[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/22/business/yourmoney/22SAFE.html]A Regulator Takes Aim at Hazards of S.U.V.'s
[/url]

December 22, 2002
A Regulator Takes Aim at Hazards of S.U.V.'s
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT
MR. JEFFREY RUNGE had seen many cases like Sarah Longstreet's in the 20
years he served as an emergency room physician in Charlotte, N.C. But this
one was as tragic as any he remembered: Ms. Longstreet, a 17-year-old on
her way to high school, was killed when a 1991 Ford Explorer collided with
her Mazda sedan head-on.
The accident occurred just two months before Dr. Runge's departure to
Washington to become the Bush administration's top traffic safety
official. And it reinforced what has become one of his main missions:
addressing the dangers that S.U.V.'s and other trucks pose to occupants of
passenger cars.
"The theory that I'm going to protect myself and my family even if it
costs other people's lives has been the operative incentive for the design
of these vehicles, and that's just wrong," said Dr. Runge, the
administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (known
by its abbreviation and pronounced NIT-sa), in a recent interview.
"Not to sound like a politician, but that's not compassionate
conservatism."
Now Dr. Runge's agency is reviewing several safety issues involving sport
utility vehicles that could have wide-ranging implications for motorists
and automakers. Detroit's Big Three, especially, derive a lopsided share
of their slim profits from these vehicles.
Intent as he is on attacking the dangers of S.U.V.'s, Dr. Runge is still
part of an administration that is not enamored of regulation. Yet he says
that if he cannot address this nettlesome problem, his agency has little
purpose.
Some automakers have already taken steps to make S.U.V.'s safer, for other
drivers and for their own occupants. But to Dr. Runge, there is much more
to be done. As head of the traffic safety agency, he has the authority to
set vehicle safety standards, though they are reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget, whose administrator, John D. Graham, rejected a
tire safety proposal in February. Automakers will undoubtedly continue to
put up a determined fight if they feel that their cash cows are
threatened.
But Dr. Runge's mission is just part of an effort by regulators and
insurers to rethink auto safety in a country increasingly dominated by
light trucks, the government designation for S.U.V.'s, pickups and
minivans. Although light trucks now outsell cars - and account for nearly
40 percent of vehicles on the road, versus 15 percent in 1976, according
to R. L. Polk & Company - auto safety standards still reflect a
car-dominated society. Government crash tests, which began in the late
1970's, principally gauge how well vehicles of all kinds fare in
collisions with cars.
Next month, a panel assembled by Dr. Runge will suggest measures to
address the threat of S.U.V.'s and pickups to passenger cars.
Meanwhile, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a coalition of auto
insurers, has started a series of side-impact tests to see how cars and
small S.U.V.'s stand up when hit by bigger S.U.V.'s. The first results are
expected in April. But the insurers' group concedes that without
supplemental testing or standards imposed by the government, their testing
could actually lead manufacturers to make small S.U.V.'s bigger and worsen
the problem.
What, exactly, is the problem?
There are two related issues, known in the industry as compatibility and
aggressivity. The first involves how different vehicles match up in a
collision, and the second involves one vehicle's ability to inflict damage
on others. S.U.V.'s ride higher off the ground than passenger cars, and
their bumpers, engines, frame rails and hoods are higher. This mismatch
puts the occupants of cars at a disadvantage because a colliding S.U.V.
can skip over many protective features, like the sill of the passenger
door.
Big S.U.V.'s are built on stiff steel frames and are more unforgiving than
cars in collisions. The results can be seen in statistics. When a light
truck hits a car in the side, an occupant of the car is 29 times more
likely to die than a person in the truck, Dr. Runge said. When a car hits
a light truck in the side, occupants have an even chance of dying.

