As a general rule of thumb, I hate Parisians. Love the French, hate the Parisians. The whole, "familiarity breeds contempt", thing. The fact that they're now hopping on the SUV band wagon just makes me dislike them more. The only thing that would make it worse is if they're all driving Volvo SUVs.
Oh, and the fat republicans? They suck too, but differently than the Parisians. Different rings of hell and all that.
Don't think so. More thank likely just French jerks crowding others off the streets. Kinda like here.
squid, i read your comment as, "French jerking off in the streets." HA!!
Good for them, I say. The fewer gas guzzling, dangerous truck chassis on the road, the better.
Interesting SideDish. Don't quite know how to respond to that.
Calling Dr. Freud...
Sounds like a good plan to me.
shawnj and homunculus: You actually approve of a government telling its citizens what kind of vehicle they're allowed to drive? I think I've seen both of you speak out in favour of individual rights in the past...why the sudden switch?
FRENCH GUARD: Allo, who ess it?
BUSH: It is me, George W. Bush. Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us help with Iraq, he can buy our SUVs on preferential terms.
FRENCH GUARD: Go away, you menstruating Bichon Frise. Your Iraq policy smells of boiled hot dog water, and I fart at your festering budget deficits.
BUSH: Now see here: it is D-Day! Let us set our differences aside and be reasonable.
FRENCH GUARD: Do not make me taunt you a second time!
"get pissed at" or "get pissed with?"
If I were there, I'd be out drinking and celebrating. But then, I'm a left-wing communist pinko faggot francophile. Don't mind me!
Le Monde has an article about this, which says the proposal would limit SUV traffic on high-pollution days, and that SUVs would no longer be eligible for residential parking rates. They would also be banned, for pollution reasons, from driving near endangered forest areas.
I have no problem with the costs of driving an SUV being allocated in this manner.
I have two comments:
1. rolypolyman just made me snot on my shirt.
2. Hitler!
What a crock of shit! IANASUVD (I am not an SUV driver), but I can't understand the hatred you people have for these vehicles. They get poorer mileage than passenger cars. That's it. And for this you advocate banning them?
They are not the worst polluters on the roads. Heavy transport trucks are...by far. (And if it's pollution you're worried about, try directing your anger at coal-burning power plants.)
Let me ask you sanctimonious small-car drivers this: Do you keep your car's engine maintained at peak efficiency? Do you regularly check and replace air filters, fuel filters, and PCV valves? Do you regularly check & maintain tire pressure? Do you always drive at or below posted speed limits? Do you accelerate slowly and smoothly when the light turns green? If you can't honestly answer yes to all of these questions then YOU ARE A POLLUTER, and by your twisted logic, should be banned from driving.
My answer to r88 as to why I hate SUV drivers...
I could care less about the gas milage, actually. I hate SUV drivers because almost every one I have ever dealt with has been an inconsiderate, irresponsible ass. Add to that that the majority have also been bad drivers and you see why I lump them in with Volvo owners.
YMMV
Are sanctimonious public transport users still allowed to be sanctimonious, though?
Don't approve of this move, though. Why ban them when instead you could just tax the bloody things halfway to Belgium and back?
surlyboi: I'd say the same about almost every motorcyclist I've ever dealt with.
Why does anyone need any type of SUV? All they do is pollute...I say ban them everywhere. Or tax them as flashboy said (above).
Why are you getting so angry?
Fact is, heavy transport trucks are a necessary part of life. We need them for moving goods around. What SUVs are designed for is driving round on rough, off-road terrain, which only 5% of them actually do. The day that parents start driving round HGVs to drop their kids off at school, you'll have a point.
For everything else... What everyone else said.
I think we should ban everything. Then we'll all be happy.
Do you hate the drivers, or the SUV?
"Let's be logical and only allow into the city cars that are adapted to it."
Why not? If they're not just targeting SUV specifically, why wouldn't this be a bad idea?
One more thing for the right to get pissed at the French about
John Frenchy Kerry owns more SUVs than all the 'right' on MoFi combined.
AND WHY THE FUCK IS EVERYONE GETTING SO WORKED UP ABOUT WHAT PARIS DOES? I mean, they're FRENCH for crying out loud!
Why isn't anyone mad at Ken Livingstone?
One thing that upset me as the number of SUVs on the road went up was that my view of the road became obscurred. With more SUVs on the road, there is less road to see. but I'd be much more pissed if everyone decided to drive school buses around.
I think I've seen both of you speak out in favour of individual rights in the past...why the sudden switch?
There are times when a man must set aside his principles and simply enjoy the show. SUV drivers vs. Parisians? Pass the popcorn. ;)
So you ban SUVs. Then what happens? Will pollution levels be affected in the least? Will accident rates drop? Will the world be any different? Seriously...what good could possibly come from banning these vehicles? These "inconsiderate drivers" will still be on the roads, driving Cadillacs or BMWs instead (or would you ban those too, because "nobody really needs them"?)
I suspect the anti-SUV sentiment is based on the fact that they're expensive, and thus are seen as status symbols for rich people (who, of course, are all evil). You'd probably advocate banning Rolexes and Armani suits, too.
And I'm really not angry...just applying the "live and let live" doctrine to people who choose to drive giant vehicles.
Damn the Partridge Family and their selfish bus-driving ways.
Problems with large, truck-based SUVs:
1)They get shit gas mileage.
2)They're subject to much lower emissions standards.
3)They're more dangerous, to themselves and other drivers.
4)If you have access to paved roads, you don't need one. No, you don't.
5)Profit!!!
I was going to say a bad driver is a bad driver, regardless of whether he/she is in an SUV or a Renault or a Fiat.
shawnj and homunculus: You actually approve of a government telling its citizens what kind of vehicle they're allowed to drive? I think I've seen both of you speak out in favour of individual rights in the past...why the sudden switch?
I don't see it as a switch.
The main difference between, say, the freedom of expression which I am certainly for, and the contempt that I have for SUVs is that in most cases, your personal freedom ends when you start infringing on other people's. Now, that's kind of ludicrous on the face, so let me explain.
SUVs are a dangerous product. They are more likely to cause death in accidents, although not to the passengers. To explain a bit, the added weight of the SUV, and the design of the truck chassis are more likely to cause injury to pedestrians or passengers in smaller cars. Also, the increased population of SUVs means that there is less viewable road ahead for anyone not driving an SUV, which leads to increased reaction time, and possibly more accidents. There are other factors, like the lowered active safety and mobility. Also, an SUV driver feels safer in adverse conditions, when it should be pointed out that 4WD means that all four tires are spinning and squealing on the ice instead of two.
