply a choice.
Click to expand...


The "better view" bit relates to the same additive fallacy I just noted: your SUV being higher up does give you a better view of the road--- until everybody else drives one, then it's neutralized.  Then you have to get an even higher one, then they do, etc etc.

All of that makes sense to do, as long as Numero Uno is the only one on the road that matters.

And btw the level of those headlights, especially pickups, in the rear-view mirror of a real car, is a pain in the ass.  They're right at retina level.  That's not a good thing, but it's damn sure not going to force me to upsize to compete.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> BTW, I'm not reading all your drivel. I find you long-winded, sanctimonious and painfully misinformed.



- and you left out .... "always correct".


----------



## koshergrl

That's me.

Not you.


----------



## Ringel05

Mr Clean said:


> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.


----------



## Ringel05

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could say the same thing about the large Mercedes sedans. Or full size vans.
> Or classic cars from 60's. All heavy death dealers.
> Sounds like the only acceptable vehicles in your book are one's like you drive or smaller. Or cheaper....but whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking something along the same lines.   Why am I to blame for him buying a short little car?  Buy something bigger and you can see.
> 
> Also, shitty drivers are shitty drivers, regardless of what they drive.  I put 5k miles a month for 12 years on full sized SUVs and pickup trucks without a single accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me what he's saying is more along the lines that using an SUV is a selfish act.  Aside from being a poor automotive design.
Click to expand...


Masturbating is a selfish, wasteful act but no one complains about it......... 
I've been in three accidents, (none were my fault), one in a Pinto, one in a Chevy Luv and one in a Ford F-150.  In the first two I was injured, fairly seriously in the Pinto, in the F-150 it turned the horizontal flat rear end of the Camaro that pulled across in front of me in to a vertical flat surface and sheared off the right rear tire.  Later it was discovered the frame on the truck was bent but at the time I pulled out the side panel away from the tire and finished driving it to work.  The responding officer at the scene to one look at the Camaro and my truck and literally said, "Ya gotta love a truck".


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.
> 
> I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.
> 
> I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> *Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.*
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
Click to expand...


"Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."

I do not purchase my car for "the collective".  I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars.  A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.

And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.

And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.
> 
> I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.
> 
> I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
Click to expand...


  That saturn is likely to put a deer in your lap. Which will more then likely kill you.


----------



## Pogo

WinterBorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.
> 
> I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.
> 
> I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> *Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.*
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."
> 
> I do not purchase my car for "the collective".  I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars.  A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.
> 
> And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.
> 
> And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass.
Click to expand...


Just musing.  But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?

See what I'm saying?  We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative.  If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?

"Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight.  The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it.  I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it.  That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.

"accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely.  Which is exactly why I want a smaller one.  Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player.  Who do you put your money on?  It's like that.

"And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already _happened_; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.

This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened.  Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means.  Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.
> 
> I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.
> 
> I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That saturn is likely to put a deer in your lap. Which will more then likely kill you.
Click to expand...



I don't know if you're old enough to remember but when Saturn started, a big part of their ad campaigns was testimonials from drivers who *were* in accidents in them, and walked away unscathed.  It was a big selling point.


----------



## boedicca

Ringel05 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
Click to expand...



Off topic, but I'm reminded of:





Yay, I win the special hate Olympics. I am awesome!

According To Hoyt | It's ALL In the Game


----------



## Ringel05

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> *Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.*
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."
> 
> I do not purchase my car for "the collective".  I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars.  A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.
> 
> And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.
> 
> And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just musing.  But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?
> 
> See what I'm saying?  We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative.  If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?
> 
> "Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight.  The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it.  I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it.  That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.
> 
> "accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely.  Which is exactly why I want a smaller one.  Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player.  Who do you put your money on?  It's like that.
> 
> "And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already _happened_; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.
> 
> *This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened.  Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means.  *Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.
Click to expand...


Based in an ideal world where every driver drives responsibly %100 percent of the time........

That world doesn't exist and never will, people are involved.  I'm on the road a lot I guesstimate (based on observation) that at least 70% of those driving around me are "distracted" in some form or another.


----------



## Pogo

Ringel05 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."
> 
> I do not purchase my car for "the collective".  I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars.  A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.
> 
> And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.
> 
> And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just musing.  But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?
> 
> See what I'm saying?  We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative.  If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?
> 
> "Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight.  The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it.  I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it.  That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.
> 
> "accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely.  Which is exactly why I want a smaller one.  Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player.  Who do you put your money on?  It's like that.
> 
> "And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already _happened_; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.
> 
> *This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened.  Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means.  *Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based in an ideal world where every driver drives responsibly %100 percent of the time........
> 
> That world doesn't exist and never will, people are involved.  I'm on the road a lot I guesstimate (based on observation) that at least 70% of those driving around me are "distracted" in some form or another.
Click to expand...


I see the same thing. 

But that doesn't mean an impact is inevitable, nor that we should just give up and cocoon ourselves in tanks and brace for impact.

And this is personal preference too; I'm firmly on the side of active participation in my own driving rather than sitting in an isolation chamber.  When they offer me tires that will give me a "softer" ride I wonder, "why would I want to _not_ feel the road?"  And A/T (autonomic transmission I call it) is out of the question.

Bottom line, we each drive what works for us...


----------



## Ringel05

Pogo said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just musing.  But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?
> 
> See what I'm saying?  We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative.  If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?
> 
> "Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight.  The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it.  I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it.  That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.
> 
> "accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely.  Which is exactly why I want a smaller one.  Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player.  Who do you put your money on?  It's like that.
> 
> "And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already _happened_; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.
> 
> *This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened.  Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means.  *Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based in an ideal world where every driver drives responsibly %100 percent of the time........
> 
> That world doesn't exist and never will, people are involved.  I'm on the road a lot I guesstimate (based on observation) that at least 70% of those driving around me are "distracted" in some form or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see the same thing.
> 
> But that doesn't mean an impact is inevitable, nor that we should just give up and cocoon ourselves in tanks and brace for impact.
> 
> And this is personal preference too; I'm firmly on the side of active participation in my own driving rather than sitting in an isolation chamber.  When they offer me tires that will give me a "softer" ride I wonder, "why would I want to _not_ feel the road?"  And A/T (autonomic transmission I call it) is out of the question.
> 
> Bottom line, we each drive what works for us...
Click to expand...


True.  I've actually managed to avoid at least ten accidents in my lifetime, four of which were serious and a few I was wondering how I was able to avoid being involved, especially when I was driving my old F-100 without power steering.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That saturn is likely to put a deer in your lap. Which will more then likely kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're old enough to remember but when Saturn started, a big part of their ad campaigns was testimonials from drivers who *were* in accidents in them, and walked away unscathed.  It was a big selling point.
Click to expand...


  A deer coming through the windshield is a whole different kinda accident and I dont care what kinda car you're driving. If it's low to the ground there is a very high likely hood it's gonna end up in your lap. It's still just glass.
 And I've seen the aftermath,and it ain't pretty. The deer ended up in the back seat because it had collapsed the front seats. Killed two people.
   When we bought our property in the Hill Country I made the wife sell her Accord for that very reason. It wasnt a month later she hit a deer.


----------



## g4racer

The engine of the Smart car is a Mistubishi.  I never said they made them.  In the same class as the Isetta made bt BMW (I believe for that was made bt BMW)  It is strange for German manufactures to have engines built by others.  MB Race engines are made in England as are the better Porsche engines.  Check out Illmore and Judd. The women putting on makeup and trimming their hair isthe worst I've seen.  Not even using the visor mirror, which would be bad enough; she had tipped the rear view so it was parallel with the windshield then stretched to use it.  My best estimate is her right cheek was on the handbrake her left foot braced at the corner of the floor and left side of the footwell.  That would have limited the motion of the right leg.


----------



## WinterBorn

Pogo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> *Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.*
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."
> 
> I do not purchase my car for "the collective".  I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars.  A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.
> 
> And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.
> 
> And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just musing.  But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?
> 
> See what I'm saying?  We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative.  If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?
> 
> "Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight.  The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it.  I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it.  That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.
> 
> "accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely.  Which is exactly why I want a smaller one.  Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player.  Who do you put your money on?  It's like that.
> 
> "And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already _happened_; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.
> 
> This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened.  Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means.  Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.
Click to expand...


There is less difference in the responsiveness between an SUV and a sedan than there is difference between the protection offered by the extra bulk and height.  Once a driver learns how his vehicle will respond, he can be almost as agile at avoiding accidents as a sedan driver.  And the ability to see in better allows an earlier reaction.

I get what you are saying.  But I prefer a bigger, roomier vehicle.  I also like a decent ground clearance for my forays off the road.


----------



## Ringel05

WinterBorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective."
> 
> I do not purchase my car for "the collective".  I think accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars.  A smaller car, all else being equal, will hydroplane quicker.
> 
> And a lower car means a greater likelihood the deer will come thru the windshield.
> 
> And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just musing.  But to boil down the point, assuming your accident involves another vehicle, if you have a large, massive vehicle but the one you collide with is equally massive --- what have you gained?
> 
> See what I'm saying?  We don't drive in a vacuum; "larger" is relative.  If what you're larger than has also upsized, then you're no longer larger, are you?
> 
> "Smaller car will hydroplane quicker" -- perhaps; also aerodynamics are a critical factor besides just straight weight.  The SW2 did tend to hydroplane, I noticed when I first got it.  I researched tires to combat that problem, and pretty well conquered it.  That's internal to the vehicle rather than a point of comparison.
> 
> "accident avoidance is relevant in SUVs as well as smaller cars" -- absolutely.  Which is exactly why I want a smaller one.  Take that guy squeezed into the Mini Cooper in Ringel's post above and put him in a basketball game with a tall thin conditioned player.  Who do you put your money on?  It's like that.
> 
> "And more steel means more chance of avoiding injury or death in an accident.  So does more mass" -- again you're assuming impact has already _happened_; less mass/more agility means more chance of avoiding the entire accident, let alone injury or death.
> 
> This is the fatal flaw in this "bigger = safer" myth; it always assumes that the impact is inevitable, that it has already happened.  Preventing it from happening in the first place is what safety means.  Otherwise you're sending that fat guy above into a basketball game on the basis that if he gets knocked down he won't get hurt because he's got all that padding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is less difference in the responsiveness between an SUV and a sedan than there is difference between the protection offered by the extra bulk and height.  Once a driver learns how his vehicle will respond, he can be almost as agile at avoiding accidents as a sedan driver.  And the ability to see in better allows an earlier reaction.
> 
> I get what you are saying.  But I prefer a bigger, roomier vehicle.  I also like a decent ground clearance for my forays off the road.
Click to expand...


You would have hated my wife's old CRX though even muscle cars had a hard time keeping up on twisty turny mountain roads........


----------



## Pogo

g4racer said:


> The engine of the Smart car is a Mistubishi.  I never said they made them.  In the same class as the Isetta made bt BMW (I believe for that was made bt BMW)  It is strange for German manufactures to have engines built by others.  MB Race engines are made in England as are the better Porsche engines.  Check out Illmore and Judd. The women putting on makeup and trimming their hair isthe worst I've seen.  Not even using the visor mirror, which would be bad enough; she had tipped the rear view so it was parallel with the windshield then stretched to use it.  My best estimate is her right cheek was on the handbrake her left foot braced at the corner of the floor and left side of the footwell.  That would have limited the motion of the right leg.



If we're discussing handling and safety, what difference does it make who supplies the engine?