HE industry has started, slowly, to address these issues. The Ford Motor
Company, for instance, lowered the frame rails and front bumper of its
2002 Explorer by about two inches so it is closer in height to car
bumpers, like that of Ms. Longstreet's Mazda 626. "It improves the
situation," said Jim Boland, Ford's manager for advanced safety and
regulations. "If you were to line up a Taurus bumper with an Explorer
bumper, you would see there is significant overlap there. It would not be
a guaranteed override."
Lowering a bumper does not necessarily lower the spot where force is
centralized - a far more important factor, Dr. Runge said.
"They can plot where the maximum force is being delivered," he said,
adding that some standard is needed to make cars and light trucks match
each other better.
Automakers have hardly been a friend of new regulation, particularly when
it might force them to rethink how they make S.U.V.'s.
"Compatibility is an issue the industry has been focusing on for several
years now," said Robert S. Strassburger, vice president for safety at the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group.
"Everybody has activities and countermeasures that they are incorporating
into their vehicles. The general philosophy is making sure you're
enhancing self-protection. The question from NHTSA's point of view is if
there is a need to go beyond self-protection and look at what
countermeasures can be taken with respect to the striking vehicles."
Regarding the kind of compatibility standard envisioned by Dr. Runge, Mr.
Strassburger added: "We understand that's what NHTSA is looking at. As an
industry, I don't know if we are ready to say if that's an appropriate way
to proceed."
The traffic safety agency is also seeking ways to make S.U.V.'s and other
light trucks safer for their own occupants. It is reviewing existing
testing on rollovers and the crashworthiness of roofs.
S.U.V.'s roll over three times as often as cars, because they ride higher
off the ground and have a higher center of gravity, counteracting the
benefit of being bigger. The safety agency is trying to come up with a
more demanding test for rollovers.

-- continued --

Many safety advocates say the government needs to be much more aggressive
in updating its crash tests and its minimum performance standards. "These
behemoth vehicles have to be redesigned," said Joan Claybrook, president
of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, and the former head of the
traffic safety agency in the Carter administration. "You need to redesign
them to improve fuel economy, reduce aggressivity, make them less likely
to roll over and make them more crashworthy when they do.`
To simulate the impact of an S.U.V., the insurers' side-impact test will
use a moving barrier that is a full foot higher and 250 pounds heavier
than in a similar test performed by the government.
"We've been talking to manufacturers about this program and sharing our
developmental test results for close to two years," said Brian O'Neill,
the president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
"It's fair to say virtually all manufacturers have run tests that are
similar to our side-impact tests," Mr. O'Neill said, though he added that
engineers at two manufacturers told him they could not get the money to
make changes until the insurers forced the issue with testing.
But Mr. O'Neill added that insurers' tests could not be as comprehensive a
solution as the government could offer. Taken alone, he said, they could
have some negative impact because they examine only how individual
vehicles stand up to collisions with bigger vehicles. Manufacturers could
make their vehicles perform better on the insurers' tests by building them
heavier. But heavier vehicles, in turn, could be more harmful to smaller,
lighter ones.
"We're looking at it in a different context" from the government, Mr.
O'Neill said. "Any time you start pushing self-protection improvements,
there is a question whether it makes it worse for people in other
vehicles. If you add 500 pounds in one vehicle, what does it do to
another?"

HAT gap in the insurers' test is a crucial area for government action, Ms.
Claybrook says. She wants the government to force automakers to design
their S.U.V.'s less like tanks and to make them absorb more energy in
collisions.
"The S.U.V.'s on the road today," she said, "are needlessly heavy and very
aggressive."
What happened to Sarah Longstreet was a textbook case of the S.U.V.'s
danger to cars. Ms. Longstreet was a petite redhead who organized Bible
clubs and baby-sat. She often teasingly fined her friends for not wearing
seat belts, though she was too nice to collect.
On the morning of April 12, 2001, Ms. Longstreet was driving a 1996 Mazda
626 to East Mecklenburg High School, traveling west on a four-lane road.
According to the initial report from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police, an
eastbound Ford Explorer, swerving to avoid another car, clipped a school
bus and veered into the car driven by Ms. Longstreet, who was traveling to
school with three friends.
"This was a clear case of override, where the S.U.V. rode over the hood of
the car and killed her instantly," said Dr. Runge, who did not have a
chance to treat Ms. Longstreet but does remember her three friends in the
hospital asking: "Where is she? Where is she?"
"This case," he added, "crystallized why I was here."
No charges were filed, and Ms. Longstreet's parents decided not to press a
civil case. "We felt like the Lord allowed this accident to occur,"
Marjorie Longstreet, Sarah's mother, said. "We felt that those people
involved in the accident were not breaking the law. They were not drunk or
on drugs. From what I can understand it was pure carelessness. We all make
mistakes on the road."
Dr. Runge, though, said he felt that at least one important part of the
accident was preventable, and that he could do something to make such
accidents less likely in the future.
"This was an angel who got plucked off the face of the earth," he said.
"But to me, this is not an act of God; this is a preventable incident. If
the geometry of the S.U.V. had been different, she with her belt and her
air bag could have walked away from it."
"If it's not preventable," he added, "why have a NHTSA?"

