Hmm, Long time no post.

Non-fashion, non-skirt, non-gender discussions. If your post is related to fashion, skirts or gender, please choose one of the forums above for it.
Post Reply
User avatar
Since1982
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3449
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: My BUTT is Living in the USA, and sitting on the tip of the Sky Needle, Ow Ow Ow!!. Get the POINT?

I dont post much anymore

Post by Since1982 »

This thread is exactly why I dont post much anymore. Sounds like most of the responders here are closet communists. "Either have a car/truck that (we/I) agree with and fits what (I/we) consider the status quo or be prepared to be publically castigated and denigrated".

Many people with SUV's BUY them because they have large families with lots of children and go on family outings and NEED space in their vehicles for their families and perhaps some FRIENDS.

Others with SUVs are disabled and have to have the large open space inside their vehicle for electric wheechairs or scooters so they DON'T have to stay penned up inside their homes 24/7.

On the OTHER hand, anyone in any vehicle that drives/parks like an idiot should be either ticketed by the law or completely lose their license to drive anything from a moped to a tractor trailer truck.:shake:
I had to remove this signature as it was being used on Twitter. This is my OPINION, you NEEDN'T AGREE.

Story of Life, Perspire, Expire, Funeral Pyre!
I've been skirted part time since 1972 and full time since 2005. http://skirts4men.myfreeforum.org/
Departed Member

Post by Departed Member »

Since1982 wrote:This thread is exactly why I dont post much anymore. Sounds like most of the responders here are closet communists. "Either have a car/truck that (we/I) agree with and fits what (I/we) consider the status quo or be prepared to be publically castigated and denigrated".
Goodness! I've never been likened to a communist before! The antithesis of one, certainly! :) You wouldn't enjoy the newspapers, letter columns or comedians 'take' on the average urban SUV driver in the UK, then, Skip. "Publically castigated and denigrated" - I like that! :clap: That's exactly what they deserve! :ninjajig:
Since1982 wrote:Many people with SUV's BUY them because they have large families with lots of children and go on family outings and NEED space in their vehicles for their families and perhaps some FRIENDS.
If only that were so in the UK, Skip, if only! :sad: Quite a lot of these vehicles, despite their height and width, scarcely accomodate 4 in any comfort. However, I will endeavour to make a point of counting occupants over the next week, and if I see more than one with that many people in it,
I'll wear tr*users for a whole day!! :eek:
Since1982 wrote: On the OTHER hand, anyone in any vehicle that drives/parks like an idiot should be either ticketed by the law or completely lose their license to drive anything from a moped to a tractor trailer truck.:shake:
Good point, Skip! :clap: Sadly, the chances of that happening in my area are remote. Revenue (speed) cameras have replaced traffic cops. Forests of the d*mn things have appeared over the past few years. Easy to tell where the 'hotspot' counties are - they're usually the ones who spend sweet b*gger all on making the roads safer, preferring to trumpet how many folk they've killed or injured on their roads! :mad:
iain
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:29 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by iain »

I think this has proved to be a highly popular thread--when bob shut it down, enough people clamoured to have it back again that he opened it up again!

It's people genuinely expressing opinions. we can't talk forever about fashion--skirts are becoming commonplace and most people here wear them when they really feel like it. Sometimes it's good to just express yourself about whatever you feel strongly about.

I don't support communism as a political tool--when instigated in Russia it was corrupt and abusive (like many other man-made institutions) but especially bad because true power was denied almost everyone. Sure, some people need tractors. But what I was saying was not communist, only that I think people should keep other members of society in mind, and the SUV is a gigantic two fingers to that idea. It's ego and greed on an everyday level and I find it obnoxious and hugely irritating, everything which is wrong with some parts of society.

Almost 30 years ago I was constantly railing against those who smoked at my place of work. I loathed it, criticised it, opened windows in winter and even brought in some cancerous lungs in a plastic case and sat them on my desk. I infuriated everyone and was openly mocked for it. But the anti-smoking idea has been vindicated and smoking became illegal in many public places in the last few years. Things do change and what is accepted sometimes does become comical in the future. Why can't people be free to say what they think? I don't think it's a bad thing for any forum. Anyway, I said my piece so I'll shut up on this topic now.

