Question for anti-SUV people...

[DealsGapRider]

The post from FlashHarry just made me think of something I've been wanting to ask the DU family...

This board is populated by a number of people who are anti-SUV on the grounds that they are needlessly large, consume unnecessary amounts of fuel, and are generally symptomatic of Americans' excessive consumption relative to the rest of the world's population.

I have to say, I sympathize with this argument to a certain degree. I don't think you need to have an SUV when all you do is commute in the city. And Hummers (along with the giant Expedition and a few other monstrosities) are bordering on the obscene.

My question is this: should we also be contemptuous of overweight people who consume a vastly disproportionate share of the world's food? I am not asking this question to be a smart ass. Last night I consumed a burrito that could have fed a whole family in Bangladesh. I felt guilty as hell as I leaned back in my chair and stared at my distended gut. I am not what you would consider fat, but I could definitely lose a few lbs.

Anyway, are the sort of radicals who run around spray-painting SUVs one of these days going to start a campaign to shame overwieght people into not eating so much in light of the starving masses of the world?

:beer:

[trogdor]

1. First they came for the SUV drivers...

then they came for the fatasses.
Then they came after me, and there were no more Libertarians around to stick up for me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. Hehehehe...

I bet nobody else gets that one. :7

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Nobody Else?

Nobody? You are the only one on DU with a sense of history and sense of humor?

Curious.
The Professor

[XNASA]

50. Then they came the ones with a sense of history and sense of humor,

but I didn't care, because I had no sense of history and no sense of humor.

:hi:

Hey Prof,

What are ya doin' next Wednesday evening?

[The Backlash Cometh]

53. Ha-ha!

Made you look!

Nyner, nyner.

[Liberal Classic]

58. LOL

Vulgar but appropriate! :)

[slackmaster]

2. Obesity is often caused by medical conditions

Over which its victims have little or no control.

One of my coworkers, a man in his late 40s, recently had his stomach surgically "stapled" in order to reduce the volume of his meals. He's been grossly obese since youth, and has tried various diets and appetite-reducing drugs and talk therapy almost constantly throughout his life. The stapling is a final act of desperation.

My question is this: should we also be contemptuous of overweight people who consume a vastly disproportionate share of the world's food?

I am only contemptuous of people of size when they are inconsiderate about letting slimmer, faster people get by them in the supermarket aisle.

Buying and driving an SUV is a choice. I have made that choice for myself (Nissan Pathfinder) because it fits my lifestyle. I do use it for daily suburban commutes, but I also use it for long trips and offroad journeys. If anyone wishes to despise me for that, so be it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. That last sentence was a joke...right?

[slackmaster]

6. It was intentionally ambiguous

I despise anyone who is inconsiderate. Wide peoples' inconsideration often causes more grief in public than narrow peoples'.

[Az]

10. Where does your rights end and others rights begin?

My lifestyle includes breathing air. Your lifestyle definately interferes with mine. Why am I not able to impose my lifestyle descisions on yours?

As our awareness of the consequences of our actions increases we discover some things we do that are far more damaging than we imagined. When do you want to take responsibility for them? When its too late? Or while something can still be done?

Just as I do not have the right to take a dump on your lawn you do not have the right to belch poisenous fumes in my air(metaphorically). Of course its not easy to determine this issue. But surely you can see the problem the econutz are refering to.

[slackmaster]

18. See reply #15

My newer SUV puts out a lot less carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides than the old, small pickup I drove for 17 years.

Just as I do not have the right to take a dump on your lawn you do not have the right to belch poisenous fumes in my air(metaphorically).

I know you are being hyperbolic, but in fact everyone who drives ANY vehicle belches poisonous fumes into everyone's air. I cannot accept your criticism of my poisonous fumes until you can be sure you are polluting less than I am.

[Az]

3. Don't want to ban them

Just stop creating tax and fuel economy loopholes for them. Didn't we learn anything in the 70's? The right continues to fight to keep SUVs exempt from any sort of rational policy towards fuel standards. And the tax loophole is just insane.

There is a balance between the right of people to drive what they want and the responsibility we all have to maintain the planet. Through regulation car owners are doing their part. Its time SUV owners did their part too.

[Spentastic]

5. Over consumption is ugly

No matter what form it takes. Everybody in the world could be fed if the will existed. You couldn't possibly give everyone an SUV. I only ask that people are aware that buying and SUV involves self centred disregard for others*. If they can live with that, good for them.

Apaert from people that live up mountains etc etc etc

[Az]

7. Freedom is the right to be as stupid as you want as long as you do no harm

This is the crux of the problem with SUVs. SUVs are harming other people. Whether through pollution or more diretly by being more dangerous in a crash. It enters into a grey area of law and morality. This requires a balancing act. Unfortunately some do not take their part in the social contract seriously.

[DealsGapRider]

12. I think the argument against driving SUVs...

...should center around the fact that they use an excessive (wasteful) amount of gasoline, not because they cause pollution. All cars cause pollution, and I'm not sure that SUVs being built today cause appreciably more pollution than other vehicles. The cars that cause the most pollution are older cars built in the 1970s and 1980s that are still on the road.

[pansypoo53219]

46. not neccessarily

My 73' delta 88 always passed emmission with flying colors(52.000 miles when i bought it) and was even cleaner when i sold it.

[slackmaster]

15. I drove a small pickup truck for over 17 years

My first car was a used 1973 Honda Civic. It was destroyed several years later when some clown rear-ended me in a rain storm. The whiplash injury I got in that crash still causes me back spasms and pain from time to time.