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

Okay, then I say this....


All fuel and cars should be free.  The govt should allow us to get what we want do drive regardless.  They should give it to us to use... they give us the free "auto" and free "fuel".  Give us all trucks...  Now, with that outburst done....


What kind of story is this?  Yes, a person in a smaller car has a higher chances of being injured/killed when in an accident w/ a larger vehical.  Sounds like that people are blaiming the "SUV" owners.  Freedom of choice.... they bought the SUV...the other person bought the small car.  Okay, maybe that's all they could afford.

How about a semi truck vs SUV?  Or Semi vs small car?  Does that mean we should all go buy a medium duty truck (GVWR 32,000lbs) and drive it?

The story should say, "A Regulator Takes Aim at Hazards of small car's"  (Next we'll hear that the govt wants to make regulations that tell "us" what kind of car we should own.... singles have a small car, family people this car... and s on.)

It's the begining of the push to outlaw private ownership of vehicles. Once they successfully dictate what type of vehicle we can own they'll move on to the eventual banning of all povs. Private ownership is elitist as the poor can't own them. So that'll go over well during the campaigning as everyone likes to stick it to the rich people. It'll coinside with making public transportation mandatory. We'll all be one big happy family.

More BS, I'll be switching from  1/2 ton to a 3/4 or 1 ton truck [BD] phuck them.

I am glad I have me Pre Ban Suburban.  It is even high capacity.
See what happens when we call Ar-15's sport utility rifles.

[size=3][b]THEY CAN HAVE MY DURANGO...WHEN THEY PRY MY COLD DEAD HANDS OFF THE STEERING WHEEL !!![/b][/size=3]

By their logic,...passenger cars should also be banned,...because if you hit someone who is on a motorcycle, that person stands a good chance of dying.

Then they will have to ban motorcycles...because if you hit a pedestrian...THAT person could be killed.

[b]THEN[/b] they will have to ban shoes...because if you are wearing shoes, and you step on the foot of someone who is barefoot...Its could really hurt.

If the height differance is the problem, raise the height of cars.

There need to be regulations regarding the height of bumpers on vehicles driven on public roads, but beyond that, you should be able to own and operate the vehicle of your choice.

BTW, I have seen cases where the small car came out better. I know, it's rare. This old man driving a Ford Expedition nailed a Honda head-on not too far from where I live, and the Ford hit the Honda such that the beast rode up the hood of the Honda, flipped over, and the "super strong, steel reinforced safety cage" roof flattened instantly and broke the drivers neck. The girl in the Honda was uninjured.

This is what you a-holes get for all your "ban SUV's now...for the children" jokes!

[;D]

The anti-SUV movement is very real, and quite strong, thanks to AlGore, and Liberalism.
The Liberal Media is solidly on the bandwagon.
Pay close attention, words mean something.
For instance, during the ABC Radio Network news last week, two stories, on the same news update, first about how a "SUV" had gone out of control and crashed into a bunch of people in a (park/playground/schoolyard, I can't remember) who than thrashed the driver, who apparently had suffered a seizure.
Next, a "SUV" driving down some hwy. down south had its (government mandated) catalytic converter break up and spew out the tail pipe for 40 miles, causing 40 (yes forty) miles of grass fires along an interstate.
All this in the same news update, emphasis added on "SUV"
I wonder if this had made the news, had it been a GEO, or a VW? I think NOT
I listen to the Liberal news very closely, and it is quite easy to pick up on their agenda after a while, and no I don't need a tin foil hat, and if you don't belive their is an agenda, your head is buried too far in the sand.

