Whats the "single most eerie thing"?Sashi wrote:You know, that is probably the single most eerie thing I have ever heard on the internet, talon2mech. My grandpa owns a Chevy Suburban, and we happen to not live too far from Albuquerque. If we were still in town it'd almost sound like my grandpa was making a post on here (not that he would, as closed-minded as he can be about the subject of this site).
Hmm, Long time no post.
-
talon2mech
- Active Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:26 am
- Location: Albuquerque NM
-Matt
Well, I don't think you really get it. F1 cars are designed to fall apart on impact so the driver is protected. SUVs are designed to stay solid so the forces are transferred direct to the driver. Or the child in front, or behind it, or the other people in a car being mown down by these mobile bungalows.
Smokers I used to work with always used to bleat about their rights. They moaned continually: "It isn't illegal, iain," "It's a free country, iain". "If you don't like it, why don't you work somewhere else?" Well, what about my rights? I didn't want to breathe their stinking smoke, but I had no sodding choice. Where were my rights? What gave them the right to make me sick?
SUV drivers are bleating on about their rights and their reasons. oooh, it looks so nice! A guy I know needs to tow a boat! I know a guy with 8 children! What about a guy I know who lives on a mountain? Hmm?? Maybe so. But people don't buy SUVs in their millions for these reasons. They buy them to show off and feel good about themselves. But why should they endanger the lives of other users on the roads, what gives them that right, and what about the rights of other people destined to be crushed to death by these carbuncles?
Where is the sense in a society that has enough problems already without making themselves sick, crushing each other, shooting each other, or poisoning each other, but which allows this to go on in the name of freedom? Nobody wants to be told what to do--but how about common sense put ahead of fancy marketing and manufactuer profits? Is that ever gonna happen? Or are we just going to stick a little tax on top to fund our next war--you can forget about it going anywhere else--so we can say "yup! duh job is done!"
Or are we gonna have to clap people on the back who buy tanks disguised as cars forever more, and forget about common sense? This society sucks big time. It makes fools of everyone. And people go around talking about their big fat freedom. It's just a load of nonsense.
Smokers I used to work with always used to bleat about their rights. They moaned continually: "It isn't illegal, iain," "It's a free country, iain". "If you don't like it, why don't you work somewhere else?" Well, what about my rights? I didn't want to breathe their stinking smoke, but I had no sodding choice. Where were my rights? What gave them the right to make me sick?
SUV drivers are bleating on about their rights and their reasons. oooh, it looks so nice! A guy I know needs to tow a boat! I know a guy with 8 children! What about a guy I know who lives on a mountain? Hmm?? Maybe so. But people don't buy SUVs in their millions for these reasons. They buy them to show off and feel good about themselves. But why should they endanger the lives of other users on the roads, what gives them that right, and what about the rights of other people destined to be crushed to death by these carbuncles?
Where is the sense in a society that has enough problems already without making themselves sick, crushing each other, shooting each other, or poisoning each other, but which allows this to go on in the name of freedom? Nobody wants to be told what to do--but how about common sense put ahead of fancy marketing and manufactuer profits? Is that ever gonna happen? Or are we just going to stick a little tax on top to fund our next war--you can forget about it going anywhere else--so we can say "yup! duh job is done!"
Or are we gonna have to clap people on the back who buy tanks disguised as cars forever more, and forget about common sense? This society sucks big time. It makes fools of everyone. And people go around talking about their big fat freedom. It's just a load of nonsense.
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
-
Departed Member
Hey, Iain! If we're gonna have a go at the (please insert your own personally acceptable expletives here [yes, plural!]) smokers, please start/transfer to a new thread, otherwise this one's going to go off the road and across ploughed fields, mountain terrain, deep fords and all the other places that 98.56% of SUV/4WD NEVER go!!!!!!!!!
The fact that I've ran into a New Mexican on the net whose car is the same as my grandpa's, making it almost sound like me grandpa was making posts up rather than some stranger. It fits eerily well, your story about your Suburban. You just don't expect to find someone on the net who lives quite close to you, or at least I don't :ninjajig:talon2mech wrote:Whats the "single most eerie thing"?
Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. That does make sense, and of course I do have a tendency to forget that energy does have to go somewhere, since it can't be destroyed.crfriend wrote:You're close. Minivans are typically constructed in ways that are similar to cars in that they use a unibody construction rather than a rigid frame the way that trucks do. This also means that they incorporate a number of safety features (like crumple zones) that trucks do not.
...
Given the above, and the fact that SUVs are prone to rollover accidents, it becomes rather obvious why they have such poor survivability in real-world collisions. Add into the equation the (incorrect) perception of safety/invulnerability that SUV drivers typically have, it's also easy to see why they drive the vehicles in the manner that they do, and why they crash so frequently.