That was 1985. I bought a brand-new light pickup truck. It got excellent gas mileage and left me as much at risk in crashes as anyone else in a small car or pickup.

Finally with my finances in much better shape, having recovered from divorce and my old truck barely drivable, last October I got a larger, safer vehicle that gets less MPG but puts out much less pollution than the '85 pickup: A 1998 Nissan Pathfinder.

Whether through pollution...

I burn about 25% more fuel but put out less than 1/3 the emissions (CO and NOx) of my older pickup.

...or more diretly by being more dangerous in a crash.

I don't get into crashes.

It enters into a grey area of law and morality. This requires a balancing act. Unfortunately some do not take their part in the social contract seriously.

Agreed. I weighed all of the above factors carefully before buying a slightly used SUV. My decision was that I deserve it after all those years of driving an economical but risky vehicle that had no 4-wheel drive.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Ah, yes, the escalation of "safety"

It's a regular arms race on the highway.

You get a whiplash in a Civic, so you get a bigger car.

Meanwhile, everyone else gets bigger cars, so you get an SUV.

Then SUVs become the biggest selling vehicle, so you have to get a Hummer to avoid being injured in a wreck.

Pretty soon the vehicle of choice is going to be a tank. Then you can blow up any vehicle that looks as if it's going to crash into you.

It's the "me--me--me--" ethic on steroids. Does it not occur to people that with an SUV they are more likely to kill drivers of Civics?

Or are they so warped by today's Social Darwinism and bratty libertarianism that other people literally don't matter to them?

[Iris]

102. yes

"Or are they so warped by today's Social Darwinism and bratty libertarianism that other people literally don't matter to them?"

This is what boggles my mind. I mean sure, you are more likely to survive a wreck, given that you don't roll over, in an SUV, but if you RUN OVER the car in front of you killing everyone in it, would you really want to live with that?

I guess the solution to any sort of guilt you might feel would be to just drink a few extra martinis every night and buy a whole bunch more shit.

[sangh0]

8. No contempt. Food is not the same as transportation

There are very strong physiological influences that go into our decisions when it comes to food. For many, the factor that most strongly influenced their decision to buy an SUV is "social status"

[Kathy in Cambridge]

9. They pollute

they are not held to as stringent emissions standards as passenger cars.

Owners get tax breaks, when they should be penalized for polluting and consuming vast quantities of our oil resources.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. stupid question - "vastly disproportionate share of the world's food"

Not to mention your inaccurate stereotype about overweight people, is someone who overeats causing someone else to go without? No.

Perhaps you just feel guilty for driving around a polluting, wasteful, and dangerous vehicle? But trying to deflect onto overweight people is pretty low, don't you think?

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. I think you missed his point.

The only problem I have with SUV's, besides not being able to afford one, is allowing SUV owners to receive tax breaks. That's freakin nuts. If they want to put out outrageous sums of money in gas and upkeep it's their loss.

BTW, I don't believe the poster said he drove an SUV. Are you reading between the lines...yet again?

[DealsGapRider]

21. I don't even own a car.

I ride a motorcycle, which consumes less gas and pollutes less than virtually any car on the road.

[nn2004]

59. Nice handle

I haven't done the gap in a couple of years and my tires show it.

Are you a DoD member?

[DealsGapRider]

67. DoD?

You mean Department of Defense? Nope. I'm a civilian and a half. I'm a military brat, though.

Deal's Gap is the bomb. Just got back from my first trip a few weeks ago.

[nn2004]

82. Denizens of Doom - Not Department of Defense

The gap is an excellent arm burner.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. I got the point

"This board is populated by a number of people who are anti-SUV on the grounds that they are needlessly large, consume unnecessary amounts of fuel, and are generally symptomatic of Americans' excessive consumption relative to the rest of the world's population."

Then he compared an SUV's waste of resources to an overweight person eating more food than average. That is the stupidest comparison ever, and simply makes no sense. Apples to Oranges as it were.

[DealsGapRider]

69. I don't see why the comparison is so stupid.

SUVs consume huge amounts of fuel. Overweight people often eat huge amounts of food. True, what they eat and how much they exercise plays a part, but so does quantity consumed. If we're uncomfortable with the fact that we represent 5% of the world's population but consume upwards of 25% or 30% of the world's resources, why shouldn't that extend to food?

I'm not interested in shaming overweight people as much as I am perhaps hopeful that one day eating in moderation will be considered a liberal value...for the explicit reason that it's not right to consume so much when others have so little.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

72. please show me ONE example

of an overweight person eating food that otherwise would have gone to a starving person. The idea that overeating has anything other than a negligible effect on the food supply is ridiculous. If you were talking specifically about eating meat, you might have a point.

"I'm not interested in shaming overweight people as much as I am perhaps hopeful that one day eating in moderation will be considered a liberal value...for the explicit reason that it's not right to consume so much when others have so little."

I think you're interested in transferring the sympathy people have for overweight people and their natural inclination not to criticize them to SUV drivers.

Besides, it's not just the over consumption of gasoline, it's the pollution and the danger to everyone else that is the problem with SUVs.

[DealsGapRider]

74. Vote Counter...

I am not suggesting that the food an overweight person eats would go to a starving person if only the overweight person could restrain himself. Rather, as a culture, I think it would be nice if we didn't connsume nearly as much food so that our surplus could go to needy people.