All of that is before you take into consideration the two more damning (from an activist standpoint) problems with SUV's. They take more energy to produce, and they consume more energy.
There are a lot of alternatives if people want a safe, 4WD car. You just don't hear about them because the car manufactorers are making akilling on profit margins for SUVs and both them and the oil industry have become reliant on them.
I'd rather that SUV's were edged out by competition and by education, but I just don't see that happening. So I see it in the public interest to either regulate or restrict the number of SUVs on the road.
1)They get shit gas mileage.
That's a problem for their owners, not you.
2)They're subject to much lower emissions standards.
This is only because they're classed as 'light trucks', along with pickups, many of which are used for commercial purposes. If you don't like this, lobby to change it.
3)They're more dangerous, to themselves and other drivers.
Please provide facts. A vehicle is only as dangerous as its driver.
4)If you have access to paved roads, you don't need one. No, you don't.
So what? Nobody needs a luxury car or a sports car, either. I'm sure you own some things you don't need. Some people have more money than you...deal with it and let them buy stuff they don't need.
5)Profit!!!
Actually, 5) is ??????. 6) is Profit!
Also, we should replace all cars with trains. I want a train.
Like I'm going to pay attention to what the fucking Friends of the Earth think. Eat my two-ton diesel exhaust, you sandalista weenies.
and the oil industry have become reliant on them.
What a load of crock. The Big Oil companies rely one one type of a civilian, non commercial vehicle? Please do show what the profit margins of say, Exxon-Mobil or DONG (I love saying that at meetings) is and how its 'reliance' of the SUV increases its market share for its stock holders.
That's a problem for their owners, not you.
I disagree. They're chewing up oil reserves at an unacceptably fast rate. Not good. Neither is the effect it has on gas prices.
This is only because they're classed as 'light trucks', along with pickups, many of which are used for commercial purposes. If you don't like this, lobby to change it.
I agree, that is a legislative problem. But people who buy them either don't care or don't care to know.
A vehicle is only as dangerous as its driver.
Not necessarily. SUVs are more likely to roll during emergency maneuvering, and they also obsure other drivers' views, increasing the risks of accidents.
I'm sure you own some things you don't need. Some people have more money than you...deal with it and let them buy stuff they don't need.
Yes, I do. But my wristwatch isn't capable of increasing the country's dependence on foreign oil. And I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that others are richer than I am. Contrary to what some drivers of these large penis-extensions might think, dislike of SUVs is not necessarily born of jealousy. I'm not motivated by a need to have what the other guy has -- as long as I'm comfortable, I'm happy.
Why are you people getting so worked up about a local ban on a certain type of vehicle in Paris? What, were you planning on off-roading through the streets of Paris this summer?
Nah, I'm just angry because I can't afford an SUV. Or a train.
Oh, that was in response to middleclasstool's comment. It wasn't a complete non-sequitor.
What, the horsey ride thing? I'm only half-kidding about that. Seriously, I want to have to dismount something when I go to a friend's house or into a store. I think if people saw me dismount something, I'd look more impressive (particularly if I were shirtless). Plus it'd bring back hitchin' posts and neckerchiefs. And I'd have a reason to dust off my old boots.
And it'd be quicker. Even with all the dismounting.
Oh, just ask my wife how quickly I can dismount. No, don't.
I just like to say dismount.
Dismount. Dismount. Dismount.
Its almost as much fun to say as Smock.
rocket88, fx8: Actually, it's everyone elses problem when, say, the Ford Explorer is 2.5 time more likely to kill other people in a crash than a Toyota Camry, according to US crash data. Unlike the motorcyclists you dislike so much, rocket, who are mostly a menace to ourselves.
And that's before you even go into the fact that fat cars require everyne to stump up to retool roads and parking to accomodate them, while their owners pay car rates of taxation on a truck.
Ooh, smock's a good one too! So's akimbo. Please use all three words in a sentence.
Well, damn, I missed my chance.
*lopes off, dejected*
I believe that piggy-backs are the future.
Personally, I find the world 'diphthong' to be one of the most pleasing in the English language, along with 'rimjobs'.
That horse you were riding the other day looked pretty speedy, Blaise. Rocking Horses are the future of transport.
horsey rides
Then y'all'd just be hatin' on my elephant.
Elephants rule. They have 4-wheel leg drive. They're great on sidehills. They have a winch. They also eat a lot, generate prodigous amounts of dung, and kill their handlers in rampages.
I'd trade my truck for an elephant in a heartbeat.
Fuck you and the rocking horse you rode in on...
I had to do it...
Aaaanyway, back on topic, sort of...
I was going to say a bad driver is a bad driver, regardless of whether he/she is in an SUV or a Renault or a Fiat.
Again, YMMV, but the majority of bad drivers I've seen of late have been SUV drivers.
And Volvo drivers.
Are there bad drivers in other vehicles? Of course! But the vast majority are the ones who drive the so-called "safe cars" because the know they'll survive the accident, even if the other poor bastard is mangled beyond recognition.
I move to have Elephants banned. Damn Elephant riders. You know how difficult it is to see the road ahead when your stuck behind an Elephant? They're just inconsiderate and rude.
I need a 4x4 to get through all the elephant dung.
Elephants can be lots of fun,
They're big and warm and pleasant.
Where am I going to buy you one,
buy you an elephant present?
Maybe I'll go to the elephant zoo,
with lots of sugar to trap him,
then quickly mail him home to you,
when I find out how to wrap him. -Alec Wilder, "Lullabies and Night Songs"
My bad: when I look again at the table of per capita deaths by vehicle type here, it turns out that Ford Explorer drivers are more than five times as likely as Toyota Avalon/Camry drivers to kill someone else.
But hey, nothing wrong with SUVs! Shut up, who whiny bitches that don't want to die on the roads!
(At least, judging by the death rates for SUV drivers themselves, it may be a self-correcting problem, although too many of them have probably already bred by the time they die).
Ooooooooooooooooooh...
Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
and said goodbye to the circus
off she rode with a trumpety trump
trump trump trump
Nellie the elephant packed her trunk
and trundled off to the jungle
off she rode with a trumpety trump
trump trump trump
Well someone had to do it...