My MINI has an engine from Brazil and a transmission from Germany.  The engine is underpowered but neither of those have anything to do with how it handles a curve or brakes.  And man, does it handle.  I have to keep getting out of the car to confirm that it's not actually riding on rails, it's that good.

You are correct on the Isetta, it was also a BMW product:






There used to be (it's been sold off now) a "Microcar Museum" east of Atlanta.  Here's a couple of shots from my visit there - the yellow one is electric and more recent (2001), like the Isetta, a three-wheeler ...


----------



## Missourian

Pogo said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
Click to expand...



Dude,  you sooooooo need XM... 

25% loaded is MUCH higher than I would have expected.

Most of the time I only haul one way...and I don't haul something every time I go out.

I can't be without a truck.

Whether it's taking the riding mower to my other property...picking up a load of drywall...bringing an engine block back to the machine shop...towing the boat to the lake...getting a load of mulch...taking the deer to the processor...try doing any of those things with a smart car.

You know where I find that Smart Car owner when he/she need to do those things?

On my doorstep on my day off, begging to borrow my truck.

What?  Those branches from the windstorm need to go to the city compost heap?  Well,  I reckon you should stick 'em in the back seat.


----------



## Pogo

Missourian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could never understand why someone would willingly drive a truck instead of a car when they didn't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude,  you sooooooo need XM...
> 
> 25% loaded is MUCH higher than I would have expected.
> 
> Most of the time I only haul one way...and I don't haul something every time I go out.
> 
> I can't be without a truck.
> 
> Whether it's taking the riding mower to my other property...picking up a load of drywall...bringing an engine block back to the machine shop...towing the boat to the lake...getting a load of mulch...taking the deer to the processor...try doing any of those things with a smart car.
> 
> You know where I find that Smart Car owner when he/she need to do those things?
> 
> On my doorstep on my day off, begging me to borrow my truck.
Click to expand...


Actually I have XM.  I may even keep it.  It takes my mind off the fact that I'm driving a behemoth. 

I wouldn't have either a pickup or a Smart, because they're designed for different things that I don't need.  I don't live in a city, so there goes the Smart, plus as noted earlier it's just not fuel-efficient enough.  And the few times I ever need a truck are few and far between enough that it's much more economical to rent one.  Certainly they have their market, and always did.  What I was mainly saying a while back is that that (true) market does not jibe with the sales figures; that there must be another element in play.


----------



## Missourian

Pogo said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do a lot of long distance driving, meaning being on the road all day.  That requires some kind of mental exercise to stay interested.  Sometimes as an exercise I count the pickup trucks in terms of loaded and empty.  If I can see the bed I'll count that truck as either carrying something or not carrying anything.  Covered beds don't count, they can't be seen.
> 
> The ideal maximum efficiency rate should be 100% loaded - always carrying something somewhere.  Of course that's not realistic so a realistic rate should be at least 50%, figuring a trip out empty to get something and a trip back loaded, or vice versa.
> 
> What I consistently come up with on this poll is around 75 to 80% of those truck beds *empty*.
> 
> So the answer to why drive a truck if you don't have to seems to be at least in part, because the TV tells them to.  There's a lot of pickemups being used practically but there's a lot more doing nothing.  Tells a lot about the power of suggestion; what are the chances that a citizen of suburban Cleveland is ever going to have occasion to tow an asteroid?  Doesn't matter; they'll sell it because they _can_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude,  you sooooooo need XM...
> 
> 25% loaded is MUCH higher than I would have expected.
> 
> Most of the time I only haul one way...and I don't haul something every time I go out.
> 
> I can't be without a truck.
> 
> Whether it's taking the riding mower to my other property...picking up a load of drywall...bringing an engine block back to the machine shop...towing the boat to the lake...getting a load of mulch...taking the deer to the processor...try doing any of those things with a smart car.
> 
> You know where I find that Smart Car owner when he/she need to do those things?
> 
> On my doorstep on my day off, begging me to borrow my truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have XM.  I may even keep it.  It takes my mind off the fact that I'm driving a behemoth.
> 
> I wouldn't have either a pickup or a Smart, because they're designed for different things that I don't need.  I don't live in a city, so there goes the Smart, plus as noted earlier it's just not fuel-efficient enough.  And the few times I ever need a truck are few and far between enough that it's much more economical to rent one.  Certainly they have their market, and always did.  What I was mainly saying a while back is that that (true) market does not jibe with the sales figures; that there must be another element in play.
Click to expand...



I've had XM since it first came out...back then you could get a lifetime subscription (they consider three radios a lifetime) for $300.

Wish I would have bought it.  My folks have my first radio...still working,  and I'm using my second...it's been probably 10 years.

Anyway,  I smacked my antenna on a tree limb and it stopped working...let me tell you,  I've been climbing the walls without it.

It might be a little better for me than it is for you...I can listen to Fox News most of the day,  Car Talk in the afternoon,  some Mark Levin and then some Cardinals Baseball...my day is complete.

Headline news has the murder mysteries on the weekends and C-Span give ya MTP,  Talk of the Nation,  Fox News Sunday, ABC Snuffluphugus Show and CNN State of the Union back to back on Sunday at noon.

How is the Lefty channel?

P.S.  the good antenna is $25 a Walmart site to store... as opposed to $69 at the T.S.


----------



## Jughead

I do indeed appreciate my pickup truck, and it's not just for the 4WD for the snow. It is very convenient when purchasing a large item, and not have to wait for it to be delivered. Not to mention, is has the power to tow a boat, or any other heavy equipment (like an ATV). Best of all, it is very useful when at a sporting event (like football), and having a tailgate party in the parking lot. It has plenty of room in the back to carry a portable BBQ. It's also hard to enjoy offroading without an SUV or a pickup equipped with 4WD.


----------



## Pogo

Missourian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude,  you sooooooo need XM...
> 
> 25% loaded is MUCH higher than I would have expected.
> 
> Most of the time I only haul one way...and I don't haul something every time I go out.
> 
> I can't be without a truck.
> 
> Whether it's taking the riding mower to my other property...picking up a load of drywall...bringing an engine block back to the machine shop...towing the boat to the lake...getting a load of mulch...taking the deer to the processor...try doing any of those things with a smart car.
> 
> You know where I find that Smart Car owner when he/she need to do those things?
> 
> On my doorstep on my day off, begging me to borrow my truck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have XM.  I may even keep it.  It takes my mind off the fact that I'm driving a behemoth.
> 
> I wouldn't have either a pickup or a Smart, because they're designed for different things that I don't need.  I don't live in a city, so there goes the Smart, plus as noted earlier it's just not fuel-efficient enough.  And the few times I ever need a truck are few and far between enough that it's much more economical to rent one.  Certainly they have their market, and always did.  What I was mainly saying a while back is that that (true) market does not jibe with the sales figures; that there must be another element in play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've had XM since it first came out...back then you could get a lifetime subscription (they consider three radios a lifetime) for $300.
> 
> Wish I would have bought it.  My folks have my first radio...still working,  and I'm using my second...it's been probably 10 years.
> 
> Anyway,  I smacked my antenna on a tree limb and it stopped working...let me tell you,  I've been climbing the walls without it.
> 
> It might be a little better for me than it is for you...I can listen to Fox News most of the day,  Car Talk in the afternoon,  some Mark Levin and then some Cardinals Baseball...my day is complete.
> 
> Headline news has the murder mysteries on the weekends and C-Span give ya MTP,  Talk of the Nation,  Fox News Sunday, ABC Snuffluphugus Show and CNN State of the Union back to back on Sunday at noon.
> 
> How is the Lefty channel?
Click to expand...



I have no idea.  After hanging out here the last thing I need to hear on the radio is politics. 

When I first got it I kept the comedy channels on most of the time, until I started to hear the same tracks over and over.  I like having baseball now that it's in season, but most of the rest of the time I've generally got CBC on -- access to much better public radio than our cheap Congress allows us.  Once in a while I'll hit the jazz channel.  Have to say though the sound quality just isn't up to FM radio, so sometimes I'll go to that or my own burned music discs.


----------



## Missourian

Pogo said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have XM.  I may even keep it.  It takes my mind off the fact that I'm driving a behemoth.
> 
> I wouldn't have either a pickup or a Smart, because they're designed for different things that I don't need.  I don't live in a city, so there goes the Smart, plus as noted earlier it's just not fuel-efficient enough.  And the few times I ever need a truck are few and far between enough that it's much more economical to rent one.  Certainly they have their market, and always did.  What I was mainly saying a while back is that that (true) market does not jibe with the sales figures; that there must be another element in play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've had XM since it first came out...back then you could get a lifetime subscription (they consider three radios a lifetime) for $300.
> 
> Wish I would have bought it.  My folks have my first radio...still working,  and I'm using my second...it's been probably 10 years.
> 
> Anyway,  I smacked my antenna on a tree limb and it stopped working...let me tell you,  I've been climbing the walls without it.
> 
> It might be a little better for me than it is for you...I can listen to Fox News most of the day,  Car Talk in the afternoon,  some Mark Levin and then some Cardinals Baseball...my day is complete.
> 
> Headline news has the murder mysteries on the weekends and C-Span give ya MTP,  Talk of the Nation,  Fox News Sunday, ABC Snuffluphugus Show and CNN State of the Union back to back on Sunday at noon.
> 
> How is the Lefty channel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea.  After hanging out here the last thing I need to hear on the radio is politics.
> 
> When I first got it I kept the comedy channels on most of the time, until I started to hear the same tracks over and over.  I like having baseball now that it's in season, but most of the rest of the time I've generally got CBC on -- access to much better public radio than our cheap Congress allows us.  Once in a while I'll hit the jazz channel.  Have to say though the sound quality just isn't up to FM radio, so sometimes I'll go to that or my own burned music discs.
Click to expand...


Don't think I've ever tuned in CBC,  I'll have to check it out.

My next radio will be a-la-carte enabled...you choose 50 channels...$7.99 per month.

http://www.siriusxm.com/packages/alacarte


----------



## Pogo

Missourian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had XM since it first came out...back then you could get a lifetime subscription (they consider three radios a lifetime) for $300.
> 
> Wish I would have bought it.  My folks have my first radio...still working,  and I'm using my second...it's been probably 10 years.
> 
> Anyway,  I smacked my antenna on a tree limb and it stopped working...let me tell you,  I've been climbing the walls without it.
> 
> It might be a little better for me than it is for you...I can listen to Fox News most of the day,  Car Talk in the afternoon,  some Mark Levin and then some Cardinals Baseball...my day is complete.
> 
> Headline news has the murder mysteries on the weekends and C-Span give ya MTP,  Talk of the Nation,  Fox News Sunday, ABC Snuffluphugus Show and CNN State of the Union back to back on Sunday at noon.
> 
> How is the Lefty channel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea.  After hanging out here the last thing I need to hear on the radio is politics.
> 
> When I first got it I kept the comedy channels on most of the time, until I started to hear the same tracks over and over.  I like having baseball now that it's in season, but most of the rest of the time I've generally got CBC on -- access to much better public radio than our cheap Congress allows us.  Once in a while I'll hit the jazz channel.  Have to say though the sound quality just isn't up to FM radio, so sometimes I'll go to that or my own burned music discs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't think I've ever tuned in CBC,  I'll have to check it out.
> 
> My next radio will be a-la-carte enabled...you choose 50 channels...$7.99 per month.
> 
> The A La Carte Package - SiriusXM Radio
Click to expand...