Let me just ask this question. It seems to be a fairly common liberal value to feel concerned about the fact that we have so much in this country while much of the rest of the world has so little. We are also concerned about inequality within our own borders...some have so much while others have so little. Why doesn't that extend to food? Why is it perfectly acceptable in your mind to be able to eat FAR more than one needs to survive while others starve? Isn't that an anti-liberal attitude?

"I think you're interested in transferring the sympathy people have for overweight people and their natural inclination not to criticize them to SUV drivers." No, I'm really not. I'm not out to defend SUV drivers. I don't own one and I've already said that I generally sympathize with the anti-SUV argument.

"Besides, it's not just the over consumption of gasoline, it's the pollution and the danger to everyone else that is the problem with SUVs." I think the pollution argument is a red herring. SUVs produced today have to abide by far stricter emissions standards than cars built in the 1970s that are still on the road. Far, far more pollution is caused by old cars than SUVs, but no one is going to beat up on the people who drive older cars because many of them are poor and can't afford new cars with advanced emmissions standards.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

93. but instead of buying new efficient cars

they are buying the least efficient new cars that can be made, SUVs, so when we finally do get the old polluting vehilces off the road, we have SUVs instead of eco-friendlier cars.

Is this so we can haul around our tools for our business? Nope, this is to make up for penis size and a general display of consumption. We have lawyers buying SUVs and using them as a business tax break, so they can carry around their briefcase in the back? Come on.

That's why the kids are keying them nowadays.

[Gingersnap]

95. if that's how you feel

then maybe you should consider becoming more vegetarian! According to the Sierra Club it takes an exponentially greater amount of WATER (not that's a world resource for ya, not cheetos) to produce 1lb of beans than 1lb of legumes or grains. I recycled the issue of their SoCal newsletter with this info in it, so please don't pile on that I don't provide actual numbers.

I think the resources we need to be thinking about--and which would make the overweight as SUV driver analogy more relevant--are acres of agricultural land vs. forest, water, etc. A thin person on the Atkins diet who eats meat three times a day is probably on the global scale just as resource-consuming as a fat person who pigs out on potato chips, fries and cheesy poofs. (Not to be unsensitive to fat people, I realize that for many obesity is partially genetic--I just went with the stereotype of fat people's diets).

[soupkitchen]

13. Park your ass on the corner so that I can't see the oncoming traffic

As I make a turn and yeah I'ld want to spray paint you too.

[EV1Ltimm]

64. that's why my karma's been so bad lately.

1: blocking smaller cars view of oncoming traffic
2: being hypocritical and cursing suv's when they block my view of oncoming traffic.

[FlashHarry]

14. I'm only personally opposed to SUVs.

I think that people should be allowed to drive whatever the hell they want to drive. But, it's my right to make fun of them, just as it's their right to make fun of me in my little rollerskate-esque Sentra.

BTW, people who are obese due to genetic or other medical reasons shouldn't be pilloried. However, people who are obese simply because they are lazy and ignorant are another story.

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. My favorite is when Dave Barry calls them Chevy Suburban Subdivisions

Cracks me up. My parents just bought a Yukon XL...for two people. That's just ridiculous.

[Robb]

37. OMG! The crux of the issue is reached!!

BTW, people who are obese due to genetic or other medical reasons shouldn't be pilloried. However, people who are obese simply because they are lazy and ignorant are another story.

In the same way that folks here bear no grudge against SUV owners who live on dirt roads in snow country. It's not the SUV, it's the "lazy and ignorant" part.

We (progressives in general) need to be very careful when we support arguments like this. This is, frankly, a GOP tactic we don't need to be emulating -- demonizing the symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

It's easier to come to an action, and a better rallying cry. "SUVs are the enemy!" will get more people at a rally than "Lots of people are ignorant!!" And the second one is much harder to even begin to figure out how to address.

We're better than that, people.

[bloom]

48. I don't think it is as simple as you say.

For one thing - some SUVs get better mileage than a lot of cars - for another thing - I think it does make a difference if people have a utility vehicle because they need a utility vehicle for the work they do - or whatever - as opposed to having any gas-guzzling vehicle for no good reason.

"SUVs are the enemy!" is quite a turn-off to me.

"Luxury SUVs are the enemy" is a statement that makes sense.

[Robb]

55. Again,

Why make a statement against an inanimate vehicle, instead of the mindset that makes one want something they don't need?

I'm suggesting it's because it's easier -- and that as progressives we have a responsibility to take on the more difficult problem.

[bloom]

70. I thought you just said saying "SUV's are the enemy"

is better than "Lots of people are ignorant!!"

That may be true - but I think the blanket rejection of SUVs or people who drive them without qualifying it as luxury SUVs and including oversize pickups and other wasteful things alienates a lot of reasonable people and makes the anti-SUV people look ignorant.

[Zolok]

19. The point is moot...

fat people (like myself) already come in for a disproportionate amount of abuse in this life.
As compensation they deserve a disproportionate amount of food....
Skinny people suck and are fit only to go out and buy me another box of scooter pies.
So there.




:)
www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

[izzie]

20. I do not care if they have Suv's but why not make the gas better?

Trucks the same way.

[Brian Sweat]

22. There is plenty of food in the world

the problem is getting it to the people who need it. So eating a little more than you need is not depriving someone else.

The SUV issue is about more than just fuel, but there is a limited supply of oil and people who needlessly drive SUV's are using more than their share, but let's face it, almost all Americans use more than their share.