And I'm off to the seaside for a couple of days for some peace and quiet. G'night all
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
Big and Bashful
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2921
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Scottish West Coast

Post by Big and Bashful »

Come on Iain, don't mince words and say what you mean!:rolleyes:
Don't you like SUV's?
Oh, and an idea:- if you don't want your children to get run over, teach them not to wander around on busy roads:sarcastic: . There is a pavement for a reason, and parks, and cul-de-sacs (I wonder what the French call them?) and many houses even have one or more gardens, (A cunning thing with grass and sometimes herbacious borders, where children can play with some degree of safety). When I was a kid there was a strange man on TV who wittered on about the green cross code. His sound advice together with parents who were intelligent enough to keep us from getting ourselves killed, well they did just that. I haven't been killed for years and road sense played no small part in that. On a serious note- rather than persecuting people who like boxy vehicles, I am happy to see traffic calming measures slowing traffic round schools and on estates, keeping all vehicles down to 20 mph will save many more lives than the vendetta against the Chelsea Tractor. As long as the traffic calming is kept to that sort of kiddy area.
Oh, and I suppose reverse psychology could have a role in general road safety, if all vehicles had large spikes protruding from the front, people both large and small would probably be less likely to wander about in the middle of the road.
And a big spike sticking out the middle of your steering wheel might make you a bit more careful about how you drive. The safer drivers feel, the more they take risks, this has been proven time and time again (I know cuz I saw it on the telly). A spike right in front of you will help keep you focussed on piloting your vehicle of mass destruction without hitting things and impaling yourself.
Just a thought...:rolleyes:
I am the God of Hellfire! and I bring you truffles!
iain
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:29 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by iain »

the really funny thing is when the kids are walking through the car park at school. there is no way to avoid walking between cars. all the cars are edging forwards either gradually or suddenly because the parking lot is congested and people want to get on home.

yes, the kids have no choice but to walk in front or behind of some of these chelsea tractors at some point. the thing which will really make you giggle, B&B, is that some of the kids are no older than 7, which means they are totally invisible to the driver when anywhere near these things.

here, have a big and bold chuckle over these people who weren't wandering around on busy roads..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/ ... 0818.shtml

The Campbells had no idea just how many other children were dying the exact same way. Safety experts say at least one child is killed every week in this country in a back-over accident. It's know as the "bye-bye syndrome." Children run outside to wave goodbye to their parents. Their parents never see them coming.

"Nowadays, people tend to buy large pickup trucks or large SUVs which have a very large blindspot around them, so kids, big blindspot, big problem," says David Champion, auto director Consumer Reports.

Just how big are blindspots? The Early Show had Champion put four popular family vehicles to the test: a sedan, a minivan, an SUV, and a pickup truck.

The blindspots went from 13 feet on the sedan - to nearly 30 feet on the pickup.

Looking in the mirrors, nothing was visible behind the pickup truck – even though four small children were standing behind it.

"Some days are very hard and you think about him a lot. Some days, you just...think to yourself, 'That's the way God wanted it to be,' and some days you think, 'Why us? Why did it have to happen to us?'" says Steve.


Why, indeed.. what a good question.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... A35723.DTL

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sport utility vehicles are the second most popular choice of vehicle for transporting children – behind minivans – but they are twice as deadly for children as minivans and more dangerous to children than large or mid-sized passenger cars, according to a new Public Citizen study released today during a news conference at the Capitol.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1454

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38040

NEW YORK (CNN) - One thing many SUV buyers like about their vehicles is the increased visibility. They feel like they can see farther down the road over the roofs of other cars. But that long-distance line of sight comes at a price that can be tragic.

What SUV drivers can't see is what's close behind them and, when backing out of a driveway or parking spot, that could be a person. In many cases, it's a small child.

More than 2,400 children are backed-up over every year in the United States. Of those, about 100 are killed. In most cases, those children are run over by a parent or other relative.

Julie Peck's son, Jackson, was four years old when he was killed two days before Christmas. Jackson's grandmother couldn't see the young boy running up from behind just as she was backing up the family's SUV.