Radio One rocks.  I like the documentary shows like "Ideas" and "Under the Influence".  The Current is a pretty good look at contemporary issues sometimes too.

Canada Talks has a conspiracy show, I forget when it's on but they had Roger Stone on with his LBJ book.

Thanks for the a la carte link - my renewal's up soon, good to know 

(/offtopic)


----------



## MikeK

On the advice of a knowledgeable family friend I've owned nothing but (used) Cadillac cars for more than the past forty years and I have absolutely no regrets.  They are big, well-made, comfortable, luxurious, good-looking, and they ride like sailboats on calm water.  There is a problem in that they are making them smaller and the newer ones are not as well built, so I'm not looking forward to upgrading.  

The number of different types of personal vehicles on the roads today reflects the extreme diversity in personal tastes of our population.  My feelings on the matter is to each his/her own -- but I extremely dislike SUVs for the simple reason they block my forward view.  I don't care about what is good or bad about them or how others feel about them.  All I know is I don't like them and I wish they never were introduced.


----------



## Missourian

MikeK said:


> On the advice of a knowledgeable family friend I've owned nothing but (used) Cadillac cars for more than the past forty years and I have absolutely no regrets.  They are big, well-made, comfortable, luxurious, good-looking, and they ride like sailboats on calm water.  There is a problem in that they are making them smaller and the newer ones are not as well built, so I'm not looking forward to upgrading.
> 
> The number of different types of personal vehicles on the roads today reflects the extreme diversity in personal tastes of our population.  My feelings on the matter is to each his/her own -- but I extremely dislike SUVs for the simple reason they block my forward view.  I don't care about what is good or bad about them or how others feel about them.  All I know is I don't like them and I wish they never were introduced.




Don't settle.

Waylon Jennings' 73 Eldorado Convertible is for sale right around the corner from my house...











Only $28,000  Waylon Jennings 1973 Cadillac Eldorado convertible


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.
> 
> I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.
> 
> I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
Click to expand...


You're lucky you're alive.  My wife got called to a fatality last year...guy hit a deer with a Saturn Ion & it came through the windshield.  Both occupants dead at the scene, closed caskets.

My uncle hit a deer at 50MPH with his truck a while back.  He had to wash the truck & replace a headlight the next day.


----------



## Jarlaxle

g4racer said:


> The engine of the Smart car is a Mistubishi.  I never said they made them.  In the same class as the Isetta made bt BMW (I believe for that was made bt BMW)  It is strange for German manufactures to have engines built by others.  MB Race engines are made in England as are the better Porsche engines.  Check out Illmore and Judd. The women putting on makeup and trimming their hair isthe worst I've seen.  Not even using the visor mirror, which would be bad enough; she had tipped the rear view so it was parallel with the windshield then stretched to use it.  My best estimate is her right cheek was on the handbrake her left foot braced at the corner of the floor and left side of the footwell.  That would have limited the motion of the right leg.



Not just cars: the new BMW C650GT engine is made (in Taiwan) by Kymco.


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because it's "selfish" to prefer an suv.
> 
> I hit a deer when I had three very young boys in the car with me. The deer was blown into pieces, my radiator was destroyed...the hood of the car was busted and came up with the deer...which almost came into the rig with the boys and I until the bug shield caught the bottom edge of it and pulled it back down under the rig.
> 
> I'll stick with my big vehicles. You call it selfish, I call it increased chance of survival next time I hit a deer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're lucky you're alive.  My wife got called to a fatality last year...guy hit a deer with a Saturn Ion & it came through the windshield.  Both occupants dead at the scene, closed caskets.
> 
> My uncle hit a deer at 50MPH with his truck a while back.  He had to wash the truck & replace a headlight the next day.
Click to expand...


It's not "luck" -- it's deliberate.  I was _intentionally _driving a car that can maneuver out of these things, including a lot hairier escapades than that.  Suffice to say some of those moves could never have been pulled off in a vehicle like the F-150 that pulled the bonehead stunt that made me take the evasive action that I'm pretty sure made me probably the only car to go through a certain general store's parking lot at 50mph.  Or the other one when the motorcycle was coming the other way.  The latter one did involve contact; it cracked my taillight lens.

No way in the world I want to drive a car that's incapable of that kind of action.  Ever. As I said I'm an active participant in my driving.  I don't sit back waiting to be hit and I find that mentality bizarre.


----------



## MikeK

Missourian said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the advice of a knowledgeable family friend I've owned nothing but (used) Cadillac cars for more than the past forty years and I have absolutely no regrets.  They are big, well-made, comfortable, luxurious, good-looking, and they ride like sailboats on calm water.  There is a problem in that they are making them smaller and the newer ones are not as well built, so I'm not looking forward to upgrading.
> 
> The number of different types of personal vehicles on the roads today reflects the extreme diversity in personal tastes of our population.  My feelings on the matter is to each his/her own -- but I extremely dislike SUVs for the simple reason they block my forward view.  I don't care about what is good or bad about them or how others feel about them.  All I know is I don't like them and I wish they never were introduced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't settle.
> 
> Waylon Jennings' 73 Eldorado Convertible is for sale right around the corner from my house...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only $28,000  Waylon Jennings 1973 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
Click to expand...

It's a beauty and worth every penny.  (I like Waylon Jennings, too.)

I had a '76 Eldorado convertible.  Red with white leather & top.  Absolutely gorgeous car.  Probably the best-looking car ever made.  Broke my heart when it was stolen.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you would brake for deer like I brake for turkeys....
> 
> I can't believe you took my bait twice in one day but thanks.  Here we go:
> 
> If you're part of the mentality that "bigger is safer" (that smaller cars are more dangerous) as you do above, then you _must _also agree that everyone buying bigger cars makes the pool of all cars bigger and heavier ---- and that makes the entire road more dangerous.  That means if you get a car that's 4000 pounds, I have to get one that's 4500, but then you're not safe, so you go to 5000 ... on and on, and you have the same worthless argument as the "good guy with a gun" -- the fallacy of confronting a problem by adding fuel to it.  There's no win there.  You end up with a population of people driving tanks.  It's like baseball salaries -- no such thing as "enough".
> 
> If you *don't* believe that myth (like me), then your argument for weight-as-basis-of-value disappears.
> 
> Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Therefore, if you believe more mass means more safety, then acting on it ups the ante for everybody and forces them to upsize too.  And that means you're part of the same problem that the mass myth says is the problem, and that means you're doing it for Numero Uno.  Ergo: selfish.
> 
> Which could well be the difference in philosophy between whether the greater good is that of the individual or that of the collective.
> 
> 
> I hit a deer with my 2500 pound Saturn SW2 (more than once).  The worst one took out my whole quarter panel (it just broke off - fiberglas body).  The deer came out of nowhere and was killed.  I got a new quarter panel and bolted it on.  More significant is all the deer, pickup trucks and other animals I _didn't_ hit because the car is low enough and nimble enough to navigate around them.  Some of the moves I did with that station wagon, had I tried them with an SUV I would have ended up spinning around upside down on my roof, or worse.
> 
> And that's why I'll always prefer that kind of car, unless I'm doing something that absolutely needs another application, like a truck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lucky you're alive.  My wife got called to a fatality last year...guy hit a deer with a Saturn Ion & it came through the windshield.  Both occupants dead at the scene, closed caskets.
> 
> My uncle hit a deer at 50MPH with his truck a while back.  He had to wash the truck & replace a headlight the next day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "luck" -- it's deliberate.  I was _intentionally _driving a car that can maneuver out of these things, including a lot hairier escapades than that.  Suffice to say some of those moves could never have been pulled off in a vehicle like the F-150 that pulled the bonehead stunt that made me take the evasive action that I'm pretty sure made me probably the only car to go through a certain general store's parking lot at 50mph.  Or the other one when the motorcycle was coming the other way.  The latter one did involve contact; it cracked my taillight lens.
> 
> No way in the world I want to drive a car that's incapable of that kind of action.  Ever. As I said I'm an active participant in my driving.  I don't sit back waiting to be hit and I find that mentality bizarre.
Click to expand...


  I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
  And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're lucky you're alive.  My wife got called to a fatality last year...guy hit a deer with a Saturn Ion & it came through the windshield.  Both occupants dead at the scene, closed caskets.
> 
> My uncle hit a deer at 50MPH with his truck a while back.  He had to wash the truck & replace a headlight the next day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "luck" -- it's deliberate.  I was _intentionally _driving a car that can maneuver out of these things, including a lot hairier escapades than that.  Suffice to say some of those moves could never have been pulled off in a vehicle like the F-150 that pulled the bonehead stunt that made me take the evasive action that I'm pretty sure made me probably the only car to go through a certain general store's parking lot at 50mph.  Or the other one when the motorcycle was coming the other way.  The latter one did involve contact; it cracked my taillight lens.
> 
> No way in the world I want to drive a car that's incapable of that kind of action.  Ever. As I said I'm an active participant in my driving.  I don't sit back waiting to be hit and I find that mentality bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
Click to expand...


That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.  

*That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.



HereWeGoAgain said:


> And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.



You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "luck" -- it's deliberate.  I was _intentionally _driving a car that can maneuver out of these things, including a lot hairier escapades than that.  Suffice to say some of those moves could never have been pulled off in a vehicle like the F-150 that pulled the bonehead stunt that made me take the evasive action that I'm pretty sure made me probably the only car to go through a certain general store's parking lot at 50mph.  Or the other one when the motorcycle was coming the other way.  The latter one did involve contact; it cracked my taillight lens.
> 
> No way in the world I want to drive a car that's incapable of that kind of action.  Ever. As I said I'm an active participant in my driving.  I don't sit back waiting to be hit and I find that mentality bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.
Click to expand...


 And like I said,I dont care who you are. A deer can change directions faster then you'll ever be able to. So dont try and tell me you have faster reactions then a deer,because you dont.


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And like I said,I dont care who you are. A deer can change directions faster then you'll ever be able to. So dont try and tell me you have faster reactions then a deer,because you dont.
Click to expand...


So you want to come out here and dictate what I drive - let alone what my reaction time is?

Rotsa ruck.


----------



## mamooth

A 2002 SUV model will kind of be a death trap due to the rollover hazard, but any 2014 model will have a better design and electronic stability control. That makes rollover far less likely, and the safety record of recent SUV models is excellent, much better than cars and almost as good as minivans.

Pickups, however, still stink at safety.


----------



## koshergrl

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like I said,I dont care who you are. A deer can change directions faster then you'll ever be able to. So dont try and tell me you have faster reactions then a deer,because you dont.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to come out here and dictate what I drive - let alone what my reaction time is?
> 
> Rotsa ruck.
Click to expand...


Er, no. Disagreeing with you is not dictating to you what you must drive.

And your experience is shit with deer, and driving, if you think any of that blather you just wrote is true.


----------



## koshergrl

I also had a deer jump down from an enbankment, on a corner, when I was driving a GEO. It came down right on the front left bumper. 

You can't evade that shit. There was no evading the three deer on the corner either.


----------



## koshergrl

We cut that deer up and called it venison.

There was nothing left of the one I hit with the truck. The stater who talked to me said there was like one haunch by the road...they couldn't  find the rest of it. He said we were lucky to be alive. Having been there, I knew how lucky we were...and how having the kids buckled in saved them, before it was law.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And like I said,I dont care who you are. A deer can change directions faster then you'll ever be able to. So dont try and tell me you have faster reactions then a deer,because you dont.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to come out here and dictate what I drive - let alone what my reaction time is?
> 
> Rotsa ruck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er, no. Disagreeing with you is not dictating to you what you must drive.
Click to expand...