[ozymandius]

23. Personal consumption of food aside...

Just some random thoughts...

A friend of mine has always been heavy. Fourteen years ago he weighed a modest 210 lbs. Three years ago he weighed-in at nearly 300. The doctors found that his thyroid was a fraction away from "dead".

My friend drives a 4-cylinder 1991 Toyota pickup. So you can't always easily qualify evidence of conspicuous consumption.

As far as obscenely large SUVs go: I have nothing but utter disdain for the the largest of these things. When turning left at a busy intersection, I cannot see around these towering monstrosities. This puts the safety of my family at risk. This puts the safety of other occupants at risk should an oncoming car (luckily never happened) find me in their path as I attempt to turn left through an intersection, thinking that all is clear - only to be wrong because I could not see around some grotesquely huge vehicle.

Our family car is a Toyota Camry. I cannot count the number of times that I have parked n a parking lot, facing something like a Ford Perversion (Excursion) or a Ford Rollover (Explorer) and noticed that their bumpers ride higher than the bumper on our Camry. So, in a crash, the SUV pilot and occupants will be fine. The impact on our vehicle, however, will pulverize the car's occupants as there is no safety barrier at the point of impact. This is criminally stupid on the part of the manufacturer.

Just such a case: my sister and brother-in-law were driving a new Ford F150 pickup when they collided with a regular sized passenger car. They wishboned the car. They happened to hit it at a point high enough to cut the car in two and causing massive head trauma to the driver, killing him.

I have no love for radicals who set SUVs ablaze and spray paint graffiti on them. Still, I have a difficult time lamenting the loss of one of these vehicles when something untoward happens to them.

We Americans represent 5% of the world population, yet we consume 30% of its resources. I believe there's something wrong with that.

[alterfurz]

24. apply Occam's Razor -?

"'Tis vain to do with more, that which can be done with less."

[LoneStarLiberal]

25. Navigators and Escalades versus Obesity

Sounds like the title of some weird fetish rap album!

Hmmm...intersting post. As far as your point about Hummers and Excursions bordering on the obscene, I have to disagree. They are already firmly in the territory of obscenity. I do not any gas-guzzling vehicle that is driven without a distinct work- or family-related necessity. I can understand Explorers, Navigators, and Escalades (though the last two definitely have that "simply luxury" association) but there is no, and I repeat *NO* excuse for owning something the size of an Excursion or Hummer. I could even potentially understand an Excursion in a minority of cases (large family, own farm, have trailers and such to haul), but there is truly no excuse for an H2.

Considering I've seen plenty of Explorers, a couple of Navigators, and one Excursion hauling horse trailers in the country around my town (where there are quite a few horse operations) and I've never once seen an H2 anywhere besides the Dallas North Tollway, Plano, Frisco, or the parking lot at NorthPark Mall, that's all that needs to the said about the pointless vanity of Hummers.

I say you should only spraypaint someone who is obese if you see them at the drive-thru or coming our of McDonald's. There is no excuse for that.

Of course the downside to the argument of comparing obesity to SUVs is that I don't think the two are equivocal on the grounds of causation, though that is probably open to debate.

[Rainbowreflect]

26. One day while I was waiting for the bus I decided to try something.

I counted the cars, SUVs & trucks. In the time I was sitting there I counted 22 cars, 49 SUVs & 35 trucks (not including business trucks). The really interesting thing was home many people were in each vehicle. The cars has 8 with only one person and 14 with 2 or more. The trucks had 18 with one person and 17 with 2 or more. The SUVs on the other hand had one 6 with 2 or more people the rest (43) had only one person. I thought that was interesting.
I have no problem with people who need the space, size or off road ablity of an SUV, but I will say I am bothered by those who think the need the biggest, baddest SUV to drive around town by themselves.

[buddhamama]

27. overweight people aren't necessarily overweight

because they eat too much. it is what they eat,biological facotrs and lack of exercise.

example. if i sat on my ass all day but ate only potato chips and drank soda i'd gain weight. one bag of chips isn't a lot of food it is not making a pig of myself but it is the wrong kind of food (loaded with fat) and wouldn't fit in well with my sedentary lifestyle.

[morningtheft]

28. I am anti but drive...

a 1981 monte carlo. I dreive this car because it was given to me and I have no money to buy another car. The vehicle is huge but only a v6 engine. Now since I drive it out of necessity only I wonder if I still have the right to despise yukon, tahoe, excursion, expedition, escalade, and blah, blah....Am I a hypocrite?

[slackmaster]

40. You're not a hypocrite, but you pollute a lot more than my Pathfinder

You probably consume more fuel, too.

I hope you can get your finances together to get something better soon.

[Caution]

29. one of the primary reasons I hate SUVs

Is because they are promoted as "safe" particularly to parents who often buy them to "fit" their family into. My parents had 3 kids and a 4 door sedan and we all fit no problem. SUV's have terrible safety records, are prone to rollovers and one thing that is just an observation is that the people who drive SUVs tend to think they are invincible and thus drive more recklessly in the belief that people should just get out of their way (the SUV power trip is what I call it).