SUVs, being taller than normal cars, obscure vision, roll more easily, and are, from memory, more likely to kill a pedestrian when they hit one than a sedan-type car. A normal car will hit a pedestrian and the bumper will make contact with the person, which shatters their legs. An SUV's bumper will make contact with a pedestrian's torso, causing internal injuries, and the pedestrian is more likely to be "mowed under" the SUV because of being hit higher up.
The same applies in SUV to normal car collisions. An SUV is more dangerous to other drives in crashes because it sits so much higher. Instead of bumper-to-bumper contact, or bumper-to-safety bar contact, the SUV is more likely to plough into a car at the driver's head height.
This is all hearsay that I'm repeating, so I hope I have the facts straight. It seems to make sense to me, though. And I admit that more than half of the SUV drivers I know were already arrogant buggers and/or bad drivers before they even got in their SUVs. :)
I was sure we were promised a flying care. What gives?
errm, flying car - by which I mean a car that flies.
Not really on topic, but regarding the bad driver thing...When I lived in NYC, I knew I had to beware the Jeep Cherokee with Jersey plates. Always.
coming from an Asian female driver, no less...
Ume's an excellent driver...
And I don't mean that in a Rain Man sorta way, either...
umeboshi, and, years ago, I learned to beware the pickup with the gun rack in the back window, here in Californis. In NJ, I learned to beware all other drivers. Especially thosewith PA plates. Road rage central, from my point of view.
My worst compaint about SUV drivers is that all of them have darkened windows, so you can't see what's going on up the road.
Okay...let's recap:
1) SUVs should be banned because they are depleting the world's oil stocks.
-I pointed out earlier that driving habits and poor vehicle maintenance are as bad, if not worse, for gas mileage than vehicle weight. So, therefore, we must ban all fast drivers and poorly maintained cars.
2) SUVs should be banned because they kill their drivers and passengers.
- Drivers and passengers of motorcycles are far more likely to die in collisions and single-vehicle accidents. Therefore we must ban motorcycles.
3) SUVs should be banned because they are heavy and thus kill the occupants of the cars they hit.
-You share the highway with multi-ton 18-wheelers driven by cowboy yahoos on speed. SUVs should be the least of your worries. But, let's go ahead and ban all frame-based vehicles to keep everyone happy.
4) SUVs should be banned because they block other drivers' views of the road.
- So do trucks, pickups, full-size vans, and minivans. Ban them all. (This is fun!)
5) SUVs should be banned because they roll over.
- See #4
6) SUVs should be banned because their owners/drivers are dicks (I'm paraphrasing here...let me know if you'd prefer cunts or asshats instead
- Ban Cadillacs, Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Corvettes and every little pimped out Prelude with a bad-ass backward-hat dude behind the wheel.
Have I missed anything? You know, it'd be much easier if we just designed & built one super-safe, fuel-efficient, airbag-surrounded car model and required everyone to drive that. You'd have your choice of colour, though (as long as it was black).
Quite the Utopian society you social activists have planned for us. Can't wait until you get in power and start banning stuff. Hypocrites.
Ok, not to get personal here, but uh... bite me.
If you're an asshat, you're an asshat. I don't care what car you drive, motorcyle you ride or what bus you take. Nothing hypocritical about it, if you're a danger to more people than just yourself, you're out on your ass.
Methinks the rocket doth protest too much
Ban?
BAN?
nononononooooo, rocket88, I don't want to BAN them, I want to hunt them down and run them over with tanks!
http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/2596
Whats the point of seizing power if you can't use tanks to smite the evildoers?
If not a tank, can I at least have a Shetland Pony?
Uh, as far as #5 goes, look at the wheel base on a van or truck.
And a motorcyclist might kill themselves and whoever rides with them, but chances of killing the occupants of a car they hit are doubtless lower than the chances of an SUV taking out the occupants of a car they hit.
Although I have a personal peeve against motorcyclists in NZ who drive without their headlight on. It's the law, as far as I know, and I know someone who died because they thought they were making some kind of statement about it by keeping their headlight off. Motorbikes are small and those lights are one of the main things that prevents them from being hit by people coming out of intersections. /rant
And, um, rocket88, what do you drive?
Here's my take on it. I don't like people who litter on the highway. Because there's really only one explanation for that kind of behavior--that being, the person is a colossal dick. I would never date a litterbug. I don't think I would even want to know someone like that. That kind of selfishness is so pure it's almost satire.
I feel the same way about the majority of SUV drivers. They know they don't need a SUV, and will never use it to it's marketed capacity. They know all about the negative points that have been raised in this thread. They know if they get into an accident with a passenger car, their chance of killing the other motorists are much higher. They don't care.
The difference between those scary 18-wheelers and SUVs is... well, there are many differences. Starting with: commercial vehicles are a necessity, require a special license, and don't tailgate me going 85mph on my morning commute...
Your point about motorcycles has a logical flaw. I'm not going to stop you from killing yourself if you really want to. But I will protest if you try to take me with you.
Oh, and the state of California does actually "ban" poorly maintained cars. We have pretty strict emission standards that must be met.
You have the freedom to purchase whatever kind of car you want. And I have the freedom to not associate with dicks.
And finally, FUCK YOU CLOWN!
Ok. Everybody step away from this thread, take deep breaths and plenty of cold water. Or hot tea. Tea is good.
We're all nice monkeys here. Let's not get too het up about this.
*pat pat*
*communal grooming*
Feel better?
oh, the last sentence in my comment probably should've linked to this, which is from this, in case anyone thought I was being oddly belligerent.
Oh, and not to mention the numbers of SUVs in the US dwarfs the number of commercial tractor-trailers. Think about how many more SUVs you see than 18-wheelers. I usually see a semi once a week. I see about 100 (literally) SUVs a day.
What exactly is hypocritical about any of this? And who exactly is being hypocritical? "SUV-haters?" The ideology of that group, by definition, seems pretty self-consistent.
Paging mister Farley, Mr. Charles U Farley, please report to the SUV thread immediately. The clown has been invoked. I repeat, the clown has been invoked.
Still in all, the "Fuck you clown" can go many ways with the simple addition of my favorite piece of punctuation, the humble comma.
"Fuck, you clown" could mean, "Please begin copulation, my large shoed, heavy makeup wearing companion."
