If all you can do is point to the Hummer, just quit.

Body on frame was used in cars for decades, especially the largest luxury vehicles, the ones everyone was taught to hate in the seventies. Now they were replaced with the SUV. Do you want to go back? Maybe you want to keep up the hate, and see if you like the results better next time?

Besides that, not all SUV’s ARE body on frame anymore. Does the hate not transfer to the BMW X5 and Cayenne? Hell no, they catch it double. Thanks for bringing up yet another item before admitting bumper height ain’t getting you anywhere.

We were having this discussion about SUV-hate vs. Prius hate and all being happy about it being wrong on both accounts until someone tried to slyly stick in an argument about how at least SUV-hate is justified. Sort of reminds me of some racism justifications, really.

The hate I am talking about is a bit baser, but generally along the lines of your schtick about SUV drivers. It’s the slights that folks like to stick on these threads as if they were a given. They range from whines about how SUV drivers don’t care if they kill anyone, to no one needs one, to they waste fuel, to they are all driven by pricks.

In the end, some dumb ass legislator will try to ride this hate to some easy votes and pass some lame legislation without ever there being a rational public dialogue. Kinda like CAFE got passed in the first place.

You’re being disingenuous. The changes in styling from workabout truck to carnivorous road devourer are kind of obvious. Compare a 70’s-era Suburban to a Navigator or a Hummer or a Dodge full-size truck, and you can’t make such a claim with a straight face.

SUV’s are not the only heavy vehicles. Yet no one wants to ban heavy vehicles or regulate weight.

Well, some people would like to ban them, I’m sure.

But in any case, the issue isn’t just one of mass, but also of design (body-on-frame construction) and bumper height. The accident makes it very clear that mass in not the only contributing factor.

I will be happy to argue about any single thing you think justifies SUV-hate.

I think that you’re overusing the term here. What kind of hate are we talking about here. Are you seeing a trend of Honda Fits tailgating Escalades or something?

The question is whether or not SUV-hate is justified. The answer is no. You can’t make a good argument that it is, because you can’t seem to settle on what the question means.

First, almost EVERYONE agrees that smearing an entire class of owners is WRONG. Yet, you persist to push this whole thing about aggressive drivers self selecting SUV’s and how the manufacturers actually change their products to appeal to them yet you refuse to point to one thing they did to change their product.

Second, SUV’s are not the only heavy vehicles. Yet no one wants to ban heavy vehicles or regulate weight. We are therefore left with bumper height as the problem – other than the drivers. I thought we were agreed on that, no? So is it appropriate to regulate bumper height, or simply be hateful about taller vehicles? What percentage of SUV-haters would be mollified if the SUV’s had lower bumpers? 5%? Maybe? Laughable.

I will be happy to argue about any single thing you think justifies SUV-hate. However, only one at a time, you keep moving the target and ignoring the real question.

Here are the basic facts:

-SUV’s tend to use a lot of fuel per mile driven. If that consumption is not offset with higher passenger loads, then fuel consumption per capita is also higher. We can decide whether that is a problem or not; many would argue that it is.

-SUV’s inflict more damage in accidents on other vehicles than do other vehicles upon them. The combination of mass and bumper height help to explain this; mass alone does not explain it. This is well documented through highway fatality and injury data that account for vehicle type and mass.

-Yet SUV’s have historically not been safer overall, due to the higher rollover risk. (Recent data suggest that this may be changing, though, due to greater use of stability control in the newer vehicles.)

-Studies document that SUV drivers tend to be more self-oriented, less concerned about social welfare and ecology issues, and at least in certain respects, less law abiding, i.e. lower seat belt usage, greater tendency to violate anti-cell phone laws in countries where these have been imposed, etc.

-Along those lines, the SUV buying demographic has evolved from being dominated by those seeking cargo carrying utility and towing capacity to include a large group seeking size, status, and a vehicle design that communicates dominance.

-Automakers have evolved their SUV designs in order to appeal to these changing market tastes.

That’s a summary of the available data. There is some combination of vehicle and driver characteristics that create the results summarized in these bullet points above.