"He was gone instantly. They didn't hear a sound when the car backed over him," said Julie Peck. "When they pulled it off him, he wasn't making a sound."
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
talon2mech
Active Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:26 am
Location: Albuquerque NM

Post by talon2mech »

crfriend wrote:What we may be witnessing is just one more symptom of a slow and inexorable breakdown of civil society. It used to be that when one went out into public, one was expected to behave in a civil manner and to take the lives of those around him into account. What we see now is a creeping "Me First!" attitude that thumbs its nose at the people around us -- this holds whether it's an iPod user blowing his eardrums out or an SUV driver bulling her way around ignorant of those around her.
I could not agree more. I call this "generation me". It appears that in this fast food society people have lost will to do something for the benefit of others.
crfriend wrote:Certainly the SUV (I call them "Stupid Urban Vehicles", or if really being driven in a particularly asinine way, "testosterone trucks") are used as an extension of one's "statement of wealth" (or hyper-masculinity), and frequently the more ostentatious the better; hence we wind up with obscenities like the Hummer and the positively gargantuan Fords in the US. The Acura, Porsche, and Lexus SUVs are a further extension of this -- a form of conspicuous consumption. If they can even operate off-road, their drivers never would do so, nor probably have the skills.
I pulled a H2 from an arroyo (drainage ditch). Apparently the owner thought that traffic was moving too slow for her liking. She failed to realize that you have to turn the 4 wheel drive on prior to becoming buried in 2 feet of mud.

It is all to common to see the ridiculous SUV with chrome 22" rims trying to navigate a mountain road. People are so scared to get the damn things dirty.

I drive a Chevy suburban. It is lifted (for clearance), it is decorated with New Mexico pin striping (scratches) and it only gets washed every 3-6 months. I am just as tired as the rest of you with people who own useless SUVs. They clog the roads, they exhibit a basic lack of respect for anybody on the road. I would feel intimidated, but I am significantly larger than they are. I could not imagine driving a small car around these idiots especially in London....

That reminds me of a story. I was in the UK and our aircraft broke. I had to drive from RAF Bentwaters to RAF Mildenhall and back in a US military Hummer, Wow that was nerve racking at times trying to navigate narrow roads in a vehicle that is 3.5 Minis wide...
-Matt
iain
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:29 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by iain »

In April, NHTSA reported that the number of people killed on U.S. highways rose by 1.7 percent in 2002, to 42,850 – the first time in 25 years that fatalities increased over the previous year and the highest toll since 1990. Pickup and SUV rollover deaths accounted for 46 percent of the increase in all occupant fatalities and 78 percent of the increase in passenger vehicle rollover fatalities.

This first increase in traffic deaths in 25 years comes as SUVs have assumed a dominant position in the market for new vehicles. SUV sales rose from 1.8 percent of new vehicles sales in 1975 to 23.4 percent in 2003.

While SUV occupants face significant risks from rollover crashes, occupants of other cars face major risks from SUVs as well. In frontal crashes, SUVs kill 4.3 car drivers for every one SUV driver who is killed.

Children are more at risk from a rollover crash in an SUV than in any other type of vehicle. Alarmingly, the use of SUVs to transport children is rising, while the use of minivans and cars is declining.

The fuel efficiency of engines increases by an average of 1.9 percent per year, but automakers chose to use these efficiency gains to increase acceleration and add weight to vehicles (mostly in SUVs) instead of increasing fuel economy.


SUV's: Big.. but not, it seems, very bashful. Let's hear it for freedom! Freedom for the public to do whatever the hell they want, and damn those who criticise their God-given right to be stupid.
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Post by Ray »

Wow. This thread has taken on a life of its own.

I am broadly in agreement with those who castigate SUV drivers/owners in an urban environment. They are using a vehicle which is patently unsuited to that environment. I would also suggest that individuals driving slowly in built up areas in a sports car (e.g. Aston Martin, Porsche 997, Lamborghini) are also misusing their car, which is far more suited to open spaces.

Nonetheless, it wouldn't matter a jot whether or not someone was misusing their vehicle if there were no consequences. Both types of vehicle are heavy polluters; many of the larger SUVs are far too heavy and wasteful of the Earth's resources. To me it's simple. If you want freedom (including the freedom to drive what you want) that has to be coupled with responsibility. This may include taxes whose revenue will go to offset the damage done to the environment. This would act as an incentive to move to more fuel-efficient / lighter vehicles, thus also encouraging other manufacturers to design and produce said vehicles.

I have no truck (no pun intended) with those who see big SUVs as a display of wealth. So what? If someone can afford something, why should they not flaunt it (if indeed that is what they do)? They worked hard for it. We flaunt out individuality when wearing a skirt. What's the difference (on a conceptual level)? If they breach the limits of taste (usually defined on a subjective level) then surely that it their problem? Should we get all judgemental while we at the same time cry for skirt wearers not to be judged?