While
"Fuck you, clown" could mean, "I'm rather put out with you, Mr. McDonald. I supersized all my meals for a month and my body went to hell."
Actually, there are only those two combinations. At least with conventional grammatical laws. One could theoretically apply the laws of Quantum Grammar, but then that opens up a whole new can of worms with potential n-dimensional fucking and brightly colored, taffeta singularities. Not to mention the Turretts Uncertainty Principle placing the comma or the "fuck" or the "clown" in completely different sentences and phrases altogether.
Fuck, you (pointing), clown (pointing).
Me: You bet-sa!
Clown: gippie gippie gippie!
Rocket88---The cargo space on 18-wheelers is probably needed to carry whatever they are carrying. Most SUVs are for simply for show. I don't think you can compare the two. Of course, there are those that may need an SUV, but that is not the case for the majority of SUV owners out there. Your ordinary driver has a choice of which vehicle to drive.
You have to admit an aggressive driver in an SUV coming up from behind is a little more intimidating than one in a Honda Civic. No less annoying though.
Path--I do not know what a gun rack looks like, but I must learn to identify them now that I am in California!
Surlyboi, thanks for the kind words! Heh.
umeboshi- Northern or Southern CA?
Every time I go visit LA, I'm reminded of how much better people drive than in San Francisco.
Really.
some useful tips.
Heh, she's in a bunker in an undisclosed location in NoCool.
dang, surlyboi, are you a night owl or what?
-drags meself off to bed, three time zones to the west of surlyboi-
When you're trying to organize pickup and living arrangements for a friend who's visiting from Fiji in a few days, you tend to stay awake late. Besides, Aqua Teen Hunger Force is on. =)
Northern. (flyover country as surlyboi likes to say. office of the governator? home of the choking basketball team?)
I've totally observed this in SoCal though: "it's also unfortunately common for an entire freeway to have all four lanes in the same direction moving at much the same (under-the-limit) speed" driving from SD to Pasadena. ARGH. Haven't seen that phenomenon much up here. The speed limit feels like under the speed limit here.
The speed was what was so new to me. It's not scary driving in NYC cause it's almost impossible to go past 65 mph...or 25 on the BQE during rush hour.
405=Parking lot with car fumes and random shootings.
Oh, wait, no...that's most of LA.
rocket88- As a fellow civil libertarian, I share your enthusiam for freedom, choice, and civil liberties in general. That said, there are several reasons why limiting SUV use might seem prudent:
1. There is no standard height for automobile bumpers. This presents a greater risk for people in cars, and less of a risk for people in SUVs. When my brother, driving his old Mustang, was hit by a 7-Up truck, (it was very snowy, no one's fault) they found pieces of his head on the 7-Up truck's bumper. They did not find pieces of the truck driver's head on my brother's bumper, however. In fact, he didn't have a scratch. This is typical. Hence the bumpers do the opposite of what they're supposed to do; they become weapons.4.
2. Many SUVs, specifically civilian model military vehicles, are designed to climb/crush/kill in an accident. Such an occurrence will (and does) render the 'jaws of life' useless. Hence, many people die simply because the EMS can't get them out from underneath the literal two-car pileup in time. All of this has resulted in an SUV arms race of SIZE in which people start buying bigger, and thus safer, (for them, at least!) vehicles. And sadly, many people can only afford to drive metros, novas, and rabbits.
3. Mass(SUV) x Velocity[constant] = Lotsa Force
Mass(Car) x Velocity[constant] = Not as much Force.
Winner? Mass(SUV)
4. They pollute more than (most?) people are willing to tolerate. EPA guidelines are another example of a seemingly arbitrariy public tolerence limit on emissions. However, the line must be drawn *somewhere*; and frankly, the fact that many vehicles get <= 10 MPG is simply unacceptable.
To summarize: just as your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins... so does your right to over-pollute. And your right to "extra safety" ends when that safety comes at my expense.
Banning bulky oversized vehicles in a city that has no room for them. It's called la civilisation, people. I've been there 6 times and can't wait to get back!
Please do show what the profit margins of say, Exxon-Mobil or DONG (I love saying that at meetings) is and how its 'reliance' of the SUV increases its market share for its stock holders.
How could they not be? The deceasing efficiency of the car market has increased the amount of consumption. That means higher demand, which means that there also needs to be higher production and higher prices, which means more profit. If the average SUV got what the average car got in fuel efficiency, that would mean approximately $730 less money spent on gas every year per average SUV (a href="http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00570.html">). When you consider that there are approximately 100 million light trucks on the road today, that would mean a cut in revenue of nealy $73 billion. And that is a healthy chunk of capital that is taken away when only the fuel efficiency of US sales is considered.
Reliant may be too strong of a word, but it's folly to believe that any industry would be fine with losing even 5% (I'm estimating here) of their income.
I don't have a problem with SUVs, just some of their drivers--that and I think any SUV needs to be taken off road at least once a year...just like any classic muscle car should tear down an abandoned straightaway at least once a year. But I know that won't happen any more than Mini Coopers will be in an excited car chase during a clever heist operation once a year...
All I know is that when I had my trusty Honda Civic, I took it off road on several occasions. Nothing terribly daunting, but more than many a Lexus RX300 driver will do.
And when I had the opportunity to rent a Jeep Liberty during a trip two weeks ago....man, now that is fun off-road...and I mean full-on off-road too-to coin a term.
/relaxes in imaginary 1960s Land Rover Defender soft top.
OK...full disclosure time.
1) I drive a pickup truck (a GMC Sierra, to be precise). It has 4-wheel drive and gets shitty gas mileage. It's also heavy, will crush any small car it comes in contact with and blocks the view of other drivers. I used to need it to haul building materials when I renovated my house. Now I don't need it, but I'm keeping it anyway, because it's mine and I like it.
2) I hate most SUV drivers I meet, especially those giant escalades or escapades or whatever they're called. Oh, and Hummers, too. Never necessary and always driven by dicks. I agree wholeheartedly that nobody needs these things, but I would never, never, never advocate banning them.
3) I hate rich people and their status symbol toys. So do you. I recognize that this sentiment is a factor in my hatred of SUVs and their drivers. It is that recognition that keeps me from wanting them banned, because banning things just because you dont like them is wrong.