Male. I usually leave out my gender unless someone asks or the site forces me into making it public.iain wrote:hi, out of curiosity I checked out your blogger profile but nowhere does it say m/f.. can you enlighten?
ta!
Of course, one thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that it really doesn't matter how big or small your vehicle is, they are all basically death on wheels. You may be in the smallest vehicle you can get, but if you hit a pedestrian while driving, or hell even another car, you have a chance of killing them. Depending on your speed and various other things, even the smallest of vehicles could create a guaranteed kill. It's the responsibility of the driver to make sure they keep everything under control and watch out for trouble, and it really doesn't matter how big or small their vehicle is. If they aren't driving safe, they are endangering everyone. The same goes to everything a person does that could affect another person's physical or mental state.
http://the-shining-path.blogspot.com
Hatred is learned, not inherited. Let a little child from Iraq play with a child from the United States, and they will play together without a care in the world. Put the children back in their homes and their parents and the media will teach them hate and prejudice.
Hatred is learned, not inherited. Let a little child from Iraq play with a child from the United States, and they will play together without a care in the world. Put the children back in their homes and their parents and the media will teach them hate and prejudice.
Of course, one thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that it really doesn't matter how big or small your vehicle is, they are all basically death on wheels. You may be in the smallest vehicle you can get, but if you hit a pedestrian while driving, or hell even another car, you have a chance of killing them. Depending on your speed and various other things, even the smallest of vehicles could create a guaranteed kill.
A sweet sentiment, but quite silly: jumping off a trampoline onto hard ground is slightly dangerous, and there is a possibility of death. Jumping off a roof is more dangerous, and there is a possibility of survival. But equating the two (on the basis that both are dangerous anyway) is reckless. One might easily jump off a trampoline in a moment of exuberance but one would not jump off a roof to reach the ground: logically he would take the stairs. By confusing the two extremes, one of which is reasonable, the other of which is not, one can be said to encourage those of a weaker mind to rationalise a plunge to certain injury. When they lie mangled on the ground, anyone who confused them enough might as well have helped push them off the roof.
Vehicle safety reduces needless danger to others as far as logic allows. Since there is no need to drive a huge vehicle around, and since it is dangerous (for the many well-documented and completely unarguable reasons already cited), increasing the danger to innocent bystanders cannot be justified simply on the basis that rich people want to flash their wads, or because others like to pretend they are mounting a perilous expedition to the newsagents, or if they simply like the big shiny metal.
It is important that thinking people agree to label fashionable marketing-led stupidity for what it is. Being "politically correct" and cowering under a shrubbery of soft and cuddly euphemisms in case anyone raises their voice against us just spreads the confusion further.
A sweet sentiment, but quite silly: jumping off a trampoline onto hard ground is slightly dangerous, and there is a possibility of death. Jumping off a roof is more dangerous, and there is a possibility of survival. But equating the two (on the basis that both are dangerous anyway) is reckless. One might easily jump off a trampoline in a moment of exuberance but one would not jump off a roof to reach the ground: logically he would take the stairs. By confusing the two extremes, one of which is reasonable, the other of which is not, one can be said to encourage those of a weaker mind to rationalise a plunge to certain injury. When they lie mangled on the ground, anyone who confused them enough might as well have helped push them off the roof.
Vehicle safety reduces needless danger to others as far as logic allows. Since there is no need to drive a huge vehicle around, and since it is dangerous (for the many well-documented and completely unarguable reasons already cited), increasing the danger to innocent bystanders cannot be justified simply on the basis that rich people want to flash their wads, or because others like to pretend they are mounting a perilous expedition to the newsagents, or if they simply like the big shiny metal.
It is important that thinking people agree to label fashionable marketing-led stupidity for what it is. Being "politically correct" and cowering under a shrubbery of soft and cuddly euphemisms in case anyone raises their voice against us just spreads the confusion further.
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
Iain, what vehicle would you have us all drive? How big is too big? (and who got to make that decision?) How small is small enough? Should we all drive cars that will just barely hold us and our families? Why? And for your information, not only have I never crushed a car or a baby, I have not even had an accident in 27 years -- even driving a 34 foot long, 8.5 foot wide motorhome.
So let's see ... Iain would have me trade my SUV for a smaller vehicle.
What? A small estate wagon? Why? An A3 at 90 mph has more momentum than my Toyota at 70 mph.
Ok then, maybe a sedan? Nope, a nice mid-level BMW weighs more than my Toyota, and is capable of much higher speeds (thus 'kill-and-crush' potential).