I feel also that we should be careful in singling out SUVs. In the right environment, they do the job well. OF course, a 4wd Subaru estate is also very practical, hence their popularity with farmers, but I acknowledge the need for a high torque vehicle that has towing ability etc in some rural areas. I would defend their use in that regard, as I would defend the use of a high performance car on the right roads (driven with appropriate margins of safety, of course).

This leads me on to driving techniques. It saddens me when I hear of self-righteous lane-blockers proudly trumpeting that they have stopped some sort of speed freak from making progess. I totally agree that aggressive driving has no place on roads. However, it is quite possible to drive with respect for others while going faster than 70mph (an arbitrary limit set in the late 1960s, lest we forget). I exceed 70 frequently. Not always by much, and often legally (France, for example). If a car is blocking my way, I slow down as I approach (it's safe), hold back, wait, and usually they see me and pull in. A thank you wave, and I'm on my way. I get to go at the speed I want, and that driver gets to go at the speed s/he wants. Occasionally, I have to move slightly to the right to subtly send a message, and sometimes I will flash my lights, but usually only after a marked amount of time. I like the European approach - to indicate when behind a vehicle.

Moving over is not letting someone win - it's courtesy. It keeps tempers down, keeps traffic moving, reduces blocks and (get this) reduces pollution.

Anyway, on a lighter note, here's some suggestions for a better life

- psychometric testing of parents before allowing them to have children
- one child per family; they (children) pollute and cause people to buy SUVs
- sterilisation of people who wear baseball caps outside of a baseball ground
- hard labour for those who read the Daily Mail / Daily Express
- children to be attached to a dog-type leash (stops them running onto roads)
- fat people to be burned for their calorific value

Have I missed any obvious categories yet? :stir:
iain
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:29 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by iain »

Can we get one thing absolutely straight once and for all, so nobody else needs to say it:

nobody is protesting against the right for farmers and rural dwellers who live on mountaintops to drive 4 wheel drive cars, or for those folk who desperately need to continually tow their yacht up and down the beach!

We're talking about people importing heavy lifting machinery with aggressive bullbars into our roads and schools: crushing a large number of kids in the process, killing other drivers when they run into them, and slaughtering their own kids when they roll over.

And when sobbing over the deaths of their own kids crushed under their massive tractors, these are the same people bleating, b-b-b-but we wanted ower f-f-fweedom! fweedom, we must have ower f-f-f-fweedom!!
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
Sashi
Active Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:47 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by Sashi »

You are right about how large vehicles have a larger blind spot, iain, but that is changing with new technology. Things such as rear-facing cameras can give back that lost sight, for instance. Incidentally, from what I understand from my grandpa, while I know a minivan could seat as many people as we carry around, a big vehicle like a Suburban is far safer in the case of an accident (that and it has more room than a minivan, so it's nice and comfy).

The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), a minivan is built on the same chassis as a car, while something like a Suburban is built on the same chassis as a truck, which is far better suited for a big vehicle like that. In a collision it will provide you with more protection. I definitely agree that it's pointless to own one without a need, but even in a city if you have a large family or something it can come in quite handy. Anyways, while I know your opinion differs from mine, I respect your opinion nonetheless.

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).
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.
iain
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:29 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by iain »

hi, out of curiosity I checked out your blogger profile but nowhere does it say m/f.. can you enlighten?

ta!
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14433
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

It's all in the physics

Post by crfriend »

Sashi wrote:The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), a minivan is built on the same chassis as a car, while something like a Suburban is built on the same chassis as a truck, which is far better suited for a big vehicle like that.
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.
Sashi wrote:In a collision it will provide you with more protection.
This is rather illusory and depends on the truck-like vehicle hitting something that will yield to it (like a subcompact ;) ). Since truck chassis are based on unyielding frames the energy dissipated in a crash is transferred more powerfully into the occupants of the truck than would be the case with car-like construction. This is due to the way that car bodies are engineered to collapse in controlled ways during an accident so as to reduce the instantaneous forces transferred to the vehicle occupant. So, even though the typical SUV/truck is vastly larger than an automobile or mini-van, the latter types are actually more survivable in most crash situations.

This is not to say that a collision between a Mini and an H2 won't be a preordained outcome (the H2 driver might not even notice anything amiss, possibly not having seen the Mini in the first place), but in a case of hitting something solid (say a tree) the car driver will likely have a better chance of walking away from the mishap.