All of us here can decide whether society should care about these factors or not. Obviously, some are predisposed to imposing legal mandates, while others are not.

Not surprisingly, SUV owners tend to be more politically conservative, which coincides nicely with the social actions that they would like to see taken (actually, avoided) in respect to their choice of vehicle. So this sort of debate is fairly predictable, as the vehicle choice and politics have some correlation. It’s not black and white, of course, but is weighted toward one direction.

We still agree.

PCH,

NOW you want to bring up the environment!? Geez.

The environmental issues are nothing more than the smoke coming out the stack. Place any rules on it you want. I really don’t care anymore. Just stop adding hassle to my life where I have to go to four different places and pay four different fees to keep my car on the road each year.

Back to where we were about settled: I am about solutions, not BS. You are offering none. Anyone can claim there is a huge problem with something and not offer a solution. I am not asking you to defend anything but your own position, which you are refusing to actually do. Defending, and not attacking are two seperate things. If you want to keep dodging the point, while insulting a whole class of people with snide remarks about their personalities then you can do so, but I will change my approach to your points accordingly.

You still have not shown a change in the actual SUV’s. You still have not offered a proposed change in anything. You are now spreading the blame from the drivers to the manufacturers as well.

The regulation of our highway use is a primary function of government. The whole industry is greatly regulated. Are you now going to tell me you realize the futility of most regulation? How do you support such a large government if they can’t get this one right?

And, yes, the rear seat space is dramatically larger – and again makes a huge difference if you’re buying a car that you ever expect to take a trip in rather than just your second car which is commute-only.

From an environmental standpoint, it’s the vehicles. From a behavioral standpoint, it’s the people. The vehicles help the people to be worse than they would be otherwise. So it’s both, and not an either-or.

Bumper height is problematic. I have yet to see a workable bumper height rule that even the majority of SUV haters will go for, or one that deals with mass. Neither of these aspects is unique to SUV’s by the way. That is core to our argument.

From a societal standpoint, it is negligent to put that sort of death-inducing engineering quirk into the hands of so many people who lack the training and temperament to manage it.

This is similar to the motorcycle problem discussed on the other thread — this method of transportation has distinctly negative consequences to many road users, who literally pay with their lives because of it.

The difference here, though, is that while the guy on the bike becomes a victim of his vehicle choice, the SUV driver becomes the perpetrator, inflicting his decision onto other people. If SUV drivers can’t handle the responsibility of their choices and they possess self-centered mentalities that predispose them to be less inclined to care, then I don’t see why I’m supposed to defend their “rights” to be negligent and pompous about it, all at the same time.

The appeal of a distinctive design can’t simply be reduced to “snobbery.” How many high-performance cars have been criticized for looking too much or even exactly like the model on which they are based?

Humans tend to be visually oriented. They want things that ARE different to LOOK different.

It’s not just cars. Years ago, when all computers looked pretty much alike–beige boxes–I argued that high-performance computers would sell more strongly and for more money if they looked different.

Computer manufacturers have since caught on to this, in a big way.

It’s not like I was the first person to realize this. It’s essentially product design / branding 101. But many people still don’t realize it. Especially engineers.

Edit: I should add that market research tends to underestimate the impact of design, because people try to provide rational explanations to their behavior.

I gotta agree with you on this one:

“Every time somebody talks about the “distinctive platform”, they forget that car buyers may be dumb individually but like most herds end up making fairly rational economic decisions over time.”

THAT is a good argument that shows that the Prius has something that people want. It’s been years of succcess now. Unfortunately, it doesn’t tell us what about the Prius makes it successful, but I would be willing to agree that there is more to it than snobbery over the distinct platform.

PCH,

Two thoughts.

I think it’s clear now that the problem is not the cars, it’s the drivers. That is most of your argument. That is what has changed. Not the SUV’s. You have offered no evidence the SUV’s have changed.

Bumper height is problematic. I have yet to see a workable bumper height rule that even the majority of SUV haters will go for, or one that deals with mass. Neither of these aspects is unique to SUV’s by the way. That is core to our argument.