I described what works for *me*, and he jumped in redefining to what works for *him*.  Perhaps he's under the impression it's all about him when it's not.  I dunno.



koshergrl said:


> And your experience is shit with deer, and driving, if you think any of that blather you just wrote is true.



I should - I was there for it.

Hey I just don't believe in cowering in my house because if I step outside a meteor might hit me.  I take control and I takes my chances.  So sue me.


----------



## koshergrl

It has worked for you because you have been lucky, and probably blissfully unaware of the times when you had very near misses.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> It has worked for you because you have been lucky, and probably blissfully unaware of the times when you had very near misses.



Not so much "unaware" as ... "heavily involved".

Awareness is everything.


----------



## koshergrl

No, "unaware" and "heavily involved" are two different things. 

You were heavily involved in the incidents you're aware of.

You were unaware of the rest.

You're young and stupid, you still think you're invincible. You're not and there are situations you cannot exert any meaningful control over.

Livestock and wildlife along the rode is one of those situations. I worry for your safety..and the safety of others... given your idiotic sense of infallibility on the road.

Incidentally, evasive action is impossible on a narrow road if there is oncoming traffic.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> No, "unaware" and "heavily involved" are two different things.
> 
> You were heavily involved in the incidents you're aware of.
> 
> You were unaware of the rest.
> 
> You're young and stupid, you still think you're invincible. You're not and there are situations you cannot exert any meaningful control over.
> 
> Livestock and wildlife along the rode is one of those situations. I worry for your safety..and the safety of others... given your idiotic sense of infallibility on the road.
> 
> Incidentally, evasive action is impossible on a narrow road if there is oncoming traffic.



Um, I'm older than you m'dear.  Don't worry about me.  I'm flattered at your concern for my well being but of course I'm used to that by now. 

And yes I am unaware of incidents that have have never happened.  But I tell you what, one of my F-150 encounters was on such a two-lane with a motorcycle coming the other way.  The F-150 turned off to the right and then decided he wasn't turning right after all and wanted instead to be in the space where I was.  We got out of that with nobody impacted except for my cracked taillight lens.

I go out there prepared for this kind of thing.  So sue me.


----------



## koshergrl

I thought you were really young. I thought somebody told me that.

Anyway, I've driven many, many miles. I've seen a lot of cocky drivers who think they know it all do some really incredibly stupid things. The whole "I can evade anything" attitude goes with that.  Those are the assholes who evade off the shoulder or evade into oncoming traffic.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "luck" -- it's deliberate.  I was _intentionally _driving a car that can maneuver out of these things, including a lot hairier escapades than that.  Suffice to say some of those moves could never have been pulled off in a vehicle like the F-150 that pulled the bonehead stunt that made me take the evasive action that I'm pretty sure made me probably the only car to go through a certain general store's parking lot at 50mph.  Or the other one when the motorcycle was coming the other way.  The latter one did involve contact; it cracked my taillight lens.
> 
> No way in the world I want to drive a car that's incapable of that kind of action.  Ever. As I said I'm an active participant in my driving.  I don't sit back waiting to be hit and I find that mentality bizarre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.
Click to expand...


  So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!


----------



## HenryBHough

T'was Hitler wot came up with the people's car - the volks wagen.  All the car anyone would ever need.  All the car anyone other than the party elite would be allowed to own.

See the parallel with today's hybrid-thumping liberals?


----------



## Pogo

HenryBHough said:


> T'was Hitler wot came up with the people's car -....



Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler. 



HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!
Click to expand...


What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
And I wasn't talking to you anyway.

This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.

Happy motoring.


----------



## HenryBHough

I believe I just heard a liberal say he/she/it is allowed to think without first asking the party WHAT to think!


----------



## koshergrl

Pogo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> T'was Hitler wot came up with the people's car -....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
> Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
> And I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> 
> This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.
> 
> Happy motoring.
Click to expand...


You senile old bat. Nobody is telling you how to drive or what to drive. We're just telling you that your commentary leaves us to believe you drive like an idiot.

Which you are free to do!

And in case you forgot, the title of this thread is about forcing US to drive retardo cars. Not the other way around. And you are the one who said that the only reason people drive suvs is because they were told to by someone in Detroit. 

You're wrong.

You dumb OLD fart!


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> T'was Hitler wot came up with the people's car -....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
> Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
> And I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> 
> This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.
> 
> Happy motoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You senile old bat.
Click to expand...




I seem to have aged decades in the space of a couple of hours 

And to think I gave up smoking back in the '80s.  Ya can't win.  



koshergrl said:


> Nobody is telling you how to drive or what to drive. We're just telling you that your commentary leaves us to believe you drive like an idiot.
> 
> Which you are free to do!



Thank you, that was like pulling teeth.  Troll-boy here has been nipping at everything I post, gainsaying, even making shit up.  Even you didn't do that.  Clearly he wants control of my steering wheel.  Nobody, but nobody, gets that.  But for all of my idiotic driving in everything from econoboxes to large trucks over a million and a half miles, nobody has ever been hurt, not even slightly.  I think I'll stay with what works.  

Remember, I'm a lot older since this morning.  Matter o' fact I'm pretty sure I invented the wheel.



koshergrl said:


> And in case you forgot, the title of this thread is about forcing US to drive retardo cars. Not the other way around. And you are the one who said that the only reason people drive suvs is because they were told to by someone in Detroit.
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> You dumb OLD fart!



No I don't see anything about "force" in the OP.  I see an assessment that they're "stupid" in design.  And yes I do think the reason SUVs weren't shunned like the Edsel is because of the power of advertising.  It damn sure wasn't the design.

So that's what I think... which I am free to do!


----------



## koshergrl

If only you were better at it.

Surely you've had enough practice, given your advanced years.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> T'was Hitler wot came up with the people's car -....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
> Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
> And I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> 
> This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.
> 
> Happy motoring.
Click to expand...


  I dont give a fuck if you ride a unicycle. Just dont tell me you can dodge a deer while driving 60 mph.Because it's not possible without wrecking in the process.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> If only you were better at it.
> 
> Surely you've had enough practice, given your advanced years.



Eh, what's that?  Nurse!  I need my ear trumpet.  Eye trumpet. Whatever.

I've never hurt anybody including myself.  What's to be "better" at?


----------



## Pogo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> T'was Hitler wot came up with the people's car -....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
> Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
> And I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> 
> This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.
> 
> Happy motoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont give a fuck if you ride a unicycle. Just dont tell me you can dodge a deer while driving 60 mph.Because it's not possible without wrecking in the process.
Click to expand...


Not for you, I get that.

Oh well. 

You brought in "60 mph", not me.  You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads.


----------



## HenryBHough

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I dont give a fuck if you ride a unicycle. Just dont tell me you can dodge a deer while driving 60 mph.Because it's not possible without wrecking in the process.



Let us assume the freakin' idiot did try dodging a deer whilst driving 60 mph.  The brain damage from the resulting crash would explain so much!


----------



## Kooshdakhaa

It's moose we have to worry about hitting where I am, not deer.  And I sure as hell don't want to be in some itty-bitty car if I hit a moose.

Mind you, I take all possible precautions NOT to hit a moose at all.  But it happens, and people get killed when it happens, too.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
> Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
> And I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> 
> This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.
> 
> Happy motoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont give a fuck if you ride a unicycle. Just dont tell me you can dodge a deer while driving 60 mph.Because it's not possible without wrecking in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for you, I get that.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> You brought in "60 mph", not me.  You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads.
Click to expand...


  Well I guess if you drive around at twenty mph you wont have a problem with deer...because they'll be passing you.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Kooshdakhaa said:


> It's moose we have to worry about hitting where I am, not deer.  And I sure as hell don't want to be in some itty-bitty car if I hit a moose.
> 
> Mind you, I take all possible precautions NOT to hit a moose at all.  But it happens, and people get killed when it happens, too.



   Thats like hitting a horse!! My mother and a friend were driving a VW Beetle in the mountains of BC when they came across a bull moose in the road that wouldnt move.
  So they started honking the horn....to make a long story short,the moose charged and totally crushed the front of the VW. Those things are dangerous during rut.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
> Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler.
> 
> What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
> And I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> 
> This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.
> 
> Happy motoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont give a fuck if you ride a unicycle. Just dont tell me you can dodge a deer while driving 60 mph.Because it's not possible without wrecking in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for you, I get that.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> You brought in "60 mph", not me.  You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads.
Click to expand...


Don't get out of the city much, do you?  Offhand, I saw several deer on a road with a 60+MPH traffic speed while crossing Indiana. (IIRC, the speed limit varied between 50 and 65.)


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont give a fuck if you ride a unicycle. Just dont tell me you can dodge a deer while driving 60 mph.Because it's not possible without wrecking in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you, I get that.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> You brought in "60 mph", not me.  You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't get out of the city much, do you?  Offhand, I saw several deer on a road with a 60+MPH traffic speed while crossing Indiana. (IIRC, the speed limit varied between 50 and 65.)
Click to expand...


Uh -- I'm not IN Indiana dood.  Why would I drive for Indiana unless I'm in it?  I drive according to where I am.  And around here, "deer" and "60 mph traffic" simply do not coexist.  Moreover, *I never even brought up "60 mph*".  What you're looking at is a troll who's been making shit up through the whole thread.  That's HIS strawman -- not mine.  So cut the bullshit.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you, I get that.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> You brought in "60 mph", not me.  You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get out of the city much, do you?  Offhand, I saw several deer on a road with a 60+MPH traffic speed while crossing Indiana. (IIRC, the speed limit varied between 50 and 65.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh -- I'm not IN Indiana dood.  Why would I drive for Indiana unless I'm in it?  I drive according to where I am.  And around here, "deer" and "60 mph traffic" simply do not coexist.  Moreover, *I never even brought up "60 mph*".  What you're looking at is a troll who's been making shit up through the whole thread.  That's HIS strawman -- not mine.  So cut the bullshit.
Click to expand...


  So you never drive sixty where deer are present? Why do I find that hard to believe?
You must take dirt roads everywhere you go.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you, I get that.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> You brought in "60 mph", not me.  You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get out of the city much, do you?  Offhand, I saw several deer on a road with a 60+MPH traffic speed while crossing Indiana. (IIRC, the speed limit varied between 50 and 65.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh -- I'm not IN Indiana dood.  Why would I drive for Indiana unless I'm in it?  I drive according to where I am.  And around here, "deer" and "60 mph traffic" simply do not coexist.  Moreover, *I never even brought up "60 mph*".  What you're looking at is a troll who's been making shit up through the whole thread.  That's HIS strawman -- not mine.  So cut the bullshit.
Click to expand...


You made a simple declarative statement, to wit: "You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads."  I pointed out that said statement was, in all respects, wrong.


----------



## Pogo

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get out of the city much, do you?  Offhand, I saw several deer on a road with a 60+MPH traffic speed while crossing Indiana. (IIRC, the speed limit varied between 50 and 65.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- I'm not IN Indiana dood.  Why would I drive for Indiana unless I'm in it?  I drive according to where I am.  And around here, "deer" and "60 mph traffic" simply do not coexist.  Moreover, *I never even brought up "60 mph*".  What you're looking at is a troll who's been making shit up through the whole thread.  That's HIS strawman -- not mine.  So cut the bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a simple declarative statement, to wit: "You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads."  I pointed out that said statement was, in all respects, wrong.
Click to expand...