<rant time>
To SUV owners: They are not safer than other cars, in fact their safety record is terrible, particularly when poorly operated. A speeding SUV which gets in an accident is MUCH more likely to rollover than say oh i dunno...a STATION WAGON...you remember those right? The cars people used to drive when they had a big family or intended to fill the car up with stuff? Then along came the minivan...those monstrosities which made people feel "cool" because they weren't driving a station wagon and were marketed as having lots of room? Then came the SUV...because minivans became uncool...So people bought an SUV which is merely a minivan with 4WD and a boxy body. gimme a break. Station wagons are safer than SUVs and generally have MORE cargo space. They get lousy mileage too but at least they are safe.
Be honest you drive an SUV because it gives you a sense of power to drive a car with a big body and a big engine not becuase you need the space, not because you often drive offroad and not because they are safe. They are a status symbol, nothing more, nothing less.<end rant>

[soupkitchen]

33. The SUV power trip

is why I think SUV drivers are the Panzer Tank Commanders of the Environmental Wars.

[slackmaster]

39. You're confusing normal SUVs with Hummers

n/t

[soupkitchen]

45. No, I'm not

Hummer drivers are the Gestapo

[slackmaster]

36. I know that was a rant but I must respond anyway

Be honest...

OK.

...you drive an SUV because it gives you a sense of power to drive a car with a big body and a big engine not becuase you need the space, not because you often drive offroad and not because they are safe. They are a status symbol, nothing more, nothing less....

No, that's not correct.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Amplifying Your Rant!

The NHTSA database indicates that in accidents that DO NOT INVOLVE ROLLOVER the probability of death or disabling injury is EXACTLY THE SAME FOR SUV'S AS FOR MIDSIZED CARS!

That's right. SUV's are statistically identical in terms of risk as a mid-sized car, even if one excludes death and injury in rollovers.

So, the whole "safer" thing is a marketing myth. The data from 1990 to the present just doesn't support that belief.
The Professor

[slackmaster]

62. But a NEW SUV is often safer than the OLD vehicle it replaces

That is certainly true in my case.

[Gingersnap]

99. do you mean any NEW car is safer than OLD?

then why not get a new midsize to replace your old vehicle instead of an SUV?

MY RANT:
I'm really tired of hearing the "I drove a crappy car for years...am environmentally responsible in other ways... SO I Deserve an SUV" sort of logic. It just sounds a bit like the American sense of entitlement that probably is the reason why we consume more resources than any other people on earth. How much would you have to suffer from having a new four wheel drive midsize? Perfectly ok for most off-roading. (Hell, I've driven my low to the ground Honda Prelude offroad in Joshua TRee-not the smartest thing I've ever done, but my car survived nicely).

[shanti]

85. what's wrong with minivans?

i now have a 2 dr. tercel which is much too small from my growing son and his friends, sporting equipment, etc. i'm considering getting a minivan, not an suv. but it seems you are lumping minivans into the same category. the chassis for minivans is usually wider than for suv's, so i feel they are safer. do you have any stats that say otherwise?

[XNASA]

31. I just bought a new SUV. I traded in a 4 cyl. econocar for it.

My 4 cylinder econocar, a 2002 Mitsu Lancer, promised 31MPG on the highway. It never got anywhere near 31 MPG on the highway. More like 25MPG. It was a nice car. Handled well and was a solid piece of machinery. But the gas mileage was never as good as advertised. Trouble was, it was underpowered and I found myself gassing it just to keep up with traffic.

I traded it in for a Mazda Tribute SUV, which, although it weighs 500 pounds more than the Lancer, and has a V6, and has a lot more room and features, does get 25MPG on the highway. As advertised.

Don't get me wrong. I'd never drive a huge truck based SUV. But making a blanket statement like, "SUV's Suck" is just plain wrong.

Here's the stat's on the Tribute, if your interested:

http://edmunds.com/new/2003/mazda/tribute/100123274/specs.html?tid=edmunds.n.prices.leftsidenav..8.Mazda*

[FlashHarry]

32. Atually, that makes sense.

In fact, I'd have no problem driving a Subaru, Volvo or even a Toyota RAV4. I just happen to think that the H2s, Escalades, Denalis and Excursions of this world are a little over-the-top.

[XNASA]

34. Agreed.

But even Subaru's are gas hogs, for their size. And AWD adds extra weight on the vehicle, which leads to poorer gas mileage.

I should have noted that our new Tribute is FWD only. We made a list of the things we needed in a vehicle and AWD, or 4WD didn't make the list.

To be certain, Hummer owners are insane. Same goes for the other models you mention.

BTW, this is the last year of production for the Excursion. It's actually a poor seller.

[FlashHarry]

61. True. Although.

I think there can be a case made for owning a 4x4 for people living on country roads in the Midwest or Northeast. In that case, the Subaru would be the lesser of many possible evils. Personally, if I had the bread, I'd take an Audi Quattro!

[XNASA]

65. You and me both.

A dark blue A8L Quattro. With a chauffeur. And me in the back.

[FlashHarry]

88. Well... an A4, at least.

Actually, I almost bought one a couple of weeks ago--dark blue, with tan leather interior.

[Sushi_lover]

35. Oh boo hoo the poor little SUV driver is a victim

Maybe you can take the shame of SUV owners and tie it somehow to the persecution of others?

I'll show you a more obvious tie: government support for the fast food industry and government support for the SUV industry.

[Iris]

104. good one

[jmm]

38. I've never seen a person injured on my lawn after eating burritos

but twice I've seen car accidents where SUV's have rolled over on my lawn. The first time it took about 45 minutes for her to be pulled out of the car. The second time the people flew out of the car. And these are only the times I've been home and seen the accidents. I know my brother has also seen another one involving an SUV. The intersection I live at is kind of dangerous because there's a big distance between lights near me so people like to speed and we need to get an extra no turn on red sign.