Now that the air is cleared let me explain my position a bit...Evidence suggests that SUVs are the most dangerous vehicles on the road. If you take them off the road, some other vehicle will claim the #1 position, probably my beloved pickup truck. You ban those, and the minivan will rise to the #1 spot. There will always be a #1 most dangerous vehicle, you can't change that.
I also believe that banning things is almost always wrong, especially when it's motivated by emotion. And I firmly believe that the anti-SUV sentiment is actually a latent (or not so) anti-rich people sentiment. Why do you think most anti-SUV noise comes from socialists? Banning SUVs to protect motorists is no different (to me) than banning books to protect the moral fibre of society, and I despise both equally.
And i wasn't phased at all by the "Fuck you clown" comment, because I got the joke right away, and it was a good one!
And I firmly believe that the anti-SUV sentiment is actually a latent (or not so) anti-rich people sentiment
That just doesn't wash for me. If that was the case, why don't we see the same backlash for people driving sports cars or luxury sedans?
Well, I don't know about the others, but I've not been saying we should ban anything. I'm just saying that they're irresponsible and dangerous and most people buy them knowing that they're irresponsible and dangerous, but hey, they're really big and shiny! And they make me look like a badass! (No, they don't. They make you look like the driver of a mutated station wagon.)
Most of this thread came in response to a question: Why do you hate SUVs so much?
That said, I don't think banning anything is the solution either. Many cities have limited traffic in certain dense areas to foot, bicycle, and commercial vehicles, and I think that's a good idea, but singling out one type of car is a bad idea.
From this article:
An Insurance Institute study determined that only 4 percent of passenger-car fatalities were the result of crashes with SUVs, even though SUVs comprise a much higher percentage of vehicles on the roads.What about SUVs being major contributors to alleged global warming because they consume more gas per mile than cars and emit lots of carbon dioxide? Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution has shown that emissions from all new vehicles amount to around two percent of all CO2 emissions in the U.S.
Now let's try the game with three new words: loquacious, boll weevil, circumnavigate.
I have to side with the Rocket. If it was a simply a matter of no valid use and dangerous, convertibles would be on the top of the list. And take a seat belt off in any car and the injury rate goes through the roof, regardless of make or model. People buy SUV's for the same reasons that people buy any other car: they *like* it. It makes them feel safe. It makes them feel cool. It allows them to carry what they need. As has been demonstrated amply, one can make the arguments versus a variety of vehciles that one may make against SUVs. And the slippery slope argument applies equally regarding their banning. I'm not sure why SUVs have been so singled out - perhaps their ubiquitousness on the roads, perhaps that they are most popular amongst the suburban middle class burghers who have always historically represented the middling gruel of popular aesthetics and thus are by proxy the target of contempt - but nevertheless, they are here and here to stay. Banning *anything*, once introduced to the marketplace, is an economic and enforcement nightmare. Better to try and address the disporoprtionate issues of SUV ownership (gasoline, dangerous to smaller vehicles, emissions) as has been historically done with other vehicles - by continuing improvement, incremental governmental requirements, and popular demand.
Counter Article"The No. 1 feeling is that everything surrounding you should be round and soft, and should give," Rapaille told me. "There should be air bags everywhere. Then there's this notion that you need to be up high. That's a contradiction, because the people who buy these S.U.V.s know at the cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover. But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller I'm safer. You feel secure because you are higher and dominate and look down. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful notion. And what was the key element of safety when you were a child? It was that your mother fed you, and there was warm liquid. That's why cupholders are absolutely crucial for safety. If there is a car that has no cupholder, it is not safe. If I can put my coffee there, if I can have my food, if everything is round, if it's soft, and if I'm high, then I feel safe. It's amazing that intelligent, educated women will look at a car and the first thing they will look at is how many cupholders it has." During the design of Chrysler's PT Cruiser, one of the things Rapaille learned was that car buyers felt unsafe when they thought that an outsider could easily see inside their vehicles. So Chrysler made the back window of the PT Cruiser smaller. Of course, making windows smaller--and thereby reducing visibility--makes driving more dangerous, not less so. But that's the puzzle of what has happened to the automobile world: feeling safe has become more important than actually being safe.
I still say the French should be banned from driving anything.
I just wanna French you all in the back of my SUV!
YOU GUYS MAKE ME HOT!!!
Holy Shit!
I post one little link yesterday afternoon and look at the mess you monkey's made.
Don't complain, quidranch - this threads got more comments than all 'my' threads put together.
quidranch?
sorry, squidranch - I blame the quidnunc.
Quidranch, is that where the English grow money?
I still say the French should be banned from driving anything.
But then, what would José Bové have taken to the McDo? We must make an exception for the drivers of tiny, charismatic farm tractors.
Well, here's the thing. I don't hate rich people and their status symbol toys. I bought a new car in January, and I could have just as easily gotten an SUV, but I did not. So the whole jealousy thing isn't a factor with me. I don't care that half my city drives German luxury cars, or when I see million dollar sports cars (and I do, kind of often).
I guess my logic is, high performance is a valid reason to buy a car. And so is luxury to a lesser extent. Living in California provides enough utility for purchasing a convertible. But I don't see any other valid justification for buying a SUV unless you're going to be encountering unpaved roads, away from dense urban centers.
And the reason why people hate H2's is the reason why I hate them and NOT the original Hummer. The original (military) Hummer is a super capable off-road vehicle. Hummer owners get it for that reason. OTOH, the H2 is literally a Ford Expedition with larger wheels and different styling. The original Hummer has hooks welded onto the frame, which can be strung with cable to be transported by helicopter. The H2 has these hooks too, except they're on the body. If you tried to lift it with a heli, your hood will come flying off. All pretension, no substance.
I WANNA GIVE YOU ALL A HUMMER ON MY RANCH!
KISS ME, YOU SUV LOVING/HATING/NOT-CARING-EITHER-WAY FOOLS!!!
I'm not complaining. I'm just amazed. This thread is a whopper.
And just to add fuel to the fire, my take on this SUV thang.
But then, what would Jos
Reliant may be too strong of a word, but it's folly to believe ...
Point taken.
...there are approximately 100 million light trucks on the road today...
of those 100 million, how many are civilian, non-commercial SUVs? And that figure is based on what consumers are paying for a gallon of gasoline, not what Big Oil pays on a barrel of oil.