Peoria is in *Illinois*, National Geographic Man.  And it refers to the _other person_'s location, not mine.  And third, it's a placeholder name anyway.

SMH...


----------



## koshergrl

I was going 65 when I hit the deer with the truck. 
And deer stroll onto the freeway REGULARLY. 

Like I said before, the more Pogo blathers, the more obvious it is that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

And not just on this topic.


----------



## koshergrl

"
*Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle &#8212;  both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, there&#8217;s  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."


Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- I'm not IN Indiana dood.  Why would I drive for Indiana unless I'm in it?  I drive according to where I am.  And around here, "deer" and "60 mph traffic" simply do not coexist.  Moreover, *I never even brought up "60 mph*".  What you're looking at is a troll who's been making shit up through the whole thread.  That's HIS strawman -- not mine.  So cut the bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a simple declarative statement, to wit: "You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads."  I pointed out that said statement was, in all respects, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peoria is in *Illinois*, National Geographic Man.  And it refers to the _other person_'s location, not mine.  And third, it's a placeholder name anyway.
> 
> SMH...
Click to expand...


I have seen deer IN HIGHWAY MEDIANS in several states...yes, including Illinois!  *Think!*  I promise it will not hurt!


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> "
> *Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
> You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle &#8212;  both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, there&#8217;s  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."
> 
> 
> Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News








  -- Fox Noise as source for driving advice? 

I know exactly what my cars can do and where the limit is.  Again your caring concern is heartwarming but really not necessary.

And the day I start taking driving advice from Fox Noise, rather than giving it to them, is the day I look to you for tips on diplomacy.



koshergrl said:


> I was going 65 when I hit the deer with the truck.
> And deer stroll onto the freeway REGULARLY.
> 
> Like I said before, the more Pogo blathers, the more obvious it is that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
> 
> And not just on this topic.



You're in *Oregon*.  Buy a map.

And again, I never even _brought up_ a speed.  Troll boy did that.  I drive for the conditions present at the time -- maybe you should too (if deer stroll out there regularly then why are you doing 65?)


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, you did. You said that it was unlikely that there would be any deer where people were driving 60 mph.

Which in and of itself is breathtakingly stupid.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Yes, you did. You said that it was unlikely that there would be any deer where people were driving 60 mph.
> 
> Which in and of itself is breathtakingly stupid.



*NO, I DID NOT.*  The first time "60mph" (or any speed relating to deer) was brought up was here, post 165:



HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going *60 mph*? Bullshit!
Click to expand...


Notice there's no reference to "60 mph" for him to refer to.  Notice he pulled that premise completely out of his ass.  
I am not responsible for the strawmen of trolls.  Not even you are responsible for that.

And trust me, the road I was referring to, you couldn't get up to 60 if you wanted to anyway.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't care when it was brought up. What I was referencing was your remarkably idiotic comment that deer and 60 mph didn't coexist. Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, bar none.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> I don't care when it was brought up. What I was referencing was your remarkably idiotic comment that deer and 60 mph didn't coexist. Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, bar none.



You left out that I said "around here".  Let me know when you're here and I'll be happy to show you.
We'll take the MINI so I can show you what a swerve really is.  And what a rollover isn't.

You can't stay here though.


----------



## koshergrl

There are no freeways in Illinois? No deer?

You're a fucking idiot, lol.


----------



## Missourian

koshergrl said:


> There are no freeways in Illinois? No deer?




There is a 9 mile section of I-57 in IL,  north of the I-24 junction, that I have marked of my map as Deer Strike Alley...never less than 10 deer carcasses on that stretch of highway at any time...and they are totally desensitized to road traffic and air horns...they don't even look up.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> There are no freeways in Illinois? No deer?
> 
> You're a fucking idiot, lol.



I'm not anywhere near Illinois.  As I said, "Peoria" was a meaningless placeholder -- and as used, referred not to me but to the poster I was addressing anyway.

A "placeholder" is a meaningless filler to mean a generic, like "East Jipip" or "Podunk".  Or "Joe Blow".  Therefore "Illinois" has no relevance to anyone.

Who da idjit now, beeyatch?

I imagine there are both deer and freeways in Illinois.  Haven't been there in a good eight years except by plane.


----------



## koshergrl

Oh so you live in some unnamed state where there either are no freeways, or no deer.

You bet, skippy.

You're an idiot. You know it, I know it, even Mylo knows it and Mylo spends about 1/3 of her life licking herself. My point being...you're an idiot.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Oh so you live in some unnamed state where there either are no freeways, or no deer.
> 
> You bet, skippy.
> 
> You're an idiot. You know it, I know it, even Mylo knows it and Mylo spends about 1/3 of her life licking herself. My point being...you're an idiot.



My location is right up there in the upper right where it's been since I got here.

And again, on the dead-end dirt road leading to my house, unless one is throwing a baseball there's no such thing as "60mph".  There are deer, but since only one of those two exists, they can't coexist.  And if you take that road out to the highway you'll find so many switchbacks you still can't do 60.  Not even in the MINI, which is nailed to the road.  Take your index finger and press it all the way down with your thumb, and you have something of a map.  Try 60 on that kind of curve.

Not that any of this means anything since I never introduced the idea of 60 mph in the first place.

Perhaps Mylo can 'splain that out for ya.  Here, give this to Mylo:
Woof.  Grrrowrowr troll yap yap bark bark "60 mph" whimper yap yap.  Grrowr yap yap "Peoria"   Whimper yap grworl bark "deer" yap yap "fucking idiots".


----------



## koshergrl

Yeah that doesn't explain the massive dump truck load of fail you can proudly lay claim to in this thread.

Monumental.


----------



## Pogo

That would be HereWeTrollAgain.  I should have continued to ignore him but trolls will be trolls.  Whattayagonnado.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> *Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
> You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle   both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, theres  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."
> 
> 
> Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Fox Noise as source for driving advice?
> 
> I know exactly what my cars can do and where the limit is.  Again your caring concern is heartwarming but really not necessary.
> 
> And the day I start taking driving advice from Fox Noise, rather than giving it to them, is the day I look to you for tips on diplomacy.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going 65 when I hit the deer with the truck.
> And deer stroll onto the freeway REGULARLY.
> 
> Like I said before, the more Pogo blathers, the more obvious it is that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
> 
> And not just on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're in *Oregon*.  Buy a map.
> 
> And again, I never even _brought up_ a speed.  Troll boy did that.  I drive for the conditions present at the time -- maybe you should too (if deer stroll out there regularly then why are you doing 65?)
Click to expand...


  You're a joke. You cant drive with the constant expectation of hitting a deer. NO ONE does that,you're going to drive above fifty at some point and to say different is ridiculous  . Go peddle your ignorant theories elsewhere.


----------



## Pogo

^^^^


----------



## koshergrl

That would be more effective if there was a post above it hahahaha. 

Poor pogo. You try so hard.

Which is why you fail so magnificently.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> That would be more effective if there was a post above it hahahaha.
> 
> Poor pogo. You try so hard.
> 
> Which is why you fail so magnificently.



Voilà.  Now there is. 

Whether it's above or not depends on how you have your pages set.  Nevertheless you get the point, and there's nobody left except you and HereWeTrollAgain anyway.


----------



## koshergrl

Your  points exist only in the dim recesses of your own mind, dear.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Your  points exist only in the dim recesses of your own mind, dear.



And it's always correct in there too.

You know how it is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "unaware" and "heavily involved" are two different things.
> 
> You were heavily involved in the incidents you're aware of.
> 
> You were unaware of the rest.
> 
> You're young and stupid, you still think you're invincible. You're not and there are situations you cannot exert any meaningful control over.
> 
> Livestock and wildlife along the rode is one of those situations. I worry for your safety..and the safety of others... given your idiotic sense of infallibility on the road.
> 
> Incidentally, evasive action is impossible on a narrow road if there is oncoming traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I'm older than you m'dear.  Don't worry about me.  I'm flattered at your concern for my well being but of course I'm used to that by now.
> 
> And yes I am unaware of incidents that have have never happened.  But I tell you what, one of my F-150 encounters was on such a two-lane with a motorcycle coming the other way.  The F-150 turned off to the right and then decided he wasn't turning right after all and wanted instead to be in the space where I was.  We got out of that with nobody impacted except for my cracked taillight lens.
> 
> I go out there prepared for this kind of thing.  So sue me.
Click to expand...


If you are aware of everything that goes on around you how do you maintain a two second cushion between your car the car following you?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "unaware" and "heavily involved" are two different things.
> 
> You were heavily involved in the incidents you're aware of.
> 
> You were unaware of the rest.
> 
> You're young and stupid, you still think you're invincible. You're not and there are situations you cannot exert any meaningful control over.
> 
> Livestock and wildlife along the rode is one of those situations. I worry for your safety..and the safety of others... given your idiotic sense of infallibility on the road.
> 
> Incidentally, evasive action is impossible on a narrow road if there is oncoming traffic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I'm older than you m'dear.  Don't worry about me.  I'm flattered at your concern for my well being but of course I'm used to that by now.
> 
> And yes I am unaware of incidents that have have never happened.  But I tell you what, one of my F-150 encounters was on such a two-lane with a motorcycle coming the other way.  The F-150 turned off to the right and then decided he wasn't turning right after all and wanted instead to be in the space where I was.  We got out of that with nobody impacted except for my cracked taillight lens.
> 
> I go out there prepared for this kind of thing.  So sue me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are aware of everything that goes on around you how do you maintain a two second cushion between your car the car following you?
Click to expand...


Noxious gas.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

koshergrl said:


> I thought you were really young. I thought somebody told me that.
> 
> Anyway, I've driven many, many miles. I've seen a lot of cocky drivers who think they know it all do some really incredibly stupid things. The whole "I can evade anything" attitude goes with that.  Those are the assholes who evade off the shoulder or evade into oncoming traffic.



If Pogo was a good a driver as he thinks he is he wouldn't be talking the way he is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care if you're Mario Andretti. Sometimes you cant avoid em because they do some stupid shit,like run off the the road and then right back in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when that happens,which it will if you drive in areas with a heavy deer population,I'd rather be in a truck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!
Click to expand...


Not only does he have superior reaction speeds, he drives a car that defies the laws of physics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only you were better at it.
> 
> Surely you've had enough practice, given your advanced years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, what's that?  Nurse!  I need my ear trumpet.  Eye trumpet. Whatever.
> 
> I've never hurt anybody including myself.  What's to be "better" at?
Click to expand...


Are you sure? Did you know that, under certain conditions, traffic becomes a dilatant fluid? It is entirely possible for you to step on your brakes and cause an accident that you never see.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show 'twas MilliHenry who came up with the idea of Godwining a thread about *cars*.  Like he tried to politicize a thread about _gardening_.
> Whatever happened to those gardening troll posts Henery?  They seem to have been consumed by beneficial insects.  Or perhaps ... Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you that I can make my own judgments and decisions.
> And I wasn't talking to you anyway.
> 
> This just in: what I drive and how I do it _ain't your business_.  Once again, you worry about your own world and I'll manage mine.  Take your fascist control freak fantasies elsewhere.  I got this.
> 
> Happy motoring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont give a fuck if you ride a unicycle. Just dont tell me you can dodge a deer while driving 60 mph.Because it's not possible without wrecking in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for you, I get that.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> You brought in "60 mph", not me.  You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads.
Click to expand...


