You don't need a bill that makes them illegal; start with one that charges a super high tax on them (for their increased destruction of highways, increased polution, danger to other drivers, etc) that makes the opperating cost of SUVs similar to that of private jets. That would reduce the SUV sales to the point where the manufacturers would surely stop making them, and then SUVs would fade away like dussenbergs.

 

Brilliant! Don't deny the freedom but make it damn near impossible. I guess there is an ounce of sense in you afterall.

 

But that is what would happen. Nothing in this country happens overnight and not without social change. You can't justify one thing and ignore other things and expect no effect whatsoever. We can't even get people to stop smoking in this country and thats much more dangerous then an SUV, so how do you propose to do this.

 

The automobile is the single most deadly thing humans have ever invented. They've killed more than guns and cigarettes combined by orders of magnitude. I think cigarettes are quite a bit safer than SUVs. Heck, cigarettes are probably less dangerous that WRXs.

 

How do you figure?

 

Well of course nothing happens without social impact but you can justify one thing and ignore the other. And I never said it wouldn't effect anything. The effect it would have is exactly why I think we should ban them. We have done this many times in America. Almost half the laws out there somehow effect your liberties as an American. For starters I've already mentioned assault weapons. What are you not understanding here?

Bad argument. You can't ever get all people to quit smoking, doing drugs, or drinking alcohol. The war on drugs and prohibition have taught us this.

Anyone want to take a stab as to why this is? Because growing tobacco, marijuana, and making grandpa's cough medicine doesn't take a crew of one-hundred Cal Poly and MIT Grads working in conjunction with thousands of factory workers on a massive production line. All it takes is a little ingenuity, a small location, and a minimum of a West Virginian backwoods education.

 

I'm trying to find the stats I had when I wrote a paper in HS...can't find it though. Basically, in terms of pure deaths, cars have caused more than cigarettes have. The thing is...lately the stats are getting hard to read for cigarette deaths. Officially, if someone smokes cigarettes and dies before the age of 70 of any type of cancer, any heart disease, or any vascular sickness they say the person died of smoking. But people have heart problems before 60 without ever smoking...so you see the problem with the recent stats.

Cars do kill ~40,000 people/ year in the US, which is far more than we've lost in Iraq to date.

And to tie into this thread, SUVs aren't actually any safer than regular cars. In some cases they are much more dangerous, and they are never safer for people that aren't in an SUV.

 

banning suv's will never happen, nor do i want it to happen. less work for us techs
it will also sqrew up EVERY company. beleive it or not every car manufacturer is connected

on the gas subject....

the only reason companies can make suv/trucks w/ 10 mpg is becuase they meet the that EPA fuel average consumption law thing

for every 1 toyota prius(55 mpg) they make, toyota can get away with like 3-4 (10-20mpg) vehicles. They are following the law. so everyone is happy. end

now ferrari and lambo have to pay a hefty tax everytime they sell there cars because they do not average out (forgot what the # is) so they gota pay like $3000 on each car they sell but hell.... they just add it on the $100,000 price tag so who cares


i love american car companies
hell im going to buy a 04 gto

 

DIsagree. While the initial feeling I have when I read antagonistic viewpoints towards SUVs is that they start to make sense, I suddenly realize my true feelings....that I don't really care.

I think everyone should have an RV as a dd if they like. My main gripe against large vehicles isn't the amount of fuel they consume or the lack of safety they reportedly promise, it's that they normally ride en masse in the left lane. I'm normally trying to do 80-85 and they are nothing but obstacles that won't move, no matter how close to their rear bumper I get.

I have resigned myself to adding my car to the 60mph 'left lane train'. Once you accept it, it doesn't frustrate you as much.

 

If you want to clean up the air world wide
1-You need to stop all volcanic activity threwout the world
2-stop some of the backwords 3rd world nations from burning piles of tire on saterday night for fun
3-Shut the pie holes of people that want to ban suvs
4- I heard something today about the methane gas that trees put off as a by-products of producing O2
Just a short list

 

I don't think SUVs should be banned becuase I feel they have a purpose. Maybe not for everyone, but they do. Plus, people want them, people are buying them, and they are keeping some Big Businesses alive.

SUVs, unlike most minivans, can get through tough road conditions with lesser effort. Like snow. I would feel much more safe in a SUV, as a opposed to a minivan, in a snow storm on my way home from Tahoe. SUVs are also more rigidly built than minivans. So, if somehow I get involved in a roll over accident with my family in the car, I know they would be more safe in the SUV than a minivan. For someone who travels to the mountains as frequently as my family does, I think a SUV is a better choice. If you're communiting with co-workers or a group of people in safer conditions, then I would suggest a minivan for their superior gas-mileage.

I do think SUVs are impracticle for a soccer moms and small families (couples) that do not utilize the car and use it for what it was made to do. I hate seeing a house wife in her Ford Excursion on the freeway. Like gPatmac said, they go slow in the fast lane (by slow I mean the speed limit). They do not move over because a majority of the drivers are not aware of what is going on (Soccer moms). These same drivers often drift in to other lanes. You can honk at them but they usually do not react. They are too scared they will flip their car with a suddent movement. They do not usually know how capable SUVs really are. I'm not saying they handle like race cars, but they don't tip if you suddenly move back into your lane.

Anyway, that's part of my reasoning why I don't think they should be banned. Someone mentioned about special driver's licenses, I think that is a great idea. I think that should be done for boats as well.

 

Why do people keep bringing up the big business aspect when it's completely groundless!

You think Colt, Fabrique National, Robinson ARMs, Steyer, Beretta, Action Arms, Norinco, Mitchell, (etc) are all lightweights in the big business industry? They're sitting on a crippled public multi-million dollar industry that's in very high demand because of legislation!