I would be happy to see additional proof of driving ability required for vehicles of greater height or weight so long as they are actually effective. I am sure that they would instead be a tax and hassle discouragement, that would merely be designed in discouraging people from buying what they want rather than ensuring they can handle it. Still, that’s not what SUV haters think – THEY BLAME THE SUV’s. Even you seem to agree that they are wrong.

But 2 vs. 4 seats makes an even bigger difference. Sales of two-seaters have always been very limited in this country.

The folding rear seat…I love this feature, but don’t often come across people saying it had a big effect on their purchase decison.

One further impact of the distinctive styling and unique platform is that it makes precise comparisons with non-hybrids impossible. With the Honda Civic Hybrid and other such hybrids people can readily tell how much they’re paying for the hybrid bits.

In general, I don’t think Occam’s razor can be applied to car purchases. They tend to be too complicated for that. I’ve long felt that Detroit’s belief in an “X factor,” one thing you could do to a car that would make it sell, has been a key reason for its falling sales.

TTAC posted a blurb about how Honda is now preparing a hybrid model with its own styling. They seem to have concluded that a unique wrapper is needed.

I brought home a rain barrel from the city with the door closed, though, so I certainly appreciate the utility of the liftback _now_.

But to keep asserting that it has to do more with looks than utility fails the obvious Insight test. Yes, then you back up to “oh, I meant looks and 4 seats”. Occam’s razor suggests differently – people test drive these things, after all, and the first thing many notice is how big it is inside.

That’s quite a change. We’ve added a groundswell of these vehicles, and have mixed them into urban and suburban areas with more traffic, with drivers seeking dominance and a feeling of invincibility. That’s akin to the difference between handing a BB gun to an honors student and equipping a street gang with a dozen AK-47’s. The degree and the users do matter.

In car vs. light truck/SUV accidents, the fatality rate skews 4 to 1 against the car. The accident data shows that it isn’t just the mass, but also the construction type and the bumper height. These vehicles do inflict more damage when they are involved in accidents, there is no doubt about it.

I personally love five-door cars. Drive a Protege5 myself. But if the practical configuration actually boosts Prius sales, this is a unique case in the American market.

Honda doesn’t even bother to offer the configuration here, though they do in Europe. Ditto Ford with the refreshed Focus.

The Gen2 Prius has been much more successful than the Gen1 car. But I’d chalk this up to a more upscale look and feel, improved performance, higher gas prices, and increased familiarity with the concept more than the utility of the car.

1. Higher potential mileage with the Prius (small mileage win in practice for most folks)

2. More space, and much more usable space (bigger back seat that folds down)

Every time somebody talks about the “distinctive platform”, they forget that car buyers may be dumb individually but like most herds end up making fairly rational economic decisions over time. And the fact is that the two things mentioned above are highly rational reasons to prefer the Prius over the HCH.

People are trying very hard, even today, to make themselves believe that the other guy got suckered.

I think prius haters are the ones who see so many prejudiced prius drivers and get tired of it.

Just because someone drives a prius in no way means they are more environmentally friendly than anyone else.

How about the prius driver that does 30 miles each way to work, 5 days a week @ 48mpg and eats 6-7 gallons of gas vs say…I don’t know, me and my 4 cylinder guzzler sports car who is on track to do 4k miles per year at 19mpg ?

Even with vastly better gas milage, 6 gallons/week * 52 = 300 gallons/year of gas while I use ~ 210-211 in my sports car. At least it’s a tiny car so Prius owners don’t glare at me…… I imagine they think I get great mileage when I don’t. This doesn’t even count damage done to roads due to the difference in mileage, social costs, etc.

I respect prius drivers because they are driving technology development which should bring down the price for everyone in the future. I don’t look down or say anything positive or negative but I really don’t like the attitude I’ve found of some to have. (I guess every group has some people with bad attitudes…)

Now this is NOT just a fault with prius owners, but with SUV owners (looking down on anything that doesn’t have 8″ of ground clearance as being “unsafe”), motorcyclists (”I hate cagers, they are all shaving, news-paper reading, killers on 4 wheels”), and many other groups.

I am sure most Prius owners don’t look down on SUV owners or make comments about people with large vehicles, but I am tired of the ones that do!