My main problem with SUVs is that too many drivers are lulled into a sense of security because they're in a big vehicle. Not all, but too many SUV drivers think they're safer so they don't pay close enough attention to the road and other drivers.

[slackmaster]

42. Let me make a few wild guesses about those accidents

1. Both accidents involved young, inexperienced drivers, and

2. In both accidents the SUV drivers were speeding and/or otherwise driving recklessly (illegally), and

3. In the second case the people who flew out of the SUV weren't wearing seat belts.

How did I do?

SUVs are not appropriate for inexperienced drivers.

[Mixxster]

63. SUVs are not appropriate for inexperienced drivers.

Which is a whole other problem. First of all, there's not a lot of PR out there about that fact and secondly, there are way too many inexperienced teenagers tooling around in mom and dad's SUV which makes the vehicle even more of a danger.

[Sushi_lover]

84. SUV's are not appropriate for city driving

They flip. No matter what your level of driving skill and care is, in an accident, they flip and occupants get paralyzed.

[FloridaPat]

41. Have you looked at the list of ingredients in fattening food?

There is hardly any food in them!

And interesting side note: whey is a waste product from the manufacture of cheese. For thousands of years it was fed to pigs. This was during the time people ate brains, feet, hearts, stomachs, etc - but no whey.

Now in America and our "enlightened age", a lot of the junk food and "health food" is made from whey. So actually, we Americans are doing the world a great service by eating all the garbage no one else wants. Everyone else is eating real food - we eat the fake stuff.

[pansypoo53219]

44. SUVs impact everybody

overeating impacts only the eater and family.

SUVs are unneccessary in most cases. IN FACT, I do art fairs and can fit a tent, my art, chairs etc, AND 3 people in my mom's 93' Camry. Now can i get my bigger canvases in it? no. but i do not haul around 50"x60" canvases much.

and ANYBODY who gets a hummer is just EVIL.
If people WANT SUVs we must DEMAND they get comparable mileage.

[Lindsey]

51. I also count the SUV' s as they speed in and out of L.A. traffic

I DO believe that most of them are driven by people who are bullies, self-absorbed, and have no social consciouness AT ALL. FOR GOD'S SAKE THEY USE MORE GAS, THEY USE MORE GAS AND THEY F'ing USE MORE GAS. If NOTHING else was considered, that should be enough. I, however, do understand why people need them who drive to the mountains a lot and are engaged in a lot of sporting activities (skiing, mountain biking, etc.) It is hard to drive up to Big Bear in a regular car. It's the people that simply drive in the city and are using them for their own pleasure and egos that make me go nuts.

[bloom]

52. If the extra food people ate could be given to the starving instead

that would be a beautiful thing.

I don't think it's going to happen though.

[leesa]

54. Well, I guess we'll find out when we have no more resources

and we can't cook very often. What is with the resistance to common sense so many Amerikans have? Fossil fuels are nearly an exhausted energy source. If we continue to waste as we have been we will be a third world country very soon and you will not be having large burritos. Problem solved.

[Cheswick2.0]

56. gag

sorry but that was my first response to your post.

Apples and oranges my friend

[kayell]

57. Weight is a poor way to judge peoples levels of consumption

For a personal example, I am a 46 yr. old woman, very fit condition, but 190 pounds. Until recently, I worked outside physically most of my life. I'm a vegetarian and rarely eat any dairy even, no eggs, about 1800 calories a day. So with a vegetarian diet, I'm a very light consumer of resources, yet my apparently natural build is heavy. Some people's bodies are very efficient in how they store fat. In former times, when food was scarcer, this was a huge advantage from a evolutionary standpoint - less likely to die in famine times.

Judging someone by their weight is just as much a prejudice as judging by skin color. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual person, how they live, how they behave, any real way to judge them as an individual.

Someone seeing me for just my weight doesn't know that I drive a small fuel effecient car, live in a very small house, raise much of my own food, shop locally, consume few resources such as clothing, food (as a vegetarian I consume far less resources than a meat eater), etc, have improved the energy efficiency of my house, that my ecological footprint score is very low for an american, or much else about me.

On the other hand, when I see one of my single coworkers who doesn't like camping, doesn't farm, doesn't own a business, drive in every day in his giant Tahoe, sparkling clean at all times, I can pretty much assume he's a major consumer. And I can look at the other coworker who went to the trouble to have a hybrid Honda shipped down here when they first came out (waiting 3 weeks for arrival) and know a lot about her priorities too.

[rbnyc]

98. Good Post.

One doesn't have to be overweight to eat more than they need, or to order more than they can eat and throw the rest away. The issue is how much we consume and why, not how much we weigh.

[sinkingfeeling]

60. Will add my 2 Cents...

I see know reason to feel quilty about occasional over-eating, but I am mystified as to why restaurants serve such huge portions of food now days. I usually only eat 1/4 to 1/2 of what's on my plate (I do take the rest home and my 5 dogs love that!).

I dislike SUV's for several reasons:

1. It appears that the majority of drivers believe everyone else should just get out of their way.... I cannot tell you the number of times I've had one of the things pull right out in front of me and I've had to hit the brakes. They speed and, in Arkansas, tail-gate about 2 feet from your bumper at 70-80 MPH.

