Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
>> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
>> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
>> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
>> previous threads with cite)
>>
>
> And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.
And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
>> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
>> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
>> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
>> previous threads with cite)
>>
>
> And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.
And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
>> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
>> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
>> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
>> previous threads with cite)
>>
>
> And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.
And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
>> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
>> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
>> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
>> previous threads with cite)
>>
>
> And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.
And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <RP2kb.56$uG.168178@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>yes, actually, it is.
>>
>>
>> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> just in case.
>>
>> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>>
>>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>
>> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>>
>>
>>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>>
>> like
>>
>>>>yours I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>>
>>>>intended
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>>
>>>>commuting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>>
>>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>>
>> an
>>
>>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>>
>> you
>>
>>>though.
>>
>>
>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
>> that makes me an ***?
>>
>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
boasts about.
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>yes, actually, it is.
>>
>>
>> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> just in case.
>>
>> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>>
>>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>
>> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>>
>>
>>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>>
>> like
>>
>>>>yours I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>>
>>>>intended
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>>
>>>>commuting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>>
>>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>>
>> an
>>
>>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>>
>> you
>>
>>>though.
>>
>>
>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
>> that makes me an ***?
>>
>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
boasts about.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <RP2kb.56$uG.168178@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>yes, actually, it is.
>>
>>
>> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> just in case.
>>
>> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>>
>>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>
>> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>>
>>
>>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>>
>> like
>>
>>>>yours I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>>
>>>>intended
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>>
>>>>commuting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>>
>>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>>
>> an
>>
>>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>>
>> you
>>
>>>though.
>>
>>
>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
>> that makes me an ***?
>>
>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
boasts about.
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>yes, actually, it is.
>>
>>
>> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> just in case.
>>
>> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>>
>>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>
>> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>>
>>
>>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>>
>> like
>>
>>>>yours I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>>
>>>>intended
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>>
>>>>commuting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>>
>>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>>
>> an
>>
>>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>>
>> you
>>
>>>though.
>>
>>
>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
>> that makes me an ***?
>>
>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
boasts about.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <RP2kb.56$uG.168178@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>yes, actually, it is.
>>
>>
>> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> just in case.
>>
>> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>>
>>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>
>> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>>
>>
>>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>>
>> like
>>
>>>>yours I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>>
>>>>intended
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>>
>>>>commuting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>>
>>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>>
>> an
>>
>>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>>
>> you
>>
>>>though.
>>
>>
>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
>> that makes me an ***?
>>
>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
boasts about.
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>yes, actually, it is.
>>
>>
>> Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> just in case.
>>
>> Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>>
>>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>
>> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>>
>>
>>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>>
>> like
>>
>>>>yours I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>>
>>>>intended
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>>
>>>>commuting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>>
>>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>>
>> an
>>
>>>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>>
>> you
>>
>>>though.
>>
>>
>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
>> that makes me an ***?
>>
>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
boasts about.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.
Sean
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
> In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> >>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> >>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who
1)
> >>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear
that
> >>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use
them.
> >>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra
Club
> >>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and
have
> >>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> >>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles
driven
> >>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
> >>
> >>
> >> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> >> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG
height
> >> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer
vehicles
> >> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda.
(see
> >> previous threads with cite)
> >>
> >
> > And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> > the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> > to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> > transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> > wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> > I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> > barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
>
> It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
> And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
> expected.
>
> And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
> be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
>
>
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.
Sean
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
> In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> >>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> >>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who
1)
> >>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear
that
> >>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use
them.
> >>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra
Club
> >>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and
have
> >>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> >>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles
driven
> >>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
> >>
> >>
> >> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> >> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG
height
> >> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer
vehicles
> >> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda.
(see
> >> previous threads with cite)
> >>
> >
> > And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> > the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> > to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> > transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> > wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> > I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> > barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
>
> It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
> And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
> expected.
>
> And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
> be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.
Sean
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
> In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> >>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> >>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who
1)
> >>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear
that
> >>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use
them.
> >>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra
Club
> >>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and
have
> >>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> >>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles
driven
> >>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
> >>
> >>
> >> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> >> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG
height
> >> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer
vehicles
> >> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda.
(see
> >> previous threads with cite)
> >>
> >
> > And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> > the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> > to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> > transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> > wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> > I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> > barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
>
> It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
> And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
> expected.
>
> And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
> be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
>
>
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.
Sean
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
> In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> >>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> >>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who
1)
> >>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear
that
> >>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use
them.
