I'll try not to, either.Budgie said:Please ---- Do Not Get Me Started !!!!!!
Read Chapter 6 of "The Elephant in the Bedroom" by Hart and Spivak.
I think it might have third row seating as an option now. Who passes in the breakdown lane with that many people, especially kids, in the car? Moron. (Sorry Morons.) |-)Zoning Goddess said:Doesn't an Explorer only seat 5? Makes me think that maybe nobody was in seat belts in this one. Another boneheaded thing people do, and their kids pay the price.
Thank God no one else in the other car were hurt. In 90% of cases, it's the car (and passengers) that the SUV hits that gets the brunt of the damage while the SUV driver and occupants sustain minimal injury.Tranplanner said:Sounds to me it wouldn't have mattered what type of vehicle was being driven - the driver was just an idiot.
Oh, why am I not surprised in the least. How lowbrow. Maybe their brains are mush from watching Survivor the night before.Seabishop said:The driver didn't have a licence since 1998 and was doing 90 mph in the breakdown lane. The kids didn't have car seats either. She and her friend were excited to meet a man they met on the internet..
Yes, but if you are hit broadside or head-on by an SUV you are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured than the same circumstances with another passenger car. This is due to the sheer weight of the SUV and something called "Bumper Height Differential".michaelskis said:An SUV accident... stupid SUVs... it should have known better than to be doing 90...
Have you ever noticed how things like this sound like they are blamed on the SUV and not the driver. It bothers me. BUT OH NO... if they where in Ford Taurus Station Wagon they would have all lived.
Stupid people to stupid things no matter what they drive. I feel bad for the kids and the other two passengers. They where the victims here.
It is like that T shirt... “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” “SUVs don’t kill people, bad drivers and stupid people kill people!”
We just had an incident here where an SUV driver crashed, killing them and their kid. They were not wearing seatbelts and their vehicle burst into flames after leaving the road. Just minutes earlier they had been seen passing people at 160km/hr (100 mile/h) and police are waiting for results to confirm alcohol was a factor. This is a clear illustration of a stupid driver. Yes it involved an SUV, but this driver was an accident waiting to happen, no matter what vehicle. (Hmm... anyone else think the term 'accident' is incongruous here?)michaelskis said:It is like that T shirt... “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” “SUVs don’t kill people, bad drivers and stupid people kill people!”
You do make a valad point. But I also wonder about lager trucks, buses and Simi trucks. They all tend to have high bumpers.Super Amputee Cat said:Yes, but if you are hit broadside or head-on by an SUV you are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured than the same circumstances with another passenger car. This is due to the sheer weight of the SUV and something called "Bumper Height Differential".
There are accidents on the news just about everyday with people driving all sorts of cars stupidly. Drunks for example don't just drive GMC Yukons. I would think people with smaller sports cars would be more apt to speed in the breakdown lane thinking they could fit.Super Amputee Cat said:... Had these people been in a Taurus or even a minivan, there's no way they'd be doing 90 in the breakdown lane.
I'll take the big 'ol Cadillac. It's probably going far below the speed limit -- cruising, you know -- and it'll earn me far more street cred then getting hit by a "chick car."giff57 said:and don't forget all SUVs are not that big....
Would you rather get hit by:
This (Suzuki mini-SUV)
Or this (Caddy lowrider)
The Suburban has been around for over 50 years. But until the past 15 years or so, there were very few SUVs on the road in relation to the total number of registered vehicles. They were not aggesively marketed until the 1990s and its even worse now. As a result, everywhere you go, from Atlanta to Aspen, the countryside is infested with them.michaelskis said:You do make a valad point. But I also wonder about lager trucks, buses and Simi trucks. They all tend to have high bumpers.
SUVs are not new. GM has had the suburbian for a while. I also think that I rather get hit by something like a Trail Blazer or an Explorer than a 68' caddy.
SUV, cell phone....and blonde?Jen said:This sad story happened here a few months ago, how many stereotypes can you spot in this story?
Twentysomething blonde nanny driving her employers Hummer talking on her cell phone runs a red light and broadsides a full size SUV. Kills the boy in the passenger seat, but his mom is fine, the nanny and her young charge are uninjured. She's facing charges of negligent homicide and has several speeding tickets on her record already.
I confess an ignorance of statistical analysis, but if the number of vehicles has gone up by 22%, and the number of miles by 29%, is it easily possile to blame SUVs for 24% rise in gasoline consumption? (Math is not my high point, so this may be a dumb question)Floridays said:What about the impact on gas prices?
An article in today's Detroit Free Press quotes:
Like it or not, we're burning more gas than ever. Consumption has jumped nearly 24 percent since 1990. And the government says we're on track to burn another 48 percent by 2025.
Sure, there are more vehicles on the road. Between 1990 and 2001, the number of registered vehicles grew about 22 percent, according to the federal government. And the miles those vehicles traveled jumped 29 percent.
But the biggest reason consumption has risen so sharply -- after growing at a much slower pace in preceding years -- is parked in many of our driveways: The number of light trucks, especially SUVs, has spiked in the past several years, growing about 74 percent between 1990 and 2001. And since these vehicles consume more gas than passenger cars, they're likely responsible for the record level of fuel use, experts say.
You can fit! I was that big of an idot when I was young and foolish. I still drive true sports cars beyond "reasonable and prudent" speeds, but I can't imagine driving my truck or an SUV (I don't own one, but have driven many as rentals) like that. SUV's definitely have an unfair physical advantage, but the people who drive them like sports cars are a problem.Seabishop said:There are accidents on the news just about everyday with people driving all sorts of cars stupidly. [snip] I would think people with smaller sports cars would be more apt to speed in the breakdown lane thinking they could fit.
BKM said:"Consider the man on horseback, and I have been a man on horseback for most of my life. Well, mostly he is a good man, (snip)...(snip) It will make every man a tyrant." ~R.A. Lafferty
So you mean blondes have eveded this stereotype in Neverland? Maybe it has something to do with magnetic fields in the southern hemisphere.Oi! What's this blonde discrimination about then eh?
Well, it's a secondhand quote. I thought it was pretty eloquent. Lafferty was (d. 2002) a humorous sci fi writer, so I'm not sure where the context comes from.mendelman said:This that really a true quote??
If so, it's pretty dead-on, especially the last half of the paragraph. :-\