Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

This better not derail into a Gas-prone "Sport Utility Vehicles" thread.

[kernals12]

SUVs are about as tall as the passenger cars made before 1948. We're just rediscovering the benefits of height after Detroit sold us on longer, lower, wider. Also, the sedan bodystyle has always been stupid, why waste all that space above the trunk lid? The station wagon should've been the default body style from the get go.

[kphoger]

SUVs need to be banned for on road use

I fail to see why you'd advocate for removing the SUVs from the road but keep the minivan.

The regulation is not to keep the minivan but get rid of the SUV, you picked that up from someone else. Its more of a mandate for sedans and station wagons.

Wrong.  You said SUVs should be removed from the road.

But anyway.  What reason do you have for making someone buy a minivan instead of an SUV, when the reality is that there are SUVs that outperform minivans in the matters you mentioned?  Or do you think nobody should be allowed to have a minivan either?

[JayhawkCO]

SUVs need to be banned for on road use

I fail to see why you'd advocate for removing the SUVs from the road but keep the minivan.

The regulation is not to keep the minivan but get rid of the SUV, you picked that up from someone else. Its more of a mandate for sedans and station wagons.

Wrong.  You said SUVs should be removed from the road.

But anyway.  What reason do you have for making someone buy a minivan instead of an SUV, when the reality is that there are SUVs that outperform minivans in the matters you mentioned?  Or do you think nobody should be allowed to have a minivan either?

He also never answered my question about 1993 Ford Tuaruses despite me bringing it up three times. I would have to assume any non-ABS car would have to be removed from the road, right?
Chris

[kphoger]

He also never answered my question about 1993 Ford Tuaruses despite me bringing it up three times. I would have to assume any non-ABS car would have to be removed from the road, right?

I think his solution to things like that is one of attrition.

[HighwayStar]

He also never answered my question about 1993 Ford Tuaruses despite me bringing it up three times. I would have to assume any non-ABS car would have to be removed from the road, right?

I think his solution to things like that is one of attrition.

Exactly, nothing but one straw-man after another here. No one is saying that all "unsafe" cars need to be removed from the road now. Frankly there are already not THAT many cars left without ABS, it was mandatory in 2005 and common for some years before that. And the 93 Taurus is still less prone to roll over than a 1993 SUV that also lacks ABS, go figure. Cut off the pipeline and within 20 years most of them will be off the road. Combine a cash for clunker program and you can really reduce the number.

[JayhawkCO]

He also never answered my question about 1993 Ford Tuaruses despite me bringing it up three times. I would have to assume any non-ABS car would have to be removed from the road, right?

I think his solution to things like that is one of attrition.

Exactly, nothing but one straw-man after another here. No one is saying that all "unsafe" cars need to be removed from the road now. Frankly there are already not THAT many cars left without ABS, it was mandatory in 2005 and common for some years before that. And the 93 Taurus is still less prone to roll over than a 1993 SUV that also lacks ABS, go figure. Cut off the pipeline and within 20 years most of them will be off the road. Combine a cash for clunker program and you can really reduce the number.

It's not a straw man when our argument is that your dismissal of SUVs is arbitrary.  To come up with other examples that you don't feel merit exclusion is hardly a faulty argument.  Despite my better judgment, what is your view on motorcycles since your main argument is re: safety?

Chris

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Could we just spin this whole SUV discussion off into a different thread?

[HighwayStar]

He also never answered my question about 1993 Ford Tuaruses despite me bringing it up three times. I would have to assume any non-ABS car would have to be removed from the road, right?

I think his solution to things like that is one of attrition.

Exactly, nothing but one straw-man after another here. No one is saying that all "unsafe" cars need to be removed from the road now. Frankly there are already not THAT many cars left without ABS, it was mandatory in 2005 and common for some years before that. And the 93 Taurus is still less prone to roll over than a 1993 SUV that also lacks ABS, go figure. Cut off the pipeline and within 20 years most of them will be off the road. Combine a cash for clunker program and you can really reduce the number.

It's not a straw man when our argument is that your dismissal of SUVs is arbitrary.  To come up with other examples that you don't feel merit exclusion is hardly a faulty argument.  Despite my better judgment, what is your view on motorcycles since your main argument is re: safety?

Chris

No but it is a straw man to present it as a ban on SUVs in lieu of nearly 30 year old cars. The proper comparison would be a 2022 Crown Victoria, complete with ABS, ESC, and all the other safety devices present in a modern vehicle. (and I really would love to see the return of the Crown Victoria)
Motorcycles are fine, they get good gas millage for the most part and they are a hazard to their operator much more than any one else on the road, unlike the Hummer H2 that soccer mom bought for going to the mall that presents a serious hazard to anyone else not driving an equivalent beast. If you want to undertake the risk of a bike fine, it is not a negative externally to everyone else, which is the primary issue with the SUV.