Ok then, maybe a B-segment car -- a Fiesta or the like? Well why stop there? After all, I'd be carrying around all that space, being unused while it was just me taking a drive.
Smaller? Maybe a Punto? Oh that's fine until you actually do hit something and watch the car wrap around your legs and knees.
Oh ok, maybe a motorcycle? Oh yes, that's it -- but I suppose Iain will want an authority to deem just how fast it can go -- so my Ducati crotch rocket doesn't hit a kid at 150 mph?
SUVs don't crush cars and kids -- bad drivers do. And they'd do it any size car.
So let's see ... Iain would have me trade my SUV for a smaller vehicle.
What? A small estate wagon? Why? An A3 at 90 mph has more momentum than my Toyota at 70 mph.
Ok then, maybe a sedan? Nope, a nice mid-level BMW weighs more than my Toyota, and is capable of much higher speeds (thus 'kill-and-crush' potential).
Ok then, maybe a B-segment car -- a Fiesta or the like? Well why stop there? After all, I'd be carrying around all that space, being unused while it was just me taking a drive.
Smaller? Maybe a Punto? Oh that's fine until you actually do hit something and watch the car wrap around your legs and knees.
Oh ok, maybe a motorcycle? Oh yes, that's it -- but I suppose Iain will want an authority to deem just how fast it can go -- so my Ducati crotch rocket doesn't hit a kid at 150 mph?
SUVs don't crush cars and kids -- bad drivers do. And they'd do it any size car.
-
Departed Member
So, Mtn Biker, you live in a highly populated urban town/area of the UK, right?
You travel perhaps as much as 5 miles to work? Or take the kid(s) to school, oh at least 1,500yards, maybe a mile to school? Or alternatively, blaze up and down the M-whatever at 85mph plus, flashing and/or honking, because someone in another vehicle has the temerity to be overtaking the vehicle(s) in the adjacent lane and is (gasp!) travelling at the maximum legal road speed allowed?
Some years ago in the UK, it was made illegal to fit 'fixed' embellishments to the front of your bonnet (RR "Silver Lady", Jaguar "Pouncing Cat", etc.) as these could kill/maim stray pedestrians/cyclists, etc. What then, is the difference that allows folk to fit 'bull bars' (is that the correct name?) to the front of their vehicle which will either kill, or at best, seriously injure the average child, and just as likely inflict severe injuries to any adult, especially bearing mind that these vehicles are highly unlikely to ever encounter a raging bull, even in a country market town, such as are plentiful (towns, that is!) in my area?
This notion that you have to be travelling at high speeds to kill, or be killed, is just fanciful nonsense, surely? Most road accidents occur at well below road speed, fatal or otherwise. Agreed, it's invariably down to the behaviour of one or more of the drivers, not the vehicle they are driving. Unfortunately, as Iain knows better than I, SUV-type vehicles are gaining a reputation for being driven by reckless and aggressive drivers. My gripe is at the other end of the scale, namely using and 'parking' (substitute 'abandoning, if you will!) such vehicles so as to cause maximum confusion and disruption to other road users. For every 'boy racer', there's ten or more of the thoughtless SUV on the road. A farmer friend of ours reckons to keep his vehicle permanently muddy and filthy, so as not to be 'confused' with the 'townies'. If he, who is out in the country 6.5/7 days can drive/park sensibly, why oh why, cannot the townie posers?
You travel perhaps as much as 5 miles to work? Or take the kid(s) to school, oh at least 1,500yards, maybe a mile to school? Or alternatively, blaze up and down the M-whatever at 85mph plus, flashing and/or honking, because someone in another vehicle has the temerity to be overtaking the vehicle(s) in the adjacent lane and is (gasp!) travelling at the maximum legal road speed allowed?
Some years ago in the UK, it was made illegal to fit 'fixed' embellishments to the front of your bonnet (RR "Silver Lady", Jaguar "Pouncing Cat", etc.) as these could kill/maim stray pedestrians/cyclists, etc. What then, is the difference that allows folk to fit 'bull bars' (is that the correct name?) to the front of their vehicle which will either kill, or at best, seriously injure the average child, and just as likely inflict severe injuries to any adult, especially bearing mind that these vehicles are highly unlikely to ever encounter a raging bull, even in a country market town, such as are plentiful (towns, that is!) in my area?