Rancid Lance, pick up truck/SUV owner

Thirty years ago the arguement was against small cars.



How did the Explorer get on the highway without a driver?

I missed the part where someone "made" Ms. Longstreet drive a shoebox on a roller skate.

Eddie (non-PC Tahoe driver)

UnFCKNbelievable!

hehehehe.. can you see a corvette with 1-2 feet of ground clearance? comical! ehehehee

Id didnt.. the explorere rolled over after teh mazda managed to flip it. the explorere killed its own driver by letting its roof collapse..


thats right... cars are alive.. they just don't want us to know it yet.... fear them!

Hmmm...glad I got my pre-ban Trailblazer when I did.....  I'm not kidding either.  This will get to that point if they have their way.



toast

Limiting the size of the vehicle that people can own to make everything fair is kinda like limiting the caliber of the guns that people can own. It may seem fair at first glance but it ain't right.

Stay off the road then.  Me and my friend got rear ended/sandwiched by a big ass Greyhound sized bus but you don't hear me calling for a ban on buses do you?

I would say the "LOADED" bus outweighed our puny Mustang by at least 5 to 1.

And NO I ain't one of those big bad meanie SUV drivers you so despise.  Most of the time I can be found driving a rice cooker around town.

If POV become illegal there won’t be a need to out law possession of firearms. Think about this: You want to head to the range and decide to bring a couple of rifles and a case of handguns. You will also need ammo for all of the above, that brings you to having four or more bags to bring on board the “peoples’ movers.” That will be a pain in the butt having to lug all of these around just to get to where you will be picked up and where you are dropped off.

Also I can for see laws being put in place regarding how much you can take onboard and regulations about how many times you can use the fatherlands’ conveyance per week. To top it all off firearms won’t be allowed when you travel so now firearms will have to be stored at the range to be signed out and back in when you leave. Presto a de-facto ban on firearm ownership; just like the new and usable handgun ban in Massachusetts.

If there becomes a ban on new family size trucks/ SUV’s I can see junk yards and repair shops fetching a premium on older trucks just to rebuild an old junker so you can have the type of truck you want.

[b]COME AND GET IT![/b]

[img]http://fishhook1.homestead.com/files/burb2.jpg[/img]

[b]Damn SUV's![/b]

[img]http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/crash.jpg[/img]

Until we have a method of keeping idiots from getting behind the wheel of dangerous vehicles, I won't concern myself too much about government regulation of SUVs.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard some soccer mom say, "I like to drive my Tahoe/Expedition/Escalade because people sure get out of your way."   Yeah, just try not to kill too many people taking Britney, Taylor and Josh to soccer practice.

Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.........


Your argument holds about as much water as a sieve, friend. Not much about life is fair.

MQ,
Would you like me to jump into my Expedition and run down to the store to get some soap for you to wash your mouth out with?  BTW, maybe I want that big "SUV" because my cautious, careful wife needs to have that protection from spasmotic drivers like you that obviously forgot to take their medication before getting behind the wheel...

Matthew_Q, I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

You are flat-out wrong.

I am well within my rights to place my wife and child in the safest vehicle I can afford.  Your attitude of "I drive a shitty Insight, so no one else should be allowed to drive anything bigger..."  is pure socialism, if not vehicular Naziism.

Most of us large vehicle drivers brake just as hard for the little guy as you do.  It is just that we're different!  We brake out of consideration and to avoid a costly and dangerous accident.  You brake to avoid getting squashed into an oblivion inside that tin can you call a car.

I do tend to brake less for Insight owners however.  Most of them are stuck-up little snots who would love to catapult you out of your vehicle of choice, just so they can further their totalitarian agenda.

BTW - Your obscene language is ridiculous, and furthers the point that you are a pinhead.

[:D]

"They" are already [s]trying to[/s] baning motorcycles. Look at two strokes for the street, there is technology today that makes a two stroke engine meet current smog laws, yet they are "illegal".
They have done it in Kalifornication on ALL land within the state, first they banned all two stroke motorcycles on "public" land based on liberal left wing homo's "research" that a two stroke dirt bike pollutes just as much in one hour of operation as a car that is operated for ONE YEAR on the highways in Kalifornication.
Only with great pressure from the American Motorcycle Association, CORVA, us "little people", and the motorcycle industry has the "great state" of Kalifornication allowed the use of two stroke dirt bikes on public lands, and that is only during the winter months (when they don't use the oxygenated gas).
It is coming in the way of horsepower limitations, top speed and acceleration limits, engine displacement and engine modifications.

