Are you in favor of an SUV endorsement?

> Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
> motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers. They are the ones causing the
> mayhem!

Oh yeah,we need more beauracracy. We have way too many personal freedoms as
it is.

Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers. They are the ones causing the
mayhem!

They need an SUV endorsement!


Let's listen to what this man got to say...

"There are no unsafe vehicles. Only unsafe drivers."

Well, that's stretching it a bit, but I think you catch my drift.

I'm fanatical about safety. Been to 12 driving schools, and have
certain
habits I think all SUV owners should develop.

1. Of course, seatbelts. Not only for your own protection, but for
everyone else's. An SUV can throw you far enough to be nowhere near
the
controls while still being *in* the vehicle.

2. I always ride the right edge of the lane I'm in, since most folks
can't
see around me. And if someone's trying to get a look around me for
passing
on a two-lane, I put the right side onto the shoulder so they can see.

3. This one's my favorite, and I was a strong advocate of it for
motorcycles, to no avail: Tiered Licensing.

Basically, require a special license for driving certain vehicles, and
make
the test tough, including emergency handling, safe following distance,
ultra-conservative passing practices, etc.

And give tickets for SUV's not riding the right edge of the lane. And
suspend the license's SUV endorsement for especially dangerous
activities
like speeding (speed doesn't kill -- differences in speeds kill. 90mph
isn't dangerous unless you're passing someone doing 70 or there's
oncoming
traffic) and tailgating. And like I think we should do with all
vehicles;
mandatory long jail time for DUI (attempted manslaughter, in my book).

4. Tack more onto the price of these things to discourage some of the
pretenders. And use that money to fund 3rd-party attempts at making
them
more efficient and safe.

5. Mandatory impact heights. The technology exists (for a price -- oh
well) to let these things ride at a nice low level while still allowing
for
increased clearance when needed. Their mass is still a problem, but if
they don't ride up over the passengers of other cars, the people in
those
other cars have a much better chance of survival if they're belted in.
Perhaps a "cow-catcher" type of arrangement that deploys only under
heavy
braking.

Personally, the people who buy these things just for looks tick me off
enough that it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if we had to demonstrate
a
need for one of these vehicles before being allowed to buy them.

And, as tired as I am of dirty looks and occasionally being flipped off
when mine's loaded full of lumber and hauling an equally-loaded
trailer,
I'm even more tempted to flip off the guys and gals talking on their
cell
phones while blasting past my mud-encrusted Sub in their
never-seen-dirt
versions while tailgating Metros at high speed.

The people are the problem; not the vehicles.

And if knowing that they're paying $50k for a $30k vehicle doesn't
discourage them, there need to be other ways to deal with the problem.

The automakers have a right to a profit, and they owe it to their
shareholders to make as much as they can. I have a right to buy as
much
vehicle as I need. However, others have a right to not be in danger of
my
killing them with my monster ute.

I don't think all of these rights are mutually exclusive if enough
thought
is put into the problem.

I'm very much a tree-hugger myself ("Mother Earth News", "Home Power",
40
acres, most of which is very actively managed as wildlife habitat,
etc),
but the rights of the more radical of my ilk aren't more important than
my
rights and mine aren't more important than theirs.

Enough tiradin' for me. Would be interested in your thoughts.

http://www.mihalis.net/public/reasonable_SUV.html
http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

John Harlow wrote:
>>Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
>>motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers. They are the ones causing the
>>mayhem!
>
>
> Oh yeah,we need more beauracracy. We have way too many personal freedoms as
> it is.

Or you can just FIX the farm-business exemption that allows any business
owner to write off half of the purchase price of any SUV.

"DonQuixote-v-Windmills" <nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103603649.821224.272710@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
> motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers. They are the ones causing the
> mayhem!
>
> They need an SUV endorsement!
>
>
> Let's listen to what this man got to say...
>
> "There are no unsafe vehicles. Only unsafe drivers."
>
> Well, that's stretching it a bit, but I think you catch my drift.
>
> I'm fanatical about safety. Been to 12 driving schools, and have
> certain
> habits I think all SUV owners should develop.
>
> 1. Of course, seatbelts. Not only for your own protection, but for
> everyone else's. An SUV can throw you far enough to be nowhere near
> the
> controls while still being *in* the vehicle.
>
> 2. I always ride the right edge of the lane I'm in, since most folks
> can't
> see around me. And if someone's trying to get a look around me for
> passing
> on a two-lane, I put the right side onto the shoulder so they can see.
>
> 3. This one's my favorite, and I was a strong advocate of it for
> motorcycles, to no avail: Tiered Licensing.
>
> Basically, require a special license for driving certain vehicles, and
> make
> the test tough, including emergency handling, safe following distance,
> ultra-conservative passing practices, etc.
>
> And give tickets for SUV's not riding the right edge of the lane. And
> suspend the license's SUV endorsement for especially dangerous
> activities
> like speeding (speed doesn't kill -- differences in speeds kill. 90mph
> isn't dangerous unless you're passing someone doing 70 or there's
> oncoming
> traffic) and tailgating. And like I think we should do with all
> vehicles;
> mandatory long jail time for DUI (attempted manslaughter, in my book).
>
> 4. Tack more onto the price of these things to discourage some of the
> pretenders. And use that money to fund 3rd-party attempts at making
> them
> more efficient and safe.
>
> 5. Mandatory impact heights. The technology exists (for a price -- oh
> well) to let these things ride at a nice low level while still allowing
> for
> increased clearance when needed. Their mass is still a problem, but if
> they don't ride up over the passengers of other cars, the people in
> those
> other cars have a much better chance of survival if they're belted in.
> Perhaps a "cow-catcher" type of arrangement that deploys only under
> heavy
> braking.
>
> Personally, the people who buy these things just for looks tick me off
> enough that it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if we had to demonstrate
> a
> need for one of these vehicles before being allowed to buy them.
>
> And, as tired as I am of dirty looks and occasionally being flipped off
> when mine's loaded full of lumber and hauling an equally-loaded
> trailer,
> I'm even more tempted to flip off the guys and gals talking on their
> cell
> phones while blasting past my mud-encrusted Sub in their
> never-seen-dirt
> versions while tailgating Metros at high speed.
>
> The people are the problem; not the vehicles.
>
> And if knowing that they're paying $50k for a $30k vehicle doesn't
> discourage them, there need to be other ways to deal with the problem.
>
> The automakers have a right to a profit, and they owe it to their
> shareholders to make as much as they can. I have a right to buy as
> much
> vehicle as I need. However, others have a right to not be in danger of
> my
> killing them with my monster ute.
>
> I don't think all of these rights are mutually exclusive if enough
> thought
> is put into the problem.
>
> I'm very much a tree-hugger myself ("Mother Earth News", "Home Power",
> 40
> acres, most of which is very actively managed as wildlife habitat,
> etc),
> but the rights of the more radical of my ilk aren't more important than
> my
> rights and mine aren't more important than theirs.
>
> Enough tiradin' for me. Would be interested in your thoughts.
>
> http://www.mihalis.net/public/reasonable_SUV.html
> http://committed.to/justiceforpeace
>