> >>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra
Club
> >>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and
have
> >>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> >>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles
driven
> >>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
> >>
> >>
> >> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> >> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG
height
> >> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer
vehicles
> >> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda.
(see
> >> previous threads with cite)
> >>
> >
> > And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> > the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> > to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> > transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> > wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> > I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> > barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
>
> It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
> And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
> expected.
>
> And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
> be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.
Sean
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
> In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> >>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> >>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who
1)
> >>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear
that
> >>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use
them.
> >>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra
Club
> >>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and
have
> >>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> >>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles
driven
> >>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
> >>
> >>
> >> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> >> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG
height
> >> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer
vehicles
> >> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda.
(see
> >> previous threads with cite)
> >>
> >
> > And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> > the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> > to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> > transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> > wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> > I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> > barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
>
> It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
> And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
> expected.
>
> And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
> be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
>
>
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.
Sean
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
> In article <Ga2kb.52$uG.163930@news.abs.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
> >>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> >>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who
1)
> >>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear
that
> >>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use
them.
> >>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra
Club
> >>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and
have
> >>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> >>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles
driven
> >>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
> >>
> >>
> >> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> >> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG
height
> >> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer
vehicles
> >> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda.
(see
> >> previous threads with cite)
> >>
> >
> > And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
> > the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
> > to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
> > transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
> > wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
> > I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
> > barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
>
> It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
> And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
> expected.
>
> And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
> be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmqheb$orpi8$1@ID-137890.news.uni-berlin.de>, Sean Prinz wrote:
> Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
> 2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
> not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
> rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
> in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
> on the internet only waste bandwidth.
I don't know if you are addressing me, or somebody else, but you replied
to one of my posts, and left it included, so I'll assume it's me. That's
the kind of problem that happens when people top post, can't tell exaxctly
what they are trying to do because they are too damn lazy to trim anything
or bother with context.
I don't give a ---- what you think your jeep is or how many fing doors
it has. And while you are at learn what a troll post is. Hint: the post
you replied wasn't one.
Continuing on to your next dumbass post, I am reading a different
newsgroup, rec.autos.DRIVING. I'd love to see alot less SUV and other
light truck crap in the group. But it's not like it's going to go
unchallenged when it comes around either.
> Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
> 2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
> not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
> rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
> in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
> on the internet only waste bandwidth.
I don't know if you are addressing me, or somebody else, but you replied
to one of my posts, and left it included, so I'll assume it's me. That's
the kind of problem that happens when people top post, can't tell exaxctly
what they are trying to do because they are too damn lazy to trim anything
or bother with context.
I don't give a ---- what you think your jeep is or how many fing doors
it has. And while you are at learn what a troll post is. Hint: the post
you replied wasn't one.
Continuing on to your next dumbass post, I am reading a different
newsgroup, rec.autos.DRIVING. I'd love to see alot less SUV and other
light truck crap in the group. But it's not like it's going to go
unchallenged when it comes around either.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmqheb$orpi8$1@ID-137890.news.uni-berlin.de>, Sean Prinz wrote:
> Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
> 2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
> not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
> rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
> in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
> on the internet only waste bandwidth.
I don't know if you are addressing me, or somebody else, but you replied
to one of my posts, and left it included, so I'll assume it's me. That's
the kind of problem that happens when people top post, can't tell exaxctly
what they are trying to do because they are too damn lazy to trim anything
or bother with context.
I don't give a ---- what you think your jeep is or how many fing doors
it has. And while you are at learn what a troll post is. Hint: the post
you replied wasn't one.
Continuing on to your next dumbass post, I am reading a different
newsgroup, rec.autos.DRIVING. I'd love to see alot less SUV and other
light truck crap in the group. But it's not like it's going to go
unchallenged when it comes around either.
> Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
> 2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
> not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
> rec.autos.makers.jeep&****** newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
> in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
> on the internet only waste bandwidth.
I don't know if you are addressing me, or somebody else, but you replied
to one of my posts, and left it included, so I'll assume it's me. That's
the kind of problem that happens when people top post, can't tell exaxctly
what they are trying to do because they are too damn lazy to trim anything
or bother with context.
I don't give a ---- what you think your jeep is or how many fing doors
it has. And while you are at learn what a troll post is. Hint: the post
you replied wasn't one.
Continuing on to your next dumbass post, I am reading a different
newsgroup, rec.autos.DRIVING. I'd love to see alot less SUV and other
light truck crap in the group. But it's not like it's going to go
unchallenged when it comes around either.