Brian O'Neill is a pouge for the insurance industry and NBC. Remember the Chevy truck gas tank debacle? Guess what dipshit with the initials BO was involved with it.
His bottom line is not your safety or my safety, it is the pockets of the insurance industry.
Joan Claybrook is a fucking retarded twat who should have never held ANY type of public service job, and because of some inbred county fuck (my apologies to all non-inbred country people) peanut farmer we (as the consumer and as people who have to deal with her rulings) have had to put up with her bullshit for the past 23 years AND we still have to listen to her.

So what the fuck? They don't want us to have vehicles that are too safe, they want us to drive in vehicles that are less safe so we don't kill each other? Why not bring back 68 Ford Galixies and 68 Chevy Impalas and 68 Dodge Furrys for everyone then.

Just one more letter to write to my "representtives".

God you guys don't get it.

I'm expressing an opinion, and you guys get all defensive.  

Yeah, I drive a little car.  I know people that drive little cars.  Some people I love drive little cars.

I just hate it when some assmonkey gets all up on my ass in his huge oversized beast, and all I can see is his damn grille.  I blame the driver more than the vehicle.  If you'd read my posts, I AM NOT, nor do I advocate any banning of anything.  I didn't mention anything about regulations.  You guys react like some tinfoil hat nutcases!

No, I WON'T get off the road.  I own it.  THAT is my point.  We ALL own the road.  We all must abide by the RULES for using said roads.  If those large SUVs you guys like are engineered to be safer to everyone else on the road, why would you oppose it?  

Guys, you can take it however you want to.  I simply do not like it when people WASTE the potential of an SUV, when they have no USE for it.  To me, it's like buying a large supreme pizza, eating one slice, and throwing the rest away.  How many of you would do THAT?

And damn Torf.  I'm expressing my opinion here, not trying to take over the world.  Quit cryin Nazi!  Take a chill pill man.  I'm glad that you are a courteous driver, but there are thousands out there who are not.  There are thousands who do not understand that an SUV is NOT a car, and will not handle like one (see the comments about the soccor mommie above)

All I'm sayin is, I wouldn't bitch and moan if the auto industry was regulated into making those large SUVs safer for EVERYONE on the roads.  My opinions are just that.  If you disagree, great.  That's what America is about.  

That's ok, it balances out. SUV's are far more likely to roll over in a crash. And far more likely to be involved in a single vehicle crash in bad weather.

But nobody told them the vehicle that is 7' tall has a higher center of gravity than a car............

What kind of a dillweed are you?
If some "assmonkey" gets on your ass do you allow him to pass? Pull over? It sounds to me like you are one of those motherfucking asswipes who stays put in a 55 mph zone doing 50! Even if you are doing 65 in a 55 you should allow that assmonkey to pass you up.

You don't like having someone on your ass? Pull the fuck over and let them pass!

To me SUV's are safer to everyone on the road.
Unless some assmonkey is driving a shitbox econo car who wants to play bumper tag with one.

If I have the money to buy a large pizza and I want a large pizza and I order a large pizza and I only eat one slice and toss the rest away what the fuck concern is it of yours? It's my money, I can spend it anyway I want to.

So by your logic if a gunbanner says "All I'm sayin is, I wouldn't bitch and moan if the FIREARMS industry was regulated into making those FIREARMS safer for EVERYONE IN PUBLIC".

Don't bullshit us, this is the stance you would have to take. You can't remove one personal freedom without allowing all others to be monkey fucked with.


 

That's definitely true.  I wish I could find the article or link, but I read a while ago that a study found that

You're not really much safer in an SUV than in a passenger car.  

First, I'm one of those assholes who goes 75 in a 65 zone, so I'm not blocking anyone from going anywhere.  Hell, I'm passing people most of the time.   If my speed ain't good enough, there's two other lanes you can use to go around me. I'm already going fast enough.  