2. They are too large and tall for sharing the road with normal cars (I have a '99 Saturn, with around 40 miles per gallon). On narrow city streets, I have had to back up from stop signs so that one of the hogs can complete a turn. EVERYDAY one or two of them almost side swipe me as they drift across the lane line, taking anywhere from 6 inches to two feet of MY lane as well as their own!! I hate those drivers that run with 'running/fog lights' on, day and night, as it's exactly the same as running with the old '4 bright lights' when your car is half as high as the SUV. They blind the small car driver.

3. I think it's a law that if you're driving an SUV, you must immediately stick a cell phone in your ear.

4. Back to number 1., I have several dings and scratches on the HOOD of my car, where SUV doors have been opened across it.

Too bad the US isn't like Ireland and other countries that tax (through tags) higher amounts (REALLY HIGH) for larger weight vehicles.

[slackmaster]

66. Nearly all of your complaints involve behavior by drivers

Rather than anything inherently bad about the SUVs themselves.

And I agree that SUV drivers act like asses in disproportionate numbers, but so do drivers of minivans and BMWs. And those little Japanese rice-burner sports cars.

[ArkDem]

68. My

doesn't take up near as much room as a gas guzzler SUV!

[Atlant]

73. Food is a renewable resource. Oil and steel aren't.

> My question is this: should we also be contemptuous of
> overweight people who consume a vastly disproportionate
> share of the world's food?

Food is a renewable resource. Oil and (to a lesser degree) steel
aren't. This, in my mind, makes the situation much different between
the SUV driver and the overweight person.

This is not to let overweight people off the hook. They do consume
a disproportionate amount of healthcare, and that's a commodity
that's getting harder and harder to come by. Think: Diabetes,
Stroke, Heart Disease, orthopedic problems, and probably cancer.
And the tendency to be overweight is often linked to the tendency
to smoke, so add all the smoker's diseases as well.

Atlant

(Full disclosure: I don't drive an SUV and I'm only
moderately overweight)

[chesley]

75. Steel is

just about the oldest recyclable material. It's called scrap and is bought and sold on the open market.

[Atlant]

77. Right. Steel is recyclable, but *NOT* renewable.

> Steel is just about the oldest recyclable material.

Right. Steel is recyclable, but NOT renewable;
nobody's "growing" any new steel yet (although you
never know what will come out of the gene-splicer's
labs).

And it takes a lot of fossil-fuels to do the recycling
as you've got to shred the stuff, melt the stuff, re-cast
the stuff, re-roll the stuff, etc.

And then there's the loss of material. All the steel that
rusts off of your car isn't recycled. All the scrap that
rots in landfills or backyards isn't recycled.

SUVs are a major waste of energy and resources before,
during, and after the vehicle's lifetime.

Atlant

[chesley]

83. There's plenty of iron

left in the ground, yet. As technology improves, it will be easier to get out. Oil might one day be a problem, but steel will not.

[Atlant]

86. What part of "IT TAKES ENERGY TO MAKE STEEL" did you not understand?

I realize there's plenty of iron laying around, but nearly
all of it is in the form of one iron oxide for or another;
hardly any of it is lying around naturally as, say, 301
Stainless Steel bar stock or 26 ga galvanized sheet stock.

And if you'd like to turn some of that iron back into those
more-useful forms, it takes energy. A whole LOT of energy.
Today, it takes a lot of carbon and limestone mined from the
Earth. And that takes still more energy. Oh, and liquid oxygen,
condensed from the air by machines powered by large amounts of
electricity.

Recycling used steel takes coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear
power to make electricity (whole bunches of that to run electric
arc furnaces).

Currently, we do NOT have an infinite capacity to make
steel, no matter what you read in some industry brochure or
heard on some talk-radio program sponsored by SUVs 'R Us.

Atlant

[chesley]

90. I worked as a metallurgist

in the steel industry for 20 years. I would bet that I know a lot more about it than you do. It takes energy to get up in the morning. It takes energy to cut down a tree, or to plant and harvest corn, if you want to get into recyclables. What is your point? It will required energy to do whatever we do. the only way to avoid it is not do so much/ Lower the standard of living. Lower the birth rate. Chip flint into axes.

[Gingersnap]

101. Water is increasingly a finite non-renewable resource

and name one food that doesnt require it. All meat indirectly uses water because animals have to drink and their foods require water. Grains, vegetables, etc. all require water.

Here in LA you get a definite sense of the scarcity of water.

[DealsGapRider]

76. Check this out people...

Check out this post in the DU Lounge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=139511

[NeonLX]

79. SUVs are but a symptom...

...of a much larger problem--our society is built around consumption. That's what makes the old economic engine turn. And our commute patterns make it darned near impossible NOT to have a car. We want to live in the far-flung suburbs and we'll put up with commutes of huge distances just to get to work in some other far-flung suburb. And our kid's schools, and our grocery stores, and our malls, etc. are all inaccessible by anything but a car. I'd love to know how much real estate in this country is taken up by streets and parking lots...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. About twenty years ago

I read that 1/3 of Los Angeles was taken up by highways and parking lots.

Urban sprawl is a self-perpetuating cycle. As inner suburbs become crowded, smoggy, and traffic jammed, people decide to move "out into the country," but in reality, they're just bringing themselves (crowds) and their cars (traffic) into new areas.

The "suburban American dream" is one of the biggest con jobs ever pulled on the American people.

[NeonLX]

87. Yup

Suburban sprawl chews up an amazing amount of resources--from all that new pavement & building material, to water for all those well-manicured lawns, and of course all the petroleum products to keep us moving hither & yon in our SOVs (Single Occupancy Vehicles) while we get on with our pursuit of the 'murican dream. Yes, SUVs do use more fuel than a hybrid, but in the grand scheme of things, our development patterns are what's responsible for our dependence on oil.