The SUV is a plus for Big Oil, but Big Oil isn't reliant on making customers buy SUVs.
of those 100 million, how many are civilian, non-commercial SUVs?
I tried looking for an exact number and came up empty, but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the light truck category are SUV's or trucks that are in the same boat as the SUV.
And of course that figure is what is the consumer pays. That's what the income is - what the consumer pays the corp.
but Big Oil isn't reliant on making customers buy SUVs
Reliant is too strong of a word. Do they have a vested interest in making sure that people buy more of these gas hogs? Sure they do.
Big Oil can't make consumers buy anything. Neither can the auto industry. It's a demand-driven market, which means they make what we want to buy, not the other way 'round.
I'm curious how you can infer that from what I said.
When I say "they have a vested interest in making sure that people buy more of these gas hogs", it's not by force feeding them to people.
It's by keeping oil prices down through pressuring for increased production, using their lobbies to institute laws and tax breaks that make owning a gas hog more attractive, working with the automotive industry, influence peddling, advertising using the larger vehicles, etc.
Think of them more like shepherds, and not like the marionette overlords that you inferred in my comment.
I for one, welcome our Marionette Overlords...
HadtobedoneFilter
OTOH, the H2 is literally a Ford Expedition with larger wheels and different styling.
I think that it's actually a reskinned Chevy tahoe.
Yeah sorry, you're right, the H2 is based off a shortened Tahoe/Suburban platform.
That's what the income is - what the consumer pays the corp
No state and local taxes added to your gallon of gas? no add'l overhead for the (independantly owned/franshised) gas station?
You know whats really funny? In small towns, a single gas tanker truck pulls up and fills all the gas stations (Shell, Exxon, Texaco, Fina, etc). The owners just pour that company's additives there at that station.
shawnj: Sorry for the mis-read. Yes, Big Oil lobbies for reduced fuel efficiency standards...I wouldn't expect any different seiing they have a vested interest. Environmental & consumer groups lobby for increased standards. In an ideal system, the gub'mint should hit somewhere in between, pissing off both sides (thats how they know they've done their job well).
With the current regime, however, the final results are pretty much whatever the oil lobby wants, so it's far from ideal.
I also wasn't saying I'd like them banned (and I should have said that in my comment, sorry) but rather listing the reasons why I will never own one and I have little respect for most of the people that do own one (with one exception: an English friend of mine who drives a Jeep around town, but apart from that she's a lovely person).
I don't know of a solution for my problems with them. I would only hope that the safety aspects of owning an SUV and the danger it poses to others in an accident would be enough to put people off buying one. But it doesn't. Luckily the ratio of SUV to non-SUV owners in NZ is still very low compared to the US. But it's growing.
No state and local taxes added to your gallon of gas? no add'l overhead for the (independantly owned/franshised) gas station?
All of which is at a flat rate, by state. The average is 42% of gas prices. Which means that the Oil would lose 2.5 percent of their earnings, which is still a significant enough loss to do anything you can to keep it from happening.
Also, with a more efficient base of cars, I would imagine that individual gas station overhead would be lower, due to less use and maintenance.
fewer customers, more overhead cost per customer (someone has to pay the rent and keep that beer fridge cold). But its a buyers market right now.
I'm actually seeing an increase in number of used SUVs and large trucks for sale here in Arkansas (I imagine it's the same in much of the rest of the country), now that gas prices are going up. More and more people are having trouble keeping up with the bill. One customer of mine says she and her husband are spending sixty bucks a week to keep their tanks full.
Wedge: Amen. The panty-twisting "you're takeing away my freeeeeedom" crowd need to bear in mind no-one is taking away the freedom to drive any damn car you please on private land. Just the "freedom" to have a behicale which create huge costs for society on public infrastructure.
This is no different to forcing motorcyclists who wish to ue the public roads to wear crash helmets. Don't like it? Fine, build your own roads out of your own pocket.
I still say the French should be banned from driving anything.
I will not hear a word said against the people who gave us this, or, indeed, this.
Okay, Rodger, so we ban motorcycles as the noisy, fuel-wasting menace to health and public safety that they are. Now what?
Well, while I'm riding my horse, and goetter's on his elephant, maybe rodgerd will take to riding a wolf, or something.
haven't read all 127 posts so apologies if I repeat any arguments ... and further apologies in advance cos the posts I've read have made this Vespa rider WAY pissed-off.
have any of you pro-SUV fucking yanks actually left your blighted hell-hole of a country and actually BEEN to Paris???
It's an 18th century city .. designed and built before cars were invented. it was hard enough to drive, cycle or motorbike around when everyone drove Renault 4s ... the streets aren't very wide. in fact they're mostly very narrow ... SUVs inside Paris are a very stupid thing to drive, and almost impossible to park. So banning them inside the city is a sensible, practical suggestion. And one of the reaons I voted for Ken as mayor of London today is because of his pragmatic views on SUVs as mentioned by dng above ...
Rocket88: you are a selfish idiot. Individuals ceding some of their rights to the government is an essential function of democracy and the ability to live in a society which serves us all ... the claim for individual rights is invariably the last bastion of the moron ... cos my rights to breath and live and love and support Arsenal and travel on a 125 cc small wheeled vehicle have been nearly extinguished by the stupid c*&ts who drive SUVs on a near-daily basis for far too long now. I've lost count of the amount of near misses I've had when I've nearly been knocked off by the moronic near-blind driver of an SUV ...
PS: I'm getting into an SUV tomorrow evening. It's because I'm going to the country where these vehicles belong and to get to where I'm staying we have to travel off-road ... Also it's a 20 year old Landie
Dick, you need a vacation. Have a nice weekend.
If you don't stop fighting back there, I'm turning this elephant around and we're going right back home and we're not getting any ice cream.
You tell 'em Dirigible!
And keep your hands in the window. Haven't I told you before about how a truck could suck you out and you'd splatter all over the highway in seventy two million pieces and be run over and ground into the pavement?
Damn kids.
Okay, Rodger, so we ban motorcycles as the noisy, fuel-wasting menace to health and public safety that they are. Now what?
1. My roommate's KTM Duke (motorcycle) gets 50 mpg, 40 when ridden hard.
2. The safety menace is to the motorcyclist, not the public.
3. FUCK YOU CL...ohnevermind
ooops ... woken up ... feel embarrassed about so much flinging ... off to nurse hangover ...
Cheers, Dick.