This notion that you have to be travelling at high speeds to kill, or be killed, is just fanciful nonsense, surely? Most road accidents occur at well below road speed, fatal or otherwise. Agreed, it's invariably down to the behaviour of one or more of the drivers, not the vehicle they are driving. Unfortunately, as Iain knows better than I, SUV-type vehicles are gaining a reputation for being driven by reckless and aggressive drivers. My gripe is at the other end of the scale, namely using and 'parking' (substitute 'abandoning, if you will!) such vehicles so as to cause maximum confusion and disruption to other road users. For every 'boy racer', there's ten or more of the thoughtless SUV on the road. A farmer friend of ours reckons to keep his vehicle permanently muddy and filthy, so as not to be 'confused' with the 'townies'. If he, who is out in the country 6.5/7 days can drive/park sensibly, why oh why, cannot the townie posers?
Drive whatever you would have driven before they invented the fashionably imbecilic SUV. I don't remember anyone remaining housebound because of a lack of suitable vehicles in those days.
Anyway, it's not ME saying they're dangerous, it's the US government, that paragon of radical thought. The figures speak for themselves: roads were getting safer, and with the SUV, they're getting much more dangerous. Not just a little more. It's like in smoking days, the other staff would act like it was me who was to blame! They'd say, "what do you suggest, that we smoke outside? It's winter!" and "People die all the time from cars, but you don't go around banning them!" Not to forget the classic, "My grandfather smoked every day for 80 years and he lived until he was 95."
"It's not guns which kill, it's people."
But.. uh.. surely, the guns help?
SUVs don't crush cars and kids -- bad drivers do. And they'd do it any size car.
Of course they wouldn't! If they could only see out the back, they wouldn't run over their own kids, surely?
Anyway, it's not ME saying they're dangerous, it's the US government, that paragon of radical thought. The figures speak for themselves: roads were getting safer, and with the SUV, they're getting much more dangerous. Not just a little more. It's like in smoking days, the other staff would act like it was me who was to blame! They'd say, "what do you suggest, that we smoke outside? It's winter!" and "People die all the time from cars, but you don't go around banning them!" Not to forget the classic, "My grandfather smoked every day for 80 years and he lived until he was 95."
"It's not guns which kill, it's people."
But.. uh.. surely, the guns help?
SUVs don't crush cars and kids -- bad drivers do. And they'd do it any size car.
Of course they wouldn't! If they could only see out the back, they wouldn't run over their own kids, surely?
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
-
talon2mech
- Active Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:26 am
- Location: Albuquerque NM
Well it is not too uncommon to find a Suburban or 2 in the greater Albuquerque area. However, I find it unusual to meet another New Mexican in a MIS forum. I thought I was the only one running about Albuquerque in skirts...Sashi wrote:The fact that I've ran into a New Mexican on the net whose car is the same as my grandpa's, making it almost sound like me grandpa was making posts up rather than some stranger. It fits eerily well, your story about your Suburban. You just don't expect to find someone on the net who lives quite close to you, or at least I don't :ninjajig:
-Matt
-
talon2mech
- Active Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:26 am
- Location: Albuquerque NM
I can agree that most SUV owners should not be allowed to drive a vehicle that big. I can a agree that most people can't parallel park a bicycle let alone a large truck like vehicle. However, my daily near miss is usually with a midsize car or minivan. In a 30 day month I almost get creamed by a car 15 days, a minivan 10 days and an SUV the remaining 5.merlin wrote: SUV-type vehicles are gaining a reputation for being driven by reckless and aggressive drivers. My gripe is at the other end of the scale, namely using and 'parking' (substitute 'abandoning, if you will!) such vehicles so as to cause maximum confusion and disruption to other road users.
People can't drive period. They are just as dangerous with a shopping cart as they are with an SUV. If you feel intimidated drive something bigger...
-Matt
-
crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 14487
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Cooperation
The problem isn't that most people can't drive, it's that people forget that driving is an inherently cooperative venture; if one fails to take notice of what's going on around one's self, and behave accordingly, everybody suffers. It's a little like polite society; if everybody plays by the rules of etiquette everybody has a reasonable time of things -- and one boor can screw the whole game up!talon2mech wrote:People can't drive period. They are just as dangerous with a shopping cart as they are with an SUV. If you feel intimidated drive something bigger...
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
-
ChrisM
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:49 am
- Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Cooperative Driving
Spot-on CRF! Once again you have given me the words needed to articulate something I had seen but couldn't state: Here in the Washington DC area the driving is COMPETITIVE, whereas my driving style is COOPERATIVE. The difference between the two is stunning.
So....How does one build a society in which COOPERATION is rewarded? We have plenty of examples of how to build a society in which competition is rewarded.
<wry smile>
Chris
So....How does one build a society in which COOPERATION is rewarded? We have plenty of examples of how to build a society in which competition is rewarded.
<wry smile>
Chris