Point one shot down.

If you want to waste money buying a large pizza and throwing almost all of it away, it's your money, not mine.  I don't care what you do with it.  It is still wasteful.

Point two shot down.

By my logic, guns and cars CANNOT be compared.  We don't go out in public and interact with our firearms in anything remotely resembling the way we do with our vehicles.  You bringing it up is as ludicrous as an anti trying to compare guns to cars.

Point three shot down.

What personal freedom am I trying to deprive anyone of?  None.  I would support the industry making large consumer vehicles safer for everyone.  Wouldn't you?  It would suck if it had to be legislated, but shit, the auto industry won't do anything as long as they can keep making money the way things are.  

I drive a crew cab F-250. If I hit a small car, they are screwed. BUT: I can drive what I want. I do use my truck to haul things, I am 6 feet tall, I dont fit in a little car, and I have a right to drive a safe vehicle. I try to drive with respect for people in smaller vehicles. I realize that when I drive in traffic other peoples lives are at risk too.

Oh my god. These bastards invite brake checking. I don't do that, though. Lol. I just flip my mirror down and slow down and let them ride my ass until they pass.

SUVs also like to flip over when a front tire goes flat.

We're all friends as long as there's no legislation involved.

I guess I'm just irritated at the SUV parade that seems to take place daily at 20 mph down the main street of my little suburban town.  And when they get on the freeway, they will INVARIABLY line up three abreast across all the lanes and do 50 mph in a 65 zone, a huge rolling roadblock.  

These child-worshipping choadsmokers are oblivious to everything around them, until I manage to find a crack between behemoths to squeeze through and accelerate to my preferred 85 mph cruising speed, at which point they suddenly act as if I've just sodomized the Pope in front of them.

I'm the guy in the huge truck cruising beside you.[:d]

I thought you looked familiar.

"I just hate it when some assmonkey gets all up on my ass in his huge oversized beast, and all I can see is his damn grille"

"First, I'm one of those assholes who goes 75 in a 65 zone, so I'm not blocking anyone from going anywhere."

[b]If this is true then how can anyone be behind you and why would you complain?[/b]

BzzzT! Point one refuted, I win.
***********************************************

"Guys, you can take it however you want to. I simply do not like it when people WASTE the potential of an SUV, when they have no USE for it. To me, it's like buying a large supreme pizza, eating one slice, and throwing the rest away. How many of you would do THAT?"

"If you want to waste money buying a large pizza and throwing almost all of it away, it's your money, not mine.  I don't care what you do with it.  It is still wasteful."

[b]If you don't care then why even make it a point of yours.[/b]

BzzzzT! Point two refuted, I win.
***********************************************

"Anyway, on PUBLIC roads,
We all SHARE the roads.
We all PAY for the roads through taxes"

"We don't go out in public and interact with our firearms"

[b]Bah! Typical liberal claptrap.
We DO go onto PUBLIC LAND and INTERACT with the PUBLIC with our firearms. We PAY for the "PUBLIC LAND" with our taxes.
I'll give you that we don't all walk down the street with an AR15 slung over our shoulders or a 1911 in an open holster.
Anti's DO compair gun ownership with cars. Ever heard of the "We register cars, why not guns" arguement?[/b]

"Sorry USNJoe, Only half a point allowed for this one"

Point three only half refuted, tie.
***********************************************

"The people who can afford those HUGE SUVs shouldn't have a better hand simply because the can afford it. The "they should have bought something bigger" attitude is disgusting, guys. People have families to support, and have situations that might not be as easy going and rich as yours. Anyone who takes that attitude is an inconsiderate asshole."

"What personal freedom am I trying to deprive anyone of?  None."

[b]People make CHOICES. that's the freedom part.[/b]

BzzzzT! Statement refuted.
***********************************************

USNJoe: 3 1/2
Matthew_Q: 1/2

Quoted:

Quoted:
What kind of a dillweed are you?
If some "assmonkey" gets on your ass do you allow him to pass? Pull over? It sounds to me like you are one of those motherfucking asswipes who stays put in a 55 mph zone doing 50! Even if you are doing 65 in a 55 you should allow that assmonkey to pass you up.