Nous sommes desoles que notre President est un idiot, mais nous n'avons pas vote pour lui. Et nous regrettons les SUVs aussi - nous avons un 2CV, nous-memes.
Sorry folks, but I've just been informed that you must have actually BEEN to Paris to have a valid opinion on this matter.
So that's it! Thread's over! Move along now!...Nothing to see here!...Move along!
Back to your blighted hell-holes!
Oh, and dickdotcom, I'll let the selfish idiot comment slide, but don't EVER call me a fucking yank again! Them's fightin' words.
rocket88, do you think you could concede any of the points made here? Or are you still fixed in your opinion? I think what you've just said is a bit of a copout and I'd like to know your genuine opinion.
Rocket88 I wholeheartedly and grovellingly apologise for the use of the Y word ... browsing since I have discovered a reference to you coming from Canada ...
Turns out the Landy owners are thinking about buying an SUV in London ... managed to express myself more coherently verbally this time ...
Damn it, I leave my blighted hell-hole for two days to go visit family at a more scenic hell-hole upstate, and look what happens! All my fellow French-hating yanks just fucking up the scenery. It'd be so much better if we had, I don't know, some intelligent, sensible people here in Hellholica, or maybe some scenic beauty or something.
Nah, couldn't happen.
*fart*
goetter: Well, more pollution and more crowded roads and parking, since many of those motorcyclists will be in cars. If you're prepared to pay for bigger roads and more global warming, go ahead.
The public policy problems caused by motorcycles are quite different to those cause by light trucks being used by cars, and I already compensate the public by paying higher ACC levies to cover the difference in injury and deth rates for motorcyclists ofver general car use.
Personally, I'd love it if truck-type 4WDs (the Landcruisers, Explorers, and the like) required a class 2 license. That would solve most of the problems associated with them, while ensuring they were readily available to people who need 'em.
Oh, and what would I do? Go back to riding trail bikes and maybe start track riding.
I say ban the SUV's and bring back porters and palanquins.
Hmm. Borne about by well-oiled, muscular young men? Fes, I like the way you think.
tracicle: Not a copout...just my initial reaction to dickdotcom's comments, which were a bit over the top.
As for your question...I think I've conceded to many of the points raised here by the pro-banning contingent. Well, not conceded...since I already agreed to those points at the start. I just think SUVs (and their owners) are unfairly being singled out here. The media has made it seem like SUVs are the primary cause of high gas prices, global warming, and a society dependent on foreign oil. I think most of you know this just isn't true.
And, as I've said, I'm not a fan of SUVs. I'd like to see some disincentive programs in place to make them less appealing. Maybe in the form of taxes or surcharges for less fuel-efficient vehicles, or better yet, a gasoline tax that would hit all gas guzzlers, like the habitual speeders I mentioned earlier.
But I can't be in favour of banning them from any public roads. That's just unfair, especially to people who really do need them and use them for their intended purpose, but need to come into the city now and then.
I dunno. If I'm living in a blighted hell-hole, that might be the right terrain for an SUV.
I still think SUVs are only really fun to drive when driving off-road--which neatly eliminates many so-called SUVs.
Speaking of partial non-sequitors, any monkey out there ever drive a tank?
No, but I've driven one of these, and it beats a wussy SUV any day.
Ohh, I want one! I could use it for gardening!
Late for the debate. I really have to say, the hate here is almost scarey.
I own a SUV, I drive it through the midwest snow storms, I can get to work when no one else can. My GMC Gypsy gets 15 mpg gas mileage on the highway. I haul groceries in it, sometimes a months worth at a time. I live in a rural small town. I have family and friends out in the surrounding area that you couldn't make it to their home during bad weather with out a 4wd vehicle. I have 6 animals, a trip to the vet requires a cargo space. Pet carriers and all. I never tailgate. I watch all the time for other drivers. My opinion is, all drivers out there are non-drivers, drive defensively.
I own a mustang, I drive it when the weather is good and for long trips. No cargo space but it gets 20-25 mpg gas milage.
I own an El Camino. I rarely drive it. It gets 10-15mpg. But I can haul my motorcycle in it if I need to.
I own a Harley motorcycle. An antique, it gets 40-50 mpg gas mileage. I ride every chance the weather premits, this includes riding to work. BTW why do you hate motorcycles?
Motorcycles are not a menace. Cage drivers are. They never see you. Not a good excuse, LOOK, be aware that you share the road with many size vehicles, from 2-wheeled to 18-wheeled.
I think anyone who wishes to ride a motorcycle should try to make themselves visible. Headlights on at all times is a smart move. My headliight comes on when I key the ignition.
Perhaps you should look into a 1989 Toyota station wagon. My friend has driven one on a round trip from Alaska to the Continental US (first LA, then Connecticut) about 6 times. Not only does it get through the unpaved detours along the Alaska highway, but he also fits all of his personal belongings for a year in it, including a mountain bike. It gets 35 miles per gallon.
They just don't make cars like they used to.
Man, I forgot how damn FUNNY this thread was!
Bratcat, can't ya feel the LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVV?
Rocket, BC, I'll go you one better. I own a rice-burner 4WD ISUEZOO SUV, not super eco-friendly, but it IS forest green and thus blends well with the sagebrush. I use it to haul three grandkids and two dogs when I go to the grocery store. My daughter uses it 50 miles back and forth to Boise with the same three kids and suitcases/blankets/toys/kid crap for the weekend to visit their dad.
I also own a 2WD 3/4 ton GMC pickup truck (bland white to go with the dirt) that I use to pull a horsetrailer. I'm debating on a 4WD, but don't know if it's worth the trade-off in mileage, since I do haul both highway and backcountry. Stay outta the mud is my motto.
And while I don't have a mustang, I do own three Arab horses that ride in the horsetrailer.
My point? Nothin' but NOTHIN' pisses off most men MORE than a GramMa in an SUV with three small kids, two dogs, and a load of groceries doing the speed limit in front of them.
Unless it's OMFG! a WOMAN pulling a HORSETRAILER. Doesn't matter if I'm 5 mph over the limit. I'm still going too damn slow. An American male must NEVER be content to be behind a WOMAN pulling a HORSE TRAILER.
But even better yet is to be doing 35 in a 40 mile zone hauling a ton of hay that I loaded (and will unload) myself. Damn those women drivers!!
If I get to the point family-wise where I can dump the SUV, I'll gladly do it.