I have seen deer on interstate highways in parts of Texas, maybe you should get out more.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's basically what this F-150 did.  Both of them.
> 
> *That's the whole point* -- when that does happen I want to be able to take that evasive action on a moment's notice.  And I wouldn't have that capability were I in what they're driving - or in an inverted bathtub.  Therefore I make sure I'm driving something that can handle it.  And it works - repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> You do what you want.  I was describing what works for me based on my experience.  And I *live in* a heavy deer population.  My back yard is bordered by a federal forest. They're all around here.  Sometimes if they're hanging around when I get home I chase them up the driveway (with the car) back into that forest.  Once again-- I'm not a passive bystander in all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're telling me you can dodge a deer while going 60 mph? Bullshit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only does he have superior reaction speeds, he drives a car that defies the laws of physics.
Click to expand...


No, but it does defy the laws of Strawmen.

You'll have to catch up for that...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- I'm not IN Indiana dood.  Why would I drive for Indiana unless I'm in it?  I drive according to where I am.  And around here, "deer" and "60 mph traffic" simply do not coexist.  Moreover, *I never even brought up "60 mph*".  What you're looking at is a troll who's been making shit up through the whole thread.  That's HIS strawman -- not mine.  So cut the bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a simple declarative statement, to wit: "You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads."  I pointed out that said statement was, in all respects, wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peoria is in *Illinois*, National Geographic Man.  And it refers to the _other person_'s location, not mine.  And third, it's a placeholder name anyway.
> 
> SMH...
Click to expand...


It is in Arizona.

City of Peoria, AZ


----------



## Quantum Windbag

koshergrl said:


> "
> *Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
> You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle   both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, theres  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."
> 
> 
> Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News



I know a guy that totaled his car and spent a month in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel, and he was only going 30.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a simple declarative statement, to wit: "You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads."  I pointed out that said statement was, in all respects, wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peoria is in *Illinois*, National Geographic Man.  And it refers to the _other person_'s location, not mine.  And third, it's a placeholder name anyway.
> 
> SMH...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is in Arizona.
> 
> City of Peoria, AZ
Click to expand...


Not the one I invoked.  And it's a placeholder anyway.

Great, I got one guy dictating what speed I go and now here comes another guy who wants to edit my atlas... I really don't need a copilot, thanks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a simple declarative statement, to wit: "You may not know this in downtown Peoria but roads where you go 60 mph and roads with deer strolling across them are jest not the same roads."  I pointed out that said statement was, in all respects, wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peoria is in *Illinois*, National Geographic Man.  And it refers to the _other person_'s location, not mine.  And third, it's a placeholder name anyway.
> 
> SMH...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen deer IN HIGHWAY MEDIANS in several states...yes, including Illinois!  *Think!*  I promise it will not hurt!
Click to expand...


You forgot who you are talking to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> *Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
> You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle &#8212;  both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, there&#8217;s  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."
> 
> 
> Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Fox Noise as source for driving advice?
> 
> I know exactly what my cars can do and where the limit is.  Again your caring concern is heartwarming but really not necessary.
> 
> And the day I start taking driving advice from Fox Noise, rather than giving it to them, is the day I look to you for tips on diplomacy.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going 65 when I hit the deer with the truck.
> And deer stroll onto the freeway REGULARLY.
> 
> Like I said before, the more Pogo blathers, the more obvious it is that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
> 
> And not just on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're in *Oregon*.  Buy a map.
> 
> And again, I never even _brought up_ a speed.  Troll boy did that.  I drive for the conditions present at the time -- maybe you should too (if deer stroll out there regularly then why are you doing 65?)
Click to expand...


The AAA gives the exact same advice, but feel free to ignore them because you think you know exactly what your car will do. 

https://www.mountainwest.aaa.com/news/insurance/aaa-offers-tips-avoid-wildlife-vs-vehicle-crashes?cmp=news%252Fmember-news%252Faaa-offers-tips-avoid-wildlife-vs-vehicle-crashes

NASCAR drivers are orders of magnitude better than you at driving, and they still crash.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> *Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
> You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle   both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, theres  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."
> 
> 
> Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a guy that totaled his car and spent a month in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel, and he was only going 30.
Click to expand...


I can confirm, there are a lot of bad drivers out there. 

Personally I wouldn't spend a day in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel.  I get enough grief from KG for letting turkeys cross the road.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

koshergrl said:


> I don't care when it was brought up. What I was referencing was your remarkably idiotic comment that deer and 60 mph didn't coexist. Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, bar none.



But he didn't say it, even though everyone saw it.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peoria is in *Illinois*, National Geographic Man.  And it refers to the _other person_'s location, not mine.  And third, it's a placeholder name anyway.
> 
> SMH...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen deer IN HIGHWAY MEDIANS in several states...yes, including Illinois!  *Think!*  I promise it will not hurt!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot who you are talking to.
Click to expand...


That's the sterling intellect who thinks I live in Peoria.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so you live in some unnamed state where there either are no freeways, or no deer.
> 
> You bet, skippy.
> 
> You're an idiot. You know it, I know it, even Mylo knows it and Mylo spends about 1/3 of her life licking herself. My point being...you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My location is right up there in the upper right where it's been since I got here.
> 
> And again, on the dead-end dirt road leading to my house, unless one is throwing a baseball there's no such thing as "60mph".  There are deer, but since only one of those two exists, they can't coexist.  And if you take that road out to the highway you'll find so many switchbacks you still can't do 60.  Not even in the MINI, which is nailed to the road.  Take your index finger and press it all the way down with your thumb, and you have something of a map.  Try 60 on that kind of curve.
> 
> Not that any of this means anything since I never introduced the idea of 60 mph in the first place.
> 
> Perhaps Mylo can 'splain that out for ya.  Here, give this to Mylo:
> Woof.  Grrrowrowr troll yap yap bark bark "60 mph" whimper yap yap.  Grrowr yap yap "Peoria"   Whimper yap grworl bark "deer" yap yap "fucking idiots".
Click to expand...


They have freeways in Louisiana, and, where I come from, the entire state would qualify as "around here."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be more effective if there was a post above it hahahaha.
> 
> Poor pogo. You try so hard.
> 
> Which is why you fail so magnificently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voilà.  Now there is.
> 
> Whether it's above or not depends on how you have your pages set.  Nevertheless you get the point, and there's nobody left except you and HereWeTrollAgain anyway.
Click to expand...


Which is why intelligent people use the quote function.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> *Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
> You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle &#8212;  both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, there&#8217;s  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."
> 
> 
> Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Fox Noise as source for driving advice?
> 
> I know exactly what my cars can do and where the limit is.  Again your caring concern is heartwarming but really not necessary.
> 
> And the day I start taking driving advice from Fox Noise, rather than giving it to them, is the day I look to you for tips on diplomacy.
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going 65 when I hit the deer with the truck.
> And deer stroll onto the freeway REGULARLY.
> 
> Like I said before, the more Pogo blathers, the more obvious it is that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
> 
> And not just on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're in *Oregon*.  Buy a map.
> 
> And again, I never even _brought up_ a speed.  Troll boy did that.  I drive for the conditions present at the time -- maybe you should too (if deer stroll out there regularly then why are you doing 65?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AAA gives the exact same advice, but feel free to ignore them because you think you know exactly what your car will do.
> 
> https://www.mountainwest.aaa.com/news/insurance/aaa-offers-tips-avoid-wildlife-vs-vehicle-crashes?cmp=news%252Fmember-news%252Faaa-offers-tips-avoid-wildlife-vs-vehicle-crashes
Click to expand...


Funny, they're saying exactly the same thing I am about being alert.  Are you posting flames on their site telling them that _I_ said _they're_ full of shit?



Quantum Windbag said:


> NASCAR drivers are orders of magnitude better than you at driving, and they still crash.



This *IS* NASCAR country.  This is literally where the legendary NASCAR drivers learned their craft, running moonshine in the dry counties evading the law.  Look up "Junior Johnson".

Now then --- link to your study judging"NASCAR drivers" (all of them I guess) to be better drivers than I?

You just noted, they crash; yet I don't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I'm older than you m'dear.  Don't worry about me.  I'm flattered at your concern for my well being but of course I'm used to that by now.
> 
> And yes I am unaware of incidents that have have never happened.  But I tell you what, one of my F-150 encounters was on such a two-lane with a motorcycle coming the other way.  The F-150 turned off to the right and then decided he wasn't turning right after all and wanted instead to be in the space where I was.  We got out of that with nobody impacted except for my cracked taillight lens.
> 
> I go out there prepared for this kind of thing.  So sue me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are aware of everything that goes on around you how do you maintain a two second cushion between your car the car following you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noxious gas.
Click to expand...


I knew it, you aren't as good a driver as you think.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be more effective if there was a post above it hahahaha.
> 
> Poor pogo. You try so hard.
> 
> Which is why you fail so magnificently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voilà.  Now there is.
> 
> Whether it's above or not depends on how you have your pages set.  Nevertheless you get the point, and there's nobody left except you and HereWeTrollAgain anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why intelligent people use the quote function.
Click to expand...


Look, if you're going to sit here and fling insults at Koshergrl, let me get a beer....


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are aware of everything that goes on around you how do you maintain a two second cushion between your car the car following you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noxious gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew it, you aren't as good a driver as you think.
Click to expand...


As I've said all along -- it's all about having the right uh, equipment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peoria is in *Illinois*, National Geographic Man.  And it refers to the _other person_'s location, not mine.  And third, it's a placeholder name anyway.
> 
> SMH...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is in Arizona.
> 
> City of Peoria, AZ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the one I invoked.  And it's a placeholder anyway.
> 
> Great, I got one guy dictating what speed I go and now here comes another guy who wants to edit my atlas... I really don't need a copilot, thanks.
Click to expand...


You said Peoria, how are we supposed to know which one you are talking about? The one in Arizona is the largest, so it would be the one well informed people think of. By the way, there are 8 more in the US.

You need a new atlas.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> *Do not try to swerve around an animal!*
> You  could lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree or another vehicle   both potentially much worse than hitting a deer. If you swerve, theres  also a chance that the animal will panic and run into your path.  Instead, keep your lane position and sound your horn while braking in a  controlled manner."
> 
> 
> Deer Versus Car Accidents Increase | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a guy that totaled his car and spent a month in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel, and he was only going 30.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can confirm, there are a lot of bad drivers out there.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't spend a day in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel.  I get enough grief from KG for letting turkeys cross the road.
Click to expand...


That guy just swerved into your lane to avoid that squirrel and you have 0.13 seconds to react, what will you do?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen deer IN HIGHWAY MEDIANS in several states...yes, including Illinois!  *Think!*  I promise it will not hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot who you are talking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the sterling intellect who thinks I live in Peoria.
Click to expand...


When did I say you live in Peoria?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Fox Noise as source for driving advice?
> 
> I know exactly what my cars can do and where the limit is.  Again your caring concern is heartwarming but really not necessary.
> 
> And the day I start taking driving advice from Fox Noise, rather than giving it to them, is the day I look to you for tips on diplomacy.
> 
> 
> 
> You're in *Oregon*.  Buy a map.
> 
> And again, I never even _brought up_ a speed.  Troll boy did that.  I drive for the conditions present at the time -- maybe you should too (if deer stroll out there regularly then why are you doing 65?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AAA gives the exact same advice, but feel free to ignore them because you think you know exactly what your car will do.
> 
> https://www.mountainwest.aaa.com/ne...offers-tips-avoid-wildlife-vs-vehicle-crashes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, they're saying exactly the same thing I am about being alert.  Are you posting flames on their site telling them that _I_ said _they're_ full of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> NASCAR drivers are orders of magnitude better than you at driving, and they still crash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This *IS* NASCAR country.  This is literally where the legendary NASCAR drivers learned their craft, running moonshine in the dry counties evading the law.  Look up "Junior Johnson".
> 
> Now then --- link to your study judging"NASCAR drivers" (all of them I guess) to be better drivers than I?
> 
> You just noted, they crash; yet I don't.
Click to expand...