You don't like having someone on your ass? Pull the fuck over and let them pass!

To me SUV's are safer to everyone on the road.
Unless some assmonkey is driving a shitbox econo car who wants to play bumper tag with one.

If I have the money to buy a large pizza and I want a large pizza and I order a large pizza and I only eat one slice and toss the rest away what the fuck concern is it of yours? It's my money, I can spend it anyway I want to.

So by your logic if a gunbanner says "All I'm sayin is, I wouldn't bitch and moan if the FIREARMS industry was regulated into making those FIREARMS safer for EVERYONE IN PUBLIC".

Don't bullshit us, this is the stance you would have to take. You can't remove one personal freedom without allowing all others to be monkey fucked with.

View Quote

First, I'm one of those assholes who goes 75 in a 65 zone, so I'm not blocking anyone from going anywhere.  Hell, I'm passing people most of the time.   If my speed ain't good enough, there's two other lanes you can use to go around me. I'm already going fast enough.  

Point one shot down.

If you want to waste money buying a large pizza and throwing almost all of it away, it's your money, not mine.  I don't care what you do with it.  It is still wasteful.

Point two shot down.

By my logic, guns and cars CANNOT be compared.  We don't go out in public and interact with our firearms in anything remotely resembling the way we do with our vehicles.  You bringing it up is as ludicrous as an anti trying to compare guns to cars.

Point three shot down.

What personal freedom am I trying to deprive anyone of?  None.  I would support the industry making large consumer vehicles safer for everyone.  Wouldn't you?  It would suck if it had to be legislated, but shit, the auto industry won't do anything as long as they can keep making money the way things are.  

View Quote

So Mr. I don't want you to drive a big bad SUV flagrantly violates posted speed limits![shock]  How wreckless of you.  Watch out for the womenZ and children will you please Mr. Safety Advocate.

Gosh, there ya go.  I'm not trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but obviously you are.

First point.  I do drive at or above the speed limit in most places.  Sometimes people don't like that, especially in the residential areas I drive through daily, when I go the limit, and they want to go much faster.

NO POINTS SCORED

Second point, you want to waste your money, again, it's your waste.

NO POINTS SCORED

You don't get anything for the cars/guns comparison, tho.  By even thinking of it like you do, you're admitting that the Antis are RIGHT.  Also, I have yet to fire any of my weapons on public land.  I'm either at a private range, a private club range, or private property.  Thus free from any regulation, save the land owner's, and that which comes from common sense.

(you should get negative points for that one, man... or are you some liberal that thinks guns can be treated like cars?)

NO POINTS SCORED

And NO, I'm not, nor have I said "I don't think people should be allowed to own [insert whatever here]", have I?  No suggestion or allusion to the infringing of any rights.

NO POINTS SCORED.


***WARNING WARNING WARNING:  OPINIONS OF A FREE AMERICAN FOLLOW.  DO NOT READ IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE OPINIONS, NOT A CALL TO BAN OR ENCROACH ON ANY FREEDOMS***

I do, as an American, reserve the right to DISLIKE or DISAGREE with your, or anyone else's CHOICE to drive/own an SUV and completely WASTE it's potential.  This does not in and of itself, make me someone who wants to deprive you of any rights, or make me a liberal in any sense.  It is also my OPINION that people that drive such vehicles when there are better alternatives keep us dependant upon foreign oil.  A conservative can be environmentally and economically conservative too, right?

I agree with the push to make SUVs safer for EVERYONE, those who drive them, and those who don't.  What's wrong with that?  I don't like that it may have to be legislated, but the auto industry will never get off their duffs as long as people keep buying up what's 'IN'.  

***WARNING WARNING WARNING:  THE ABOVE WAS AN OPINION OF A FREE AMERICAN.  THERE WERE NO CALLS FOR BANS OR INFRINGEMENTS OF YOUR RIGHTS.  IF YOU THINK SO, YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ.  YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISLIKE THE ABOVE OPINION AND DISAGREE WITH IT.


M@  

Based on the topic story:

NADA current value of a 1996 Mazda 626: $5325
NADA current value of a 1991 Explorer: $4825

So, if I say that the dead girl wanted a shiny little shitbox to impress her high school friends rather than something older, bigger, tougher, and safer (and LESS expensive), does that make me an inconsiderate asshole?