But you'll never pry my pick-up steering wheel from my warm, Jergen's Lotion softened fingers.
I love it, BH! My ex-wife used to own an ISUZU SUV. Pretty small as SUVs go, with a short wheelbase (which will come up later). It was her baby, her pride & joy. One cold November morning I was driving it to work (in 2WD mode) and hit the first black ice of the year (Southern Ontario). Well, let me tell you that thing just spun like a top (short wheelbase, ya know). I figure I did a full 720 degrees (felt like more) before I hit the concrete base of the light standard side-on. I was mostly fine, but the ISUZU was totalled. Thank god it had a SOLID FRAME or it would have just wrapped around it, instead of bouncing off.
My point? Well, 4WD is the way to go. My pickup has automatic 4WD, so it kicks in as soon as wheels start to slip. Also, avoid short wheelbase vehicles in general if you drive on loose or slippery surfaces.
I've owned a variety of 2WD and 4WD vehicles, and I can say with authority that 4WD kicks ass on ice & snow. I wouldn't face a Canadian winter without it. For that reason alone, I can forgive anyone up here for driving an SUV.
And I'm glad I wrecked the bitch's ride!!!
*Perhaps you should look into a 1989 Toyota station wagon.*
Had a station wagon, little chevy cavalier, not even a car that meets my needs. The cargo space was never tall enough, can't fit a 50cc motorcycle in the back. It held two pet carriers vs. four in the SUV. It was worthles on snow and ice.
Yeah I feeeel the luv.
BlueHorse: If I had a passel of kids, I'd be after something like a Toyota Previa or similar people mover. Mostly 'cause I'm always astonished at how little space there actually is in most big 4WDs.
rodgerd, my inlaws have a Lucida, pretty much identical to the Previa, and it's invaluable. My father-in-law has indeed been known to put his motorbike in the back after taking out all the seats, and even after they bought a little zippy town-car, they couldn't force themselves to sell it because they travel from Blenheim to Christchurch (about four hours of windy, mountainous coast road) so regularly and it's ideal for long trips with loads of tools.
He also builds replica aircraft for the Blenheim air show, so it's perfect for towing those to the airfield, also. Not much of an excuse to keep it, if you ask me, but it's for a noble cause. :)
Oh, yes, sports cars! Small things, with great gas mileage. Hadn't thought of those since I sold off my Triumph an eon ago when I needed a place to put the baby seat. Let's all go out and buy sports cars. It'll be the new fad, and only those who really need the advantages of SUVs will buy those. Is Road and Track magazine still around? I used to read it devotedly.
And if we do, I'll have great fun zipping around, glorying in the sound of the exhaust, taking mountain curves at slightly faster speed. I really miss that, having driven sensible cars for way too long.
And, no, I'm not being snarky. Driving an agile vehicle is such a different experience (much as I would assume driving a motorcycle is, but with a bit more protection.) I'd love to have an MG TD, or maybe a Porsche Speedster, but, since they don't make those anymore, I'll just have to check out the current possibilities.
Trust me, path, once you've tried the comparison of sports car and bike, the sports car pales. Especially when you can buy a high performance bike for a fraction of the price of the equivalent performance in a car.
But yes, the protection is not so good. This wouldn't matter so much if there weren't so many idiots allowed on the road...
Actually, rogerd, it would. I had this argument a while back with a colleague, so I looked up the stats...turns out the majority of motorcycle accidents are single-vehicle. No cars involved, just a hotshot taking a turn too fast.
What makes you think the only idiots I'm referring to are the cagers?
I'm well aware of that stat. It makes me unpopular on bike boards 8).
But it's actually a fairly slim majority - and also catches up cases like a recent high-profile prosecution of council workers who failed to put up warning signs while performing road works on a blind corner. Single vehicle accident, sure. But not quite what I'd refer to as the rider's fault.
What about ATVs? Now that's a vehicle that gets anywhere. Plus, if you get stuck, you can get a small one out by hand!
Stats on motorcycle crashes, I have seen them twisted by people on both sides of the argument. The argument about use of helmets and insurance laws, etc. My opinion, based on my experience is the most dangerous thing to a motorcyclist is other people (cagers) not watching out for bikes and the rider not having good skills and safety knowledge. I advocate a motorcycle safety course for all riders new and experienced.
I have had two friends die on motorcycles, in two seperate accidents. Both were wearing protective gear and had years of riding under their belts. The persons driving the cars that hit them made a left hand turn into their path of travel. The statement made at both crash scenes by both drivers was * I didn't see them*. BTW they both always road with their headlights on.
I have had three friends laid up with several broken bones from the same type of crash. Left hand turns into the path of the motorcyclist.
My husband was backed into on a city street, by a car driver backing out of his drive. He didn't *see* my husband. He had two crushed feet as a result of that accident.
I was run off the hwy in washington state by a cager who pulled in front of me on a busy hwy. I was traveling at the speed limit of 60 mph, I had no where to go due to oncoming traffic. Needless to say I crashed. I had a shattered knee cap, a broken pelvis and lost all the skin off my hands.Yee haw, he said *I never saw the bike*
I have little faith in any driver in a car, truck , van, whatever when I am on the bike. They can't see me. Funny though, fellow motorcyclist never fail to see me on the road and give the wave.
Drive safe everyone. See me I see you.
A derail? Sorry but I had to say what I had to say.
ATVs IMO are more dangerous than motorcycles.
Huh? You should never ride an ATV on a public road, unless you really want to die. So no cagers. The two biggest dangers on an ATV are speed and carelessness, and you can avoid them both.
Interesting article, shawnj. It says SUVs are *less* likely to be involved in fatal accidents than small cars and sports cars (last paragraph).
Funny how that fact was neglected in the article title.
At least now we know what to ban first: small cars and sports cars. Get 'em off the road! Unsafe at any speed.
Midsize SUVs, which include the segment's most popular models, came in fifth at 6.73 deaths per billion miles, behind midsize cars but better than small cars or sport car models.
maybe it's the 'midsize'. I'd find out what defines an SUV, but I don't wanna.
Or were those is small cars more likely to die because they were being hit by SUVs and other large cars?
wheelleg drive. They're great on sidehills. They have a winch. They also eat a lot, generate prodigous amounts of dung, and kill their handlers in rampages. I'd trade my truck for an elephant in a heartbeat.