Didn't you say that it is impossible to get up to 60 on the roads you drive? I guaran-fuckin-tee that a moonshiner can hit 60 on the roads you drive. Fuck, I bet I could, even in a crappy Mini.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is in Arizona.
> 
> City of Peoria, AZ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the one I invoked.  And it's a placeholder anyway.
> 
> Great, I got one guy dictating what speed I go and now here comes another guy who wants to edit my atlas... I really don't need a copilot, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said Peoria, how are we supposed to know which one you are talking about? The one in Arizona is the largest, so it would be the one well informed people think of. By the way, there are 8 more in the US.
> 
> You need a new atlas.
Click to expand...


Soon as I find an atlas of placeholders, I'm whippin' my wallet out.

It's gotta have East Jipip though.

Yeah I coulda gone with "Springfield" but the Muse said no.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a guy that totaled his car and spent a month in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel, and he was only going 30.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm, there are a lot of bad drivers out there.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't spend a day in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel.  I get enough grief from KG for letting turkeys cross the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy just swerved into your lane to avoid that squirrel and you have 0.13 seconds to react, what will you do?
Click to expand...


Squirrels are rats in trees.  And they vandalize my bird feeders.  Do the math.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot who you are talking to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sterling intellect who thinks I live in Peoria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say you live in Peoria?
Click to expand...


Not you - Jaraxle.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm, there are a lot of bad drivers out there.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't spend a day in the hospital to avoid hitting a squirrel.  I get enough grief from KG for letting turkeys cross the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That guy just swerved into your lane to avoid that squirrel and you have 0.13 seconds to react, what will you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Squirrels are rats in trees.  And they vandalize my bird feeders.  Do the math.
Click to expand...


I did, you are dead.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AAA gives the exact same advice, but feel free to ignore them because you think you know exactly what your car will do.
> 
> https://www.mountainwest.aaa.com/ne...offers-tips-avoid-wildlife-vs-vehicle-crashes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, they're saying exactly the same thing I am about being alert.  Are you posting flames on their site telling them that _I_ said _they're_ full of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> NASCAR drivers are orders of magnitude better than you at driving, and they still crash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This *IS* NASCAR country.  This is literally where the legendary NASCAR drivers learned their craft, running moonshine in the dry counties evading the law.  Look up "Junior Johnson".
> 
> Now then --- link to your study judging"NASCAR drivers" (all of them I guess) to be better drivers than I?
> 
> You just noted, they crash; yet I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you say that it is impossible to get up to 60 on the roads you drive? I guaran-fuckin-tee that a moonshiner can hit 60 on the roads you drive. Fuck, I bet I could, even in a crappy Mini.
Click to expand...


No, you're not getting anywhere near my MINI.  Fuggetaboudit.

Moonshiners and the cops who pursue them are beholden to the same laws of centrifugal force.  The great equalizer.

And there's no such thing as a "crappy" MINI.  Not around here anyways.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That guy just swerved into your lane to avoid that squirrel and you have 0.13 seconds to react, what will you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Squirrels are rats in trees.  And they vandalize my bird feeders.  Do the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, you are dead.
Click to expand...


Then isn't it strange I'm still here, nobody's ever been hurt in all my driving since the Johnson Administration (1865-1869 - Wiki)?

This recalls the episode with the second F-150, the one who decided he was coming back onto the road and not turning right after all, attempting to occupy the space I was by then in.  With a motorcycle coming the other way on a 2-lane.  We got it done. 

The truck took off though.  That taillight repair cost me a good three inches of packing tape.


----------



## koshergrl

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen deer IN HIGHWAY MEDIANS in several states...yes, including Illinois!  *Think!*  I promise it will not hurt!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot who you are talking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the sterling intellect who thinks I live in Peoria.
Click to expand...


Hey it's not his fault if you're a crappy communicator.


----------



## koshergrl

Please tell me that Pogo doesn't drive a mini cooper.
What is it that they said on the Other Guys?

Oh yeah.."I feel like I'm driving around in a vagina".


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot who you are talking to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sterling intellect who thinks I live in Peoria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey it's not his fault if you're a crappy communicator.
Click to expand...


Hey, it's not my fault he can't navigate the difference between the pronouns "me" and "you".


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Please tell me that Pogo doesn't drive a mini cooper.
> What is it that they said on the Other Guys?
> 
> Oh yeah.."I feel like I'm driving around in a vagina".



What does that even mean?  It's wet?  Well I did leave the window open once...

But if you mean _tight_.........OH yes.


----------



## koshergrl

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgGRwbvj5z4]The Other Guys 1080p - I feel like we're literally driving around in a vagina - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> The Other Guys 1080p - I feel like we're literally driving around in a vagina - YouTube




OK, there's the line...

....... but what does it _mean_?

Wait, I know 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It's something every guy wants that's fun for a quick jaunt but costs an arm and a leg to fuel and maintain?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sterling intellect who thinks I live in Peoria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say you live in Peoria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you - Jaraxle.
Click to expand...


Are you literate?


----------



## koshergrl

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Other Guys 1080p - I feel like we're literally driving around in a vagina - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, there's the line...
> 
> ....... but what does it _mean_?
> 
> Wait, I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's something every guy wants that's fun for a quick jaunt but costs an arm and a leg to fuel and maintain?
Click to expand...


It means you're a douche.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sterling intellect who thinks I live in Peoria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say you live in Peoria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you - Jaraxle.
Click to expand...


You quoted me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, they're saying exactly the same thing I am about being alert.  Are you posting flames on their site telling them that _I_ said _they're_ full of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> This *IS* NASCAR country.  This is literally where the legendary NASCAR drivers learned their craft, running moonshine in the dry counties evading the law.  Look up "Junior Johnson".
> 
> Now then --- link to your study judging"NASCAR drivers" (all of them I guess) to be better drivers than I?
> 
> You just noted, they crash; yet I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say that it is impossible to get up to 60 on the roads you drive? I guaran-fuckin-tee that a moonshiner can hit 60 on the roads you drive. Fuck, I bet I could, even in a crappy Mini.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're not getting anywhere near my MINI.  Fuggetaboudit.
> 
> Moonshiners and the cops who pursue them are beholden to the same laws of centrifugal force.  The great equalizer.
> 
> And there's no such thing as a "crappy" MINI.  Not around here anyways.
Click to expand...


Minis are, by definition, crappy.

By the way, unless the cars are rotating centrifugal force doesn't come into play.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Squirrels are rats in trees.  And they vandalize my bird feeders.  Do the math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, you are dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then isn't it strange I'm still here, nobody's ever been hurt in all my driving since the Johnson Administration (1865-1869 - Wiki)?
> 
> This recalls the episode with the second F-150, the one who decided he was coming back onto the road and not turning right after all, attempting to occupy the space I was by then in.  With a motorcycle coming the other way on a 2-lane.  We got it done.
> 
> The truck took off though.  That taillight repair cost me a good three inches of packing tape.
Click to expand...


If you were as good as you claim you wouldn't have needed the packing tape.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say you live in Peoria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not you - Jaraxle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You quoted me.
Click to expand...


I quoted you _about_ him.  "That" refers to the poster who committed the faux pas.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say that it is impossible to get up to 60 on the roads you drive? I guaran-fuckin-tee that a moonshiner can hit 60 on the roads you drive. Fuck, I bet I could, even in a crappy Mini.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're not getting anywhere near my MINI.  Fuggetaboudit.
> 
> Moonshiners and the cops who pursue them are beholden to the same laws of centrifugal force.  The great equalizer.
> 
> And there's no such thing as a "crappy" MINI.  Not around here anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minis are, by definition, crappy.
Click to expand...


Let's put your link for that definition right after the one that documents how all NASCAR drivers are better than I.  You know, keep things in order.



Quantum Windbag said:


> By the way, unless the cars are rotating centrifugal force doesn't come into play.



I didn't mention the time I went into a ramp I didn't think was coming up yet at 40 mph on a wet road with a piano in the back seat?  That was kinda fun.  Did you ever see "The Italian Job"?   As noted from the outset here, it's all about centre of gravity.

Again, no rollover, not even close.  The funny thing was there was a cop right across the street.  He just waved and went on.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, you are dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then isn't it strange I'm still here, nobody's ever been hurt in all my driving since the Johnson Administration (1865-1869 - Wiki)?
> 
> This recalls the episode with the second F-150, the one who decided he was coming back onto the road and not turning right after all, attempting to occupy the space I was by then in.  With a motorcycle coming the other way on a 2-lane.  We got it done.
> 
> The truck took off though.  That taillight repair cost me a good three inches of packing tape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were as good as you claim you wouldn't have needed the packing tape.
Click to expand...


It wasn't really needed.  I just didn't want rattling.  I'm attuned to what's going on and that means all four senses.  The reality is if I wasn't as able as I claim then either I or the motorcyclist would have been in deep doo-doo.  I'll take a cracked taillight lens over personal injury any day -- your mileage may vary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not you - Jaraxle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted you _about_ him.  "That" refers to the poster who committed the faux pas.
Click to expand...


The one where you claimed that there is only one Peoria?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted you _about_ him.  "That" refers to the poster who committed the faux pas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one where you claimed that there is only one Peoria?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid there's no such thing.

But if there is, feel free to insert that link after the link that defines MINIs as "crappy", after the affidavit from all NASCAR drivers explaining how they're all better drivers than I.

And keep that "crappy" crap on the QT at least until I sell the car, K?  Because the rest of the world holds them in high esteem, which was a buying point.  Resale value.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're not getting anywhere near my MINI.  Fuggetaboudit.
> 
> Moonshiners and the cops who pursue them are beholden to the same laws of centrifugal force.  The great equalizer.
> 
> And there's no such thing as a "crappy" MINI.  Not around here anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minis are, by definition, crappy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's put your link for that definition right after the one that documents how all NASCAR drivers are better than I.  You know, keep things in order.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, unless the cars are rotating centrifugal force doesn't come into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention the time I went into a ramp I didn't think was coming up yet at 40 mph on a wet road with a piano in the back seat?  That was kinda fun.  Did you ever see "The Italian Job"?   As noted from the outset here, it's all about centre of gravity.
> 
> Again, no rollover, not even close.  The funny thing was there was a cop right across the street.  He just waved and went on.
Click to expand...


You had a piano in the back seat of a Mini? Am I supposed to believe that? Was it one of those baby grands like Schroeder has?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minis are, by definition, crappy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put your link for that definition right after the one that documents how all NASCAR drivers are better than I.  You know, keep things in order.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, unless the cars are rotating centrifugal force doesn't come into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention the time I went into a ramp I didn't think was coming up yet at 40 mph on a wet road with a piano in the back seat?  That was kinda fun.  Did you ever see "The Italian Job"?   As noted from the outset here, it's all about centre of gravity.
> 
> Again, no rollover, not even close.  The funny thing was there was a cop right across the street.  He just waved and went on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had a piano in the back seat of a Mini? Am I supposed to believe that?
Click to expand...