Then maybe we can keep the big business alive by pumping out SUVs for the dept of forestry, the President's entourage, emergency vehicles, etc. Much like how Ford makes the Police Interceptor and Chevy makes a police version of the Malibu but does not sell them directly to the public.

Otherwise, I cannot see any worthwhile reason to keep SUVs and these ridiculous trucks. The Cons FAR outweigh the Pros in every respect. I'd go so far to say that SUVs cons surpass the cons of assault rifles (I can give you my argument if you'd like). There's no arguing that SUVs are mainly purchased as a status symbol. I have seen x2 wheel drive Toyota cars drive on old logging roads in the Sierra Nevada while hunting (Ice House & Kyburz). Regular automobiles are very capable of tackling 99% of the jobs that the general public requires. There's no legitimate excuse for these monstrosities.

I love the bigger car makes me feel safer excuse. It's just another reason to ban them if you ask me. "I'll feel safer in these goliaths should I ever get into an accident." Guess who you completely destroyed in the process? The family that's doing their part to protect the environment by driving the sedan. The "we'll keep making bigger automobiles to make people feel safer" is the most ***-backwards logic I can ever think of.

 

Normally, I agree with you on most topics. This one, I think you're a little extreme on. Did something happen to you involving a SUV that you just have a bigger hate for them?

How is it groundless? Ford and GM would be in worse trouble if these cars were not being built and sold.

First, I'm confused, are u saying legislation is puting their industry in very high demand? Second, Colt doesn't seem to be doing too bad, they had $75m in sales in 2004, a 12% sales growth from '03. Their 1 year net income growth was 209%. That's HUGE. I could not find specific numbers for Beretta, but I did find this: "The company sells to law enforcement agencies and through exclusive distributors, and at its high-end retail galleries." Anyone that has federal contracts I think is in ok shape. (info from www.Hoovers.com)

I also don't think it's entirely fair to compare the auto industry with the firearms industry. I'm down with gun ownership. Hell, I own a few rifles and shotguns myself, my dad has about 15-20 firearms on the ranch, I know there are gun owners on here as well (you and Paul). I don't quite understand where you're trying to go with that arguement...


We already do this. This would not be enough to keep these companies alive and afloat.

Would you be willing to compile a list of PROs and CONs? I'm curious to know what you're thinking. I'd be willing to debate some of the points with you.

I agree that SUVs are purchased by a lot of people as a status symbol. Just look at the Cadillac Escalade and Hummer H2. I think that the people who buy SUVs for this (wrong) reason are ill-educated and dumb.

These 2WD Toyotas are FWD. They would do better in that type of situation than a RWD SUV (which most are that aren't AWD). You're right that reg. automobiles are capable of 99% of what the gen. public requires. That's why I said I don't think Soccer Moms need them. I think that people who don't need an SUV shouldn't buy one.

I would be willing to argue that most SUVs are safer than most sedans when it comes to car crashes. I feel that you're wrong by saying "feel safer". I think you are ultimately safer in an SUV. Do you think that we should ban the big V-12 sedans/cars that get the same, if not worse, gas mileage as SUVs? (ie: Rolls-Royce Phantom, Bentley Continental, Ferarri Enzo, etc). I would be willing to bet that you would say "No." Why not? They use more gas and probably go through it quicker.

I like SUVs, I just don't like everyone that drives/operates them. I do not think they should be baned, I think they should regulate who is eligable to drive them, as I previously statede.

 

It's groundless based on the fact it hasn't stopped legislation before when a huge market existed for assault rifles. I'm saying that legislation put the brakes on an already present demand for assault rifles. Colt is only doing good because they have military contracts and because they continue to sell "regular-style" firearms, the equivalent to non-SUVs in the automobile industry. Same thing holds true for FN and Berreta. The fact SUVs are keeping certain car manufactures afloat is not the issue here nor does it matter. That's like saying pfizer, a pharmaceutical company, stays afloat and should continue to stay afloat on medication that has just been deemed potentially dangerous by the FDA.




There are many similarities between the two based on demand, physical characteristics, jobs used in manufacturing, etc. The only things that do not add up are physical side effects (waste) and negative statistics.

Both are/were in high demand. Both are tangible objects that are only as good as the beholder. Both create jobs in the manufacturing, shipping, and selling processes (etc). However, the physical side effects and negative statistics are far greater for SUVs, especially regarding physical waste. For example, the byproduct of ammunition is a small, insignificant jacketed piece of lead and minimal burn-off from smokeless powder whereas an SUV creates a ton of pollution and grossly depletes the world's natural resources. As for negative statistics, even though crimes have been committed with assault rifles and people have been killed, the number of injuries and deaths via SUVs are greater. Yet assault rifles are illegal?! You see my point yet?




You're not getting the point. My point is that the numerous people driving sedans are less safe because they have to share the road with SUV owners. The answer to this problem should not be that sedan owners are forced to meet the size of SUVs by buying one themselves. It would only encourage larger vehicles (which we already have) because people would be back at par in regards to feeling safer than everyone else. Furthermore, doing so would encourage and increase the negligent depletion of natural resources.


This is a very good question. I guess it all depends on the seriousness of the problem and the well being of my children in the future. I would say yes if legislation is passed to ban SUVs solely based on the careless consumption of fuel. I would say no if the legislation was based on the negative statistics involved with SUVs as i'm willing to bet statistics involving exotic cars is insufficient (not sure). I would say yes if it was legislation based on the combination of the two.

Besides, maybe this would be another incentive for MVWRX's tax and fee method? If you can afford an Enzo or Bentley then you shouldn't have a problem coming-up with the added money required to drive.

 

Okay... Will all those that voted "no" for this poll that also agree with the banning of assault rifles please explain your position on the banning of assault rifles?