In a crash, all that energy has to go *somewhere*, and it's the rate that it's dissipated that's key. In a car, the collapsing of the body absorbs vast amounts of the energy dissipated before it gets transmitted through the safety-belts to the driver and passengers (you do wear those, I hope). In a truck, the body and frame yield very little resulting in vastly more collision forces being exerted (again through the safety harnesses) to the occupants of the vehicle.

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.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
MtnBiker
Distinguished Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:33 pm

Post by MtnBiker »

I drive my SUV and have for quite some time, and will continue to do so for one simple reason not addressed at all so far ....

I like the way they look. It's the same reason I wear a kilt, or mow my lawn in a certain pattern, or ride a bicycle with lightweight carbon bits (they look great even though when they fail it's suddenly and with dire consequences). It's the same reason my motorcycle had loud pipes.

We live in a world where such a choice is mine to make, thank goodness.
iain
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:29 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by iain »

Naturally, you're free to make those decisions. The problem probably isn't you, but the people who are also free to make those decisions despite having no capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.

They are fooled by the advertising, just like people who choose to smoke and drain the country of precious medical resources, or those who choose to squash endless junk food into their sagging, groaning bellies until they cannot even walk without the aid of thousands of dollars worth of medicare and machinery. They decide but the problems, in some strange way, are always someone else's fault. The manufacturers, when accused of selling dangerous goods, look surprised and say, "who, us?" But they never seem keen to mend their ways unless forced to by public opinion. How strange!

As far as driving dangerous vehicles goes, I'm sure the thousands of dead children, crushed drivers of ordinary vehicles, and those others doomed to live on as paraplegics and quadraplegics with spinal injuries from being hit by bullbars on these high-powered tanks, would (pssst--if they only could!) leap to their feet and applaud this magnificent concept of individual freedom, and say that yes, these cars sure do look great! Why should they take the selfish view that had someone only the sense to warn drivers that these vehicles are far more dangerous than they seem, they would still be alive now? Tish tosh! So by all means, let's not tarnish the good name of freedom.

The problem with this freedom is that it isn't what it appears. It's guided by advertising. In the old days, nobody warned smokers that they would kill themselves in a nasty, slow, horrible and painful way. They were eventually forced to do so by irate, outspoken, unpopular and aggressive types who didn't see smoking as a glorious freedom, but a pathetic sucker's game kept well into overtime by billionaire cigarette companies who claimed cancer was caused by, well, sausages or something but certainly not cigarettes. Choosing to smoke was, I'm afraid to say, not quite the same thing as choosing to mow your lawn in a certain pattern.

The marlborough man died a miserable death from bladder and lung cancer, I understand. Or was it throat cancer? For some reason they didn't put him on the billboards, spitting his blood into a stinking pot already half full of his own rotting mucus, choking on his own flesh, or gasping for breath. They didn't show his family lowering his body into the ground, with only memories of his last days in agony. Well, I ask you now, why not? He had freedom. He personified it. Why not celebrate it? You tell me. But it was a freedom for him to do as the manufacturers liked. We're not celebrating freedom at all. We're celebrating marketing dressed up as something to make you free.

So now they're dressing up coffins in chrome and big fancy skull-crushing bullbars. So stand tall!! Come to marlborough country! Whoops, I mean SUV country!! Yep, Mr America, they sure do look great. And they make huge profits for the well-oiled boardroom types in the Hamptons. Let's not criticise them.. their big advertising push is based on "freedom". We all want freedom, so, come, come! Where's the harm?
The only thing man cannot endure is meaninglessness.
Ray
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Post by Ray »

Iain,

While I agree with your comments about advertising-led desires, it's up to each individual as to how they react to that advertising. If someone likes the look of an artefact, then there's no reason why that person should not have the opportunity to acquire that artefact, BUT...

as you have stated (and indeed others), with freedom comes responsibility. With smoking comes the responsibility of not affecting others physically (through secondary smoking etc) and paying one's way (achieved through heavy taxation of tobacco). With driving a large, or fuel-consuming car, then the damage done to the environment (pollution) should be paid for by levies etc, and the design of the vehicle made in such a way that pedestricn injuries are minimised (although of course, people shouldnt be on roads...)

I also agree with your comments that there seems to be a blame culture - where individuals deny the responsibility for their own actions (eg gluttony etc).
Post Reply