Believe it.  Drove it from here to Pennsylvania. 

If it hasn't sunk in by now... I love a challenge.

(answering edit): it was an electronic piano (Kawai) of I'd say early '80s vintage.  Quite heavy.
I believe what Shroeder plays is a toy piano.  This was real - my Dad's.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put your link for that definition right after the one that documents how all NASCAR drivers are better than I.  You know, keep things in order.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention the time I went into a ramp I didn't think was coming up yet at 40 mph on a wet road with a piano in the back seat?  That was kinda fun.  Did you ever see "The Italian Job"?   As noted from the outset here, it's all about centre of gravity.
> 
> Again, no rollover, not even close.  The funny thing was there was a cop right across the street.  He just waved and went on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had a piano in the back seat of a Mini? Am I supposed to believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it.  Drove it from here to Pennsylvania.
> 
> If it hasn't sunk in by now... I love a challenge.
> 
> (answering edit): it was an electronic piano (Kawai) of I'd say early '80s vintage.  Quite heavy.
> I believe what Shroeder plays is a toy piano.  This was real - my Dad's.
Click to expand...


In other words, you had a keyboard in your Mini, and called it a piano.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had a piano in the back seat of a Mini? Am I supposed to believe that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it.  Drove it from here to Pennsylvania.
> 
> If it hasn't sunk in by now... I love a challenge.
> 
> (answering edit): it was an electronic piano (Kawai) of I'd say early '80s vintage.  Quite heavy.
> I believe what Shroeder plays is a toy piano.  This was real - my Dad's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you had a keyboard in your Mini, and called it a piano.
Click to expand...


No I had a piano in my MINI and called it a piano.
I'll see if I can find an image...

--- here, something like this.  Although this is an 8-octave; my Dad's might have been 7.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it.  Drove it from here to Pennsylvania.
> 
> If it hasn't sunk in by now... I love a challenge.
> 
> (answering edit): it was an electronic piano (Kawai) of I'd say early '80s vintage.  Quite heavy.
> I believe what Shroeder plays is a toy piano.  This was real - my Dad's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you had a keyboard in your Mini, and called it a piano.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I had a piano in my MINI and called it a piano.
> I'll see if I can find an image...
> 
> --- here, something like this.  Although this is an 8-octave; my Dad's might have been 7.
Click to expand...


Yes, a keyboard with a stand. Did you know that they ship that "piano" disassembled? I did, which is why I know you didn't have a piano in your backseat.

http://www.kawaius.com/main_links/digital/PRO_2012/OM/CE220_EN_20110823.pdf

Page 60


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you had a keyboard in your Mini, and called it a piano.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I had a piano in my MINI and called it a piano.
> I'll see if I can find an image...
> 
> --- here, something like this.  Although this is an 8-octave; my Dad's might have been 7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a keyboard with a stand. Did you know that they ship that "piano" disassembled? I did, which is why I know you didn't have a piano in your backseat.
> 
> http://www.kawaius.com/main_links/digital/PRO_2012/OM/CE220_EN_20110823.pdf
> 
> Page 60
Click to expand...


I'm sure they do; that's irrelevant.  Kawai wasn't involved; my Dad owned that piano since 1983.  Obviously I disassembled it in similar fashion and reassembled on the other end when we gave it to my niece.  And I didn't need a pdf; I just figured it out.

As I said - I love a challenge.

This is the most tangentially challenged thread ever.  Never did get a straight answer on the vagina monologue though...


----------



## HenryBHough

Pogo said:


> I'm sure they do; that's irrelevant.  Kawai wasn't involved; my Dad owned that piano since 1983.  Obviously I disassembled it in similar fashion and reassembled on the other end when we gave it to my niece.  And I didn't need a pdf; I just figured it out.



Ah, but as a tree-hugging, bunny loving, dope-smoking liberal you DID dispose of the leftover pieces in an environmentally sound manner, did you not?


----------



## Pogo

Blessèd are we that Milli Henry has the time to take out from keeping the Radio John Birch antenna affixed to its birch tree (the one with the switches of coarse) to grace us with his incisively biting wisdom in these presents.  By gum.

I suspect the word you're groping for is _ahimsa_.  Having said that, death to bunnies.  Or anything else that looks at my garden with a rapacious drool. 

There is no such thing as "leftovers".  Because when I deliver -- I _deliver_.
Much like here. 

Just ask --- Rachel Carson.


----------



## koshergrl

Naw, you're just a garden variety douche, pogo.

The only thing you deliver is inanity.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I had a piano in my MINI and called it a piano.
> I'll see if I can find an image...
> 
> --- here, something like this.  Although this is an 8-octave; my Dad's might have been 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a keyboard with a stand. Did you know that they ship that "piano" disassembled? I did, which is why I know you didn't have a piano in your backseat.
> 
> http://www.kawaius.com/main_links/digital/PRO_2012/OM/CE220_EN_20110823.pdf
> 
> Page 60
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do; that's irrelevant.  Kawai wasn't involved; my Dad owned that piano since 1983.  Obviously I disassembled it in similar fashion and reassembled on the other end when we gave it to my niece.  And I didn't need a pdf; I just figured it out.
> 
> As I said - I love a challenge.
> 
> This is the most tangentially challenged thread ever.  Never did get a straight answer on the vagina monologue though...
Click to expand...


Like I said, you had a keyboard in your backseat, not a piano.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Blessèd are we that Milli Henry has the time to take out from keeping the Radio John Birch antenna affixed to its birch tree (the one with the switches of coarse) to grace us with his incisively biting wisdom in these presents.  By gum.
> 
> I suspect the word you're groping for is _ahimsa_.  Having said that, death to bunnies.  Or anything else that looks at my garden with a rapacious drool.
> 
> There is no such thing as "leftovers".  Because when I deliver -- I _deliver_.
> Much like here.
> 
> Just ask --- Rachel Carson.



If your delivery services are on a par with your posting here that keyboard must be at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a keyboard with a stand. Did you know that they ship that "piano" disassembled? I did, which is why I know you didn't have a piano in your backseat.
> 
> http://www.kawaius.com/main_links/digital/PRO_2012/OM/CE220_EN_20110823.pdf
> 
> Page 60
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do; that's irrelevant.  Kawai wasn't involved; my Dad owned that piano since 1983.  Obviously I disassembled it in similar fashion and reassembled on the other end when we gave it to my niece.  And I didn't need a pdf; I just figured it out.
> 
> As I said - I love a challenge.
> 
> This is the most tangentially challenged thread ever.  Never did get a straight answer on the vagina monologue though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you had a keyboard in your backseat, not a piano.
Click to expand...


No, it's still a piano.  The keyboard is one part of a piano.  Other parts could be the harp (in a traditional piano) or the circuitry (in a digital) and the pedals.  Which gives us kind of an unfortunate redundancy: why would we call it a "digital piano"?  What can you play it with other than digits?

I know there's a thumb piano but that's a different animal.

And btw -- "_as_ I said", not "like"


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blessèd are we that Milli Henry has the time to take out from keeping the Radio John Birch antenna affixed to its birch tree (the one with the switches of coarse) to grace us with his incisively biting wisdom in these presents.  By gum.
> 
> I suspect the word you're groping for is _ahimsa_.  Having said that, death to bunnies.  Or anything else that looks at my garden with a rapacious drool.
> 
> There is no such thing as "leftovers".  Because when I deliver -- I _deliver_.
> Much like here.
> 
> Just ask --- Rachel Carson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your delivery services are on a par with your posting here that keyboard must be at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
Click to expand...


You mean I'm that deep?  

I do try to dumb down for the proles... maybe I don't try enough.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do; that's irrelevant.  Kawai wasn't involved; my Dad owned that piano since 1983.  Obviously I disassembled it in similar fashion and reassembled on the other end when we gave it to my niece.  And I didn't need a pdf; I just figured it out.
> 
> As I said - I love a challenge.
> 
> This is the most tangentially challenged thread ever.  Never did get a straight answer on the vagina monologue though...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you had a keyboard in your backseat, not a piano.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's still a piano.  The keyboard is one part of a piano.  Other parts could be the harp (in a traditional piano) or the circuitry (in a digital) and the pedals.  Which gives us kind of an unfortunate redundancy: why would we call it a "digital piano"?  What can you play it with other than digits?
> 
> I know there's a thumb piano but that's a different animal.
> 
> And btw -- "_as_ I said", not "like"
Click to expand...


Pianos have harps, keyboards don't. That is why pianos sound better than keyboards.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you had a keyboard in your backseat, not a piano.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's still a piano.  The keyboard is one part of a piano.  Other parts could be the harp (in a traditional piano) or the circuitry (in a digital) and the pedals.  Which gives us kind of an unfortunate redundancy: why would we call it a "digital piano"?  What can you play it with other than digits?
> 
> I know there's a thumb piano but that's a different animal.
> 
> And btw -- "_as_ I said", not "like"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pianos have harps, keyboards don't. That is why pianos sound better than keyboards.
Click to expand...


Didn't say they do; I said the keyboard and the harp are elements that make up a piano.

I'm sitting right next to a piano.  It has a keyboard.  If it did not have a keyboard, it wouldn't be a complete piano.  Nor could I play it except via alternate method such as strumming the harp.  Matter o' fact I actually removed that keyboard in order to get the thing in here and reassembled it inside -- which was the point at which it became a piano again.

(/SO ontopic)


----------



## koshergrl

This thread has definitely taken a turn for the stupid.

And it wasn't brilliant to begin with.

Thanks, Pogo!


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> This thread has definitely taken a turn for the stupid.
> 
> And it wasn't brilliant to begin with.
> 
> Thanks, Pogo!



With all due humility I could never have done it alone.  

And it's been educational, learning about vagina cars and such.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> This thread has definitely taken a turn for the stupid.
> 
> And it wasn't brilliant to begin with.
> 
> Thanks, Pogo!



It took a turn for the stupid once Pogo showed up!


----------



## koshergrl

oulVagina cars are only for douches...omg someone said something funny about minis and the douches that drive them, I swore I was going to remember it so I could share it here but damn if I haven't forgotten...

That's what I get for getting freaking dental work done. what a nightmare.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> oulVagina cars are only for douches...omg someone said something funny about minis and the douches that drive them, I swore I was going to remember it so I could share it here but damn if I haven't forgotten...
> 
> That's what I get for getting freaking dental work done. what a nightmare.



Hey, biting sarcasm requires maintenance, by gum.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put your link for that definition right after the one that documents how all NASCAR drivers are better than I.  You know, keep things in order.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention the time I went into a ramp I didn't think was coming up yet at 40 mph on a wet road with a piano in the back seat?  That was kinda fun.  Did you ever see "The Italian Job"?   As noted from the outset here, it's all about centre of gravity.
> 
> Again, no rollover, not even close.  The funny thing was there was a cop right across the street.  He just waved and went on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had a piano in the back seat of a Mini? Am I supposed to believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it.  Drove it from here to Pennsylvania.
> 
> If it hasn't sunk in by now... I love a challenge.
> 
> (answering edit): it was an electronic piano (Kawai) of I'd say early '80s vintage.  Quite heavy.
> I believe what Shroeder plays is a toy piano.  This was real - my Dad's.
Click to expand...


It was not a piano.  It was an ORGAN!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has definitely taken a turn for the stupid.
> 
> And it wasn't brilliant to begin with.
> 
> Thanks, Pogo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due humility I could never have done it alone.
> 
> And it's been educational, learning about vagina cars and such.
Click to expand...


----------