Nice example: completely useless, prejudiced, anecdotal, and evident of bias.

Every time you buy something you may make it more expensive for others. That’s just the way the world works. Sorry if you think you, or others, have some strange right to oil at below market costs, but that’s not the way the world works.

You would think there are gas lines in this country or something. You would think gas was expensive. It ain’t. It’s not even the most expensive part of operating your car for Pete’s sake. It’s less expensive than coffee. EVEN CHEAP COFFEE. Where is all the hate for anyone driving new cars? Certainly, if they can’t sell them off the lots, I could get a new one much cheaper. And what about those people going to Starbucks and driving the price of coffee through the roof. Those Bastards!

Sorry for jumping down your throat for repeating what I am sure you thought was perfectly normal stuff, but I am F’ing tired of the perfectly normal foolishness getting repeated ad infinitum.

—

I’m quite certain that a lot of Prius-hate has to do with guilty consciences. People with big, empty vehicles are, frankly, using more than their share of the planet’s resources. They’re sucking oil out for their own pleasure and ignoring future generations and making oil more expensive for others. The Prius is an in-their-faces reminder, deliberate or not (not) that it doesn’t have to be that way; that people can get along with less. Driving less doesn’t “show up” on the roads the same way, so it’s the Prius that draws the ire.

Peeling back the onion had me weeping with laughter.

Those threads just prove my original point. You’re going to get asinine comments on any site and there’s no reason to expect that Priuschat.com would be any different.

Your first link is to a comment by an (apparently) young twit who needs to grow up a bit and improve his driving habits. He’s not being pious – he’s gloating about fuel prices and how it’s making SUV drivers slow down. The rest of the comments on the first page (I didn’t go further than that) were pretty low key, most saying they hadn’t noticed much or any difference in driving speed. None had the tone of the original post.

The second link is to a guy who asks if he is being tailgated by SUV’s because he is in a Prius or is he just paranoid. The overwhelming response is – you’re being paranoid, it’s not because he’s in a Prius there’s just a lot of rude people in the road.

The third link is to a guy who makes generalizations about SUV drivers. The responses are pretty much what you might read on TTAC – there are many people who buy SUV’s that don’t need them, but there are plenty who do so you need to be careful about making generalized comments about them. Even the original poster follows up by saying he didn’t really mean to be as critical of SUV drivers as his original post sounded!

this just demonstrates that there are enough of them caught up in their SUV hating ways to perpetuate the idea that they’re all chock full of smug.

Based on what I read at Priuschat.com I think you’re plainly wrong.

These types of feelings don’t just fall from the sky

I agree. But the feelings have got much more to do with the beliefs of those who characterize Prius owners as “chock full of smug” than any truth about most Prius owners themselves (assuming the comments on Priuschat.com referred to above are representative). Your last paragraph indicates to me that you fall into that category.

This is going straight back to defining who needs what really quickly. That line goes nowhere. Either they are allowed on the road or not. It’s also gun control redux. After all, criminals use guns to shoot people, so we should outlaw guns, right? The guns aren’t the problem, and apparently neither are the SUV’s.

I don’t think the tax solution is gonna fly more than a couple hundred feet before it crashes. The tax doesn’t even address your main concern of getting your hated demographic out of them. They will simply pay the tax. In the meantime, the businesses that need the trucks, many of them lower class family businesses, will have a harder time affording them.

Great, just take a swipe at the American Dream, and see if you are reelected, Congressman.

I think we are done. We aren’t changing our minds, and you aren’t gonna change the status quo with your argument (neither am I gonna end SUV hate with mine). The good thing is that the demographic you want out of those cars can’t do the math to figure out that the SUV is still the better deal. They have thus actually made the SUV a worse deal by ruining their former advantage in depreciation. That is what will get SUV’s off the road, at least until gas prices stabilize and rationality sets back in. Gas is still cheap after all.

Sure it is. The quantity has increased severalfold and the buyer demographic has changed considerably, which changes the impact on road users in general. There’s quite a difference between encountering the occasional SUV being driven by someone hauling goods, and being surrounded by housewives and pissed off suburban egotists trying to prove their mettle.