here in the good old UK we call it Compulsive Obsessive Disorder
Sad Really

"David Keenan" <dckeenan@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n0Pxd.25762$nP1.409@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "DonQuixote-v-Windmills" <nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1103603649.821224.272710@c13g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> > Sure we need a tougher license, an endorsement if you will, just like
> > motorcyclists, but for SUV drivers. They are the ones causing the
> > mayhem!
> >
> > They need an SUV endorsement!
> >
> >*SNIP*
> >
> > I always ride the right edge of the lane I'm in,
> > since most folks can'ts ee around me. And if
> > someone's trying to get a look around me for
> > passing on a two-lane, I put the right side onto
> > the shoulder so they can see.
> >
> Being able to see *through* and see what the
> vahicle in front of the SUV can help a great deal.
> Driving schools encourage looking through if
> possible, and seeing brake lights up ahead gives
> you advance notice, in case the car in the middle
> will stop quickly or swerve. One maddening thing
> is when a blacked-out SUV moves off your lane
> and exposes a stopped car up ahead in your lane.
> >
> > Basically, require a special license for driving
> > certain vehicles, and make the test tough, including
> > emergency handling, safe following distance,
> > ultra-conservative passing practices, etc.
> >
> If SUVs (in California) could be considered Commercial
> Vehicles (and not just the same as the little four-popper
> toy pick-ups) then the DMV could impose stricter rules
> just as is required for delivery vans and 'machinery' trucks.
> >
> > (speed doesn't kill -- differences in speeds kill. 90mph
> > isn't dangerous unless you're passing someone doing 70x
> > the test tough, including oncoming traffic) and tailgating.
> >
> 90MPH seems dangerous in anything other than a sports
> car in good road conditions -- I got my Jeep Wrangler up
> to about 80 on an open highway and that was about it.
> >
> > Mandatory impact heights. The technology exists
> > (for a price -- oh well) to let these things ride at a
> > nice low level while still allowing for increased clearance
> > when needed. Their mass is still a problem, but if
> > they don't ride up over the passengers of other cars,
> > the people in those other cars have a much better
> > chance of survival if they're belted in. Perhaps a
> > "cow-catcher" type of arrangement that deploys
> > only under heavy braking.
> >
> Newer SUVs have those stability bars that take out
> all the ground clearance anyhow -- other than dominating
> with bright, high headlights and blocking views, what is the
> point of high ride height, especially if the driver needs to
> bolt on step tubes or RV 'staples' to the frame so that
> they can climb onto the howda with the adjusting pedals?
> I sat in an SUV at a car show, and there were so many
> blind spots with the huge pillars (all four) and absolutely
> no view under the shoulder level out the back. Anything
> smaller than a bus would be invisible, whether directly
> behind or in the blind spot off the right rear fender. And
> I'm 6'4".
>
>
Is that a reflection on a jeep Wrangler or keenan

The freedom to reckless driving and mayhem is somewhat inconvenient to
smaller vehicle though.

Besides the money raised can be used to support the troops in Iraq, a
war that has the full support of SUV drivers.

<<<1. Of course, seatbelts. Not only for your own protection, but for
everyone else's. An SUV can throw you far enough to be nowhere near
the controls while still being *in* the vehicle.>>>>

Interesting point. Even my infinite intelligence hadn't thought of
that. I've always felt that drivers who don't buckle up are hurting
only themselves so hell with it. But as you point out, if you lose
control of the vehicle, the seat belt keeps you in place so you can
regain control before you hit another car and put a family in the
morgue. I ALWAYS wear a seatbelt and consequently never realized what
can happen if you don't buckle up. So the non-bucklers endanger not
only themselves but also other people. I