I'm not letting SUVs off the hook completely here (do you REALLY need a Hummer to zip over to the mall?), but what people drive is only a small part of the big picture.

[Festivito]

78. Passenger cars should be treated as passenger cars.

SUV's are classified as trucks instead of how they are currently used: as passenger cars.

They should fall under passenger car regulations and not just become a money maker for auto-companies' profits.

The passenger car rules exists because fossil fuels are not renewable as fast as we use them.

The food analogy would be better if, say, you were eating like that in a during a famine. There being a limited amout of food, fuel for your body, you insisted that you were not in the same class as those starving, thereby allowing yourself to eat their food with wild abandon while the rest fearing for their future moderated what they would eat.

[Skittles]

80. I am not overweight

but I eat far, FAR more food than most of my overweight friends.

[m_h_lovecraft]

89. SUV v. Fat People?

I personally believe our SuperSize-It culture is problematic, but I doubt that I could blame a fat person for that. There are malnourished fat people out there. The fact is we all eat way more than we need.

SUVs are genuinely and irresponsibility dangerous to OTHERS. Granted, a fat person being hurled at a smaller person at 50 miles an hour might hurt/maim/kill that person but it is a less than likely event. The fact that SUVs are gas guzzlers is BUT ONE problem I have with them. They are catapults & guillotines combined, a true menace to others who happen to be driving smaller vehicles. There was a New Republic article on this subject that is absoutley mind-blowing. Fat people ain't got nothing on the SUV.

Disclaimer: SUV herein defined as a vehicle using a heavy, rigid "light truck" underbody, not the Honda Element or CRV, maybe not even (any longer) the Nissan Pathfinder.

[maxanne]

91. it's a bogus comparison

SUV's and overweight folks. I don't have to worry about a fat person hitting me head on and killing me.

I live in the mountains of northern NH. I drive a Toyota Corolla, even in the winter. Put some good snow tires on, and I am good to go. I don't need 4 wheel drive, even though I travel all over the state. As I travel in snowstorms, nearly every car I see off the road is an SUV. Arrogant drivers, who think they can drive as fast as they want because they have 4 wheel drive.

As others have pointed out, food is a renewable form of energy. SUV's are all about conspicous consumption. Why not rant about Las Vegas, all lit up? Big waste of energy there.

It always amazes me, that people will leap to insult fat people, and say nothing about the real over consumers of the world - like Ken Lay and his 10 houses.

[BiggJawn]

92. I'll CRIPPLE the first fucker who tries...

No shit. Somebody tries to get in MY face in public, I WILL assault them, and I WILL put their ass in the hospital.

i'm losing it as fast as is safe and prudent, OK?

:mad:

[ulysses]

94. if I had a dime

for all the ways in which the original poster's analogy is flawed - well, I wouldn't be rich, but I'd have a pocket full of change.

I doubt you'll be seeing anyone who dislikes status SUVs equating your physical situation with an Escalade, BiggJawn...

[buddhamama]

103. if they do send them to me

okay,BiggJawn!

and you have recently quit smoking--how great is that!for you and the enviroment!
you'll be around longer, if the fates allow, and that is a good thing.

[BiggJawn]

105. Yeah, I really suck it up. A whole 2400 calories a day.

Problem is, for a LOT of past years, my caloric expediture was no where near 2400 calories a day.

So, Who's "taking food out of poor Biafrin babies' mouths"? Me, or some super jock that eats like a horse to the tune of 6,000 calories a day and burns it all off, of me, with 2400 a day that 500 of 'em get parked on my gut?

I agree, the original post was flawed, and now that I think about it, kind of "intellectually dishonest" or whatever....

[Keithpotkin]

96. SUVs are fine if...

I think SUV's are fine when they are used as Sport Utility Vehicals...and not as communter cars...for individuals.

when trucks are used AS trucks...thats fine...they serve a purpose.

similarly...i think its fine to eat alot of food, if u use that food...for instnace people such as bike messengers or constuction workers burn alot to earn a buck..and i dont see the problem of them consuming extra food, since they need it to DO something...but when people eeat more then they personally need to, its wasteful, and harmful to all of society (see "fast food nation").

[Keithpotkin]

97. i think...

I think SUV's are fine when they are used as Sport Utility Vehicals...and not as communter cars...for individuals.

when trucks are used AS trucks...thats fine...they serve a purpose.

similarly...i think its fine to eat alot of food, if u use that food...for instnace people such as bike messengers or constuction workers burn alot to earn a buck..and i dont see the problem of them consuming extra food, since they need it to DO something...but when people eeat more then they personally need to, its wasteful, and harmful to all of society (see "fast food nation").

[tom_paine]

100. I would say that SUV and fatasses differ in the "footprint" they leave

relative to society.

An SUV impacts things on so many different levels that have a much wider collective impact on the people around them then somebody's waistline. Increased traffic, vastly increased smog and pollution, accidents resulting in deaths which should not have...

(I'm sure there's more)

SUVs and food are apples and oranges. Or should I say Aircraft Carriers and Kayaks.

Freedom (as it dwindles away to include NOTHING but the right to be a fatass and drive an SUV) is at issue here, too.

People should be free to choose SUVs, particularly those who actually need them, but it's the choices we make (where we still have a choice, unlike who will be appointed Emperor in 2004) that define us as a people and our moral worth as a society.