I have been through the whole bumper height thing here before. There is no solution which everyone will go for and that will work. PERIOD.

If we care about the bumper height enough to feel that incentives are required, then the solution would be to tax it. Pay to play.

Where exactly do you draw the line?

I don’t know exactly, but I am sure as hell not sad to see them go. If someone is going to be a jerk, I’d rather have him act out his inadequacies in a smallish Kia or perhaps an Aveo so that he can’t inflict quite as much damage as he would otherwise. I’d prefer further still that we give him a bus pass, but we don’t have enough buses for that…

In order to make the argument that the modern SUV is worse than the old school SUV, you need to pick out the new factors that make it so bad. Otherwise, it’s an empty statement.

As for “proliferating disproportionate mass and bumper heights” none of this is new. The large cadillacs and buicks of yesteryear were more massive than the cheaper models. Like I told Michael, if weight is the factor, then let’s attack that, not just the SUV. Otherwise, you put the average family in a lighter stationwagon only to be killed by a Rolls Royce. How fair is that?

I have been through the whole bumper height thing here before. There is no solution which everyone will go for and that will work. PERIOD.

Your self centered argument is reductio ad absurdum. No one is arguing an exclusion of concern for interoperability. As you can see, I am looking for workable solutions. I would say that it is the SUV haters that are self centered. They want others to change their lives to suit them. Not the other way around. As I have said here before, people die in Houston almost every year due to low ride height vehicles. Likewise in mountainous areas.

Should we all have to brave the same dangers as people who cannot afford (or choose not to afford) protection from those dangers? Where exactly do you draw the line? It seems human nature is to draw the line out of a warped perspective based on severe sanctimony wrapped in a veneer of reasonableness.

In the end though, there will be scooters, and things bigger than scooters. Make your proposal for the limits if you are so brave, or admit the uselessness of the SUV-hate. There really is no in between.

Here is a good point:
“It’s a simple fact that the base of the rear window in an SUV tends to be much higher than in just about any car, making it very difficult for the driver to see relatively low objects behind the vehicle.”

So the problem is NOT the SUV. It’s rear visibility, and SUV’s are simply not the only cars with this problem. Add to that the size of children that are car unaware, and you have a bad mix. By chance did they factor for what kind of car the little ones are more likely to be around? I mean, most of these tragedies aren’t strangers in parking lots hitting these kids are they?

As for the rest of the stuff, did any of these studies make any attempt to get to the real factors involved by putting in controls for things like weight, bumper height, region, weather, etc?

I am immediately dismissive of any study that concludes SUV’s are bad because SUV really doesn’t mean anything. It is a wholly undefined term from an academic viewpoint – A Forester is an SUV after all.

I will be honest about what I am angling for here. When you figure out the specific cause of the externalities you see in SUV’s then I will be glad to join you in figuring out how to get rid of that factor (rear visibility for instance). However, I think you will find that as soon as you do that, you can no longer build a constituency and the whole movement falls apart. OR, you will find that SUV’s can adapt to the new rule, and we will still have SUV’s, and we will still have SUV haters, BECAUSE IT IS EMOTIONALLY BASED. No matter how much fact correlates with the hate, it is still hate, not reasoned disapproval, that drives the anti-SUV crowd.

I probably should have used a different work than “tricky.” When I say “tricky,” I mean “challenging,” not that someone has been deceived.

It wasn’t as simple as earning th highest EPA numbers. The Honda Civic Hybrid, despite similarly high EPA estimate with the first-gen cars, hasn’t sold nearly as well. Honda did have distinctive sytling with the Insight, but it had the same limitation as GM’s similarly styled EV1: only two seats.

People love SUVs (or at least they did). The Ford Escape has the best EPA numbers of any SUV. But it hasn’t sold nearly as well as the Prius.

The Prius succeeded because:
–highest EPA ratings
–four seats
–distinctive styling / unique platform (very expensive)
–price in the 20s
–perhaps one or two other significant factors

If any of these pieces had been missing, the car would not have become a phenomenon. In hindsight, this might obviously appear the way to go. But if it was so obvious beforehand, then everyone would have done it. And they didn’t.