Keeping myself and my family safe isn’t a “real use”?


I paid $18,000 for my used Suburban. At the time I could have bought something small and new for the same amount of money.

How much did you pay for your “little car”? I’ll bet you could have found a truck for the same price, even if it was a few years older.



Yes, fuck ‘em. If they don't care enough to buy the safest vehicle possible, why should I care? Poor choices on their part don’t automatically equate to concern on my part.

Govt Thug... I wish I could find that article I mentioned earlier...


Basically says you're not much safer in an SUV than in a car.  How do you feel about your family in an SUV now?  

Anyway, if that girl had bought an Explorer, who's to say the other, larger SUV wouldn't have pounded it to oblivion just the same?  

We'll never know, but the obvious disregard for the lives of others in the attitudes I find here is pretty contradictory to how I think about my fellow gun owning citizens.  

Anyway, I'm out.  And I'm laughing as I pass the gas station.... for the third week in a row...  Maybe I'll need some in another week or so?  Who knows.  

peace out

Your reply to the first point has nothing to do with your original post.
You complained about people driving close behind you.
How can this be if you drive faster then they do?

Your reply to the second point STILL has nothing to do with your original post.
You think that someone spending their money as they see fit is a waste and if they don't think your way the are an "inconsiderate asshole".

Your reply to the third point again still has nothing to do with your original post.
YOU are the one that wants the industry to be regulated (as if it's not right now) and want SUV's to be regulated and changed into something they are not.

Your reply to the statement is a that of a typical liberal, trying to change the subject without answereing the question.
I am the one who brought up liberals equating cars with guns, you are the one twisting the truth around.

Baahahahahaha, you are a typical liberal troll.

Still feel much safer than in a Mazda 626 or any similarly sized vehicle.  



Other, larger SUV? You missed the point, or didn’t read the article. The 626 was hit by a 1991 Explorer.

So if the 2 vehicles had been similarly sized, she might still have been killed? Are you starting to contradict yourself? Are you saying that regardless of the size of the vehicle, people die in traffic accidents?



I don’t see anything contradictory. We usually do not have much sympathy for those who suffer because they refuse to take measures to protect themselves.  



I’m glad you’re saving money on gas. You might need it for the medical bills. Or the undertaker.

Stupid sheeple... OF COURSE SUVs and Pickups are BIG and built on rigid steel frames. They wouldn't be able to carry or pull as much as they can if they where built on a unibody like 95-100% of the cars out there. Argh...

Was the Explorer charged?



Negligent [i]vehicles[/i] should have their driving privileges revoked.



Asking a group of guys to suck your dick sure sounds homo and most homos are liberals.

Eddie

Time to buy my Hummer... no not the H2

I think SUV's and trucks are sweet. I think soccer moms who drive a herd of whiny brats around in them suck. In fact, the mere mention of "soccer mom" in any discussion is about all it takes for me to fly off the handle. I HATE THEM. However, it is their right. I just get really pissed seeing a good 4x4 stay ON the road and driven by a wuss for it's entire life. Kinda like a never-fired Pre-ban painted pink with glitter all over it owned by Sarah Brady and cleaned lovingly by Janet Reno and Hillary Klinton..

I use my F-350 to tow a 28ft 5th wheel. until Toyota can do that, I'll stick to the big boys. As far as SUV drivers vs. rice grinder drivers goes. I have come closer to death at the hands of the tonka toy drivers than any SUV pilot.

Lets see....

Rule #1 If someone is on your ass move to the right.  I have been going 120 on a public road in my Corvete and had to allow a Diablo to pass.  Thats the rule of the road and I try my best to not be in anyones way.  If I want to go the speed limit or less I get in the slow lane.

Rule #2 If you want to buy a little car expect to get crushed if you get hit.  If I want a jacked up 4x4 with the bumper 3 feet in the air deal with it.  The only law on dimensions should be fitting in the lane.

Rule #3 Dont expect to propose some BS law limiting anything on AR15.com and not get called a stinking, liberal, slack-jawed, faggot in short order!

Who proposed ANY laws?