[interstatefan990]

Could we just spin this whole SUV discussion off into a different thread?

Agreed, this has strayed wildly off-topic.

[JayhawkCO]

He also never answered my question about 1993 Ford Tuaruses despite me bringing it up three times. I would have to assume any non-ABS car would have to be removed from the road, right?

I think his solution to things like that is one of attrition.

Exactly, nothing but one straw-man after another here. No one is saying that all "unsafe" cars need to be removed from the road now. Frankly there are already not THAT many cars left without ABS, it was mandatory in 2005 and common for some years before that. And the 93 Taurus is still less prone to roll over than a 1993 SUV that also lacks ABS, go figure. Cut off the pipeline and within 20 years most of them will be off the road. Combine a cash for clunker program and you can really reduce the number.

It's not a straw man when our argument is that your dismissal of SUVs is arbitrary.  To come up with other examples that you don't feel merit exclusion is hardly a faulty argument.  Despite my better judgment, what is your view on motorcycles since your main argument is re: safety?

Chris

No but it is a straw man to present it as a ban on SUVs in lieu of nearly 30 year old cars. The proper comparison would be a 2022 Crown Victoria, complete with ABS, ESC, and all the other safety devices present in a modern vehicle. (and I really would love to see the return of the Crown Victoria)
Motorcycles are fine, they get good gas millage for the most part and they are a hazard to their operator much more than any one else on the road, unlike the Hummer H2 that soccer mom bought for going to the mall that presents a serious hazard to anyone else not driving an equivalent beast. If you want to undertake the risk of a bike fine, it is not a negative externally to everyone else, which is the primary issue with the SUV.

I'll respond to this here since it looks like a mod is spinning it off into its own thread and maybe it'll be moved.  Let me not talk about "obsolete" cars like a '93 Taurus.  But how about "classic" cars like a '57 Chevy or a '64 1/2 Mustang.  Obviously these are not current cars with the current safety features.  Under your proposal, would these not be allowed to be driven on the road?  This isn't an edge case kind of thing, as those cars aren't being replaced by their owners anytime soon like one would probably want to upgrade from a 200k mile Taurus. 

Chris

[kphoger]

SUVs need to be banned for on road use

No one is saying that all "unsafe" cars need to be removed from the road now.

YOU said they need to be banned from the road.  That's what started the discussion.

Please explain to us all how "banning them from the road" is different from "removing them from the road".

it is a straw man to present it as a ban on SUVs in lieu of nearly 30 year old cars. The proper comparison would be a 2022 Crown Victoria, complete with ABS, ESC, and all the other safety devices present in a modern vehicle.

That's why I compared four-year-old vehicles instead.  And I found several SUVs that are comparable or better than a minivan from the same year.  Are you including minivans in your 'SUV' category?

[hbelkins]

I get the feeling that HighwayStar hates SUVs because he doesn't have one and because he perceives they waste gas and are thus somehow harmful to the environment. Apparently he also feels they are less safe.

I'm more concerned about visibility (both seeing and being seen) than I am the possibility of a rollover. A higher-profile vehicle is easier to see out of, and is also more visible to others, than a low-to-the-ground car. I never felt nervous passing a tractor-trailer in my old Toyota Tacoma 4WD pickup. I always got a little uneasy being beside one in my Saturn SC2.

And I will admit to not being a fan of anti-lock brakes. I've spent more money on brakes for my Saturn Vue (four-wheel disc) than any other vehicle. I'll trade any perceived safety benefits of ABS away in exchange for less expense in maintenance.

[JayhawkCO]

I get the feeling that HighwayStar hates SUVs because he doesn't have one and because he perceives they waste gas and are thus somehow harmful to the environment. Apparently he also feels they are less safe.

Agreed.  And I'm still trying to get an answer about the new electric Hummer.  That obviously is better for the environment.  I feel like kphoger and I have been asking questions about the safety aspect and haven't gotten satisfactory answers.  Yes, they're easier to roll over if you decide to take a sharp turn at 65 mph, but if he feels like motorcycles are okay because the onus is on the rider, I feel like a rollover accident is typically a one-car accident.  I don't know what else about them is more dangerous.  Curb weight?  A Bentley weighs plenty more than my Wrangler.  But it's a sedan, so it's obviously safer.

I'm more concerned about visibility (both seeing and being seen) than I am the possibility of a rollover. A higher-profile vehicle is easier to see out of, and is also more visible to others, than a low-to-the-ground car. I never felt nervous passing a tractor-trailer in my old Toyota Tacoma 4WD pickup. I always got a little uneasy being beside one in my Saturn SC2.

Agreed.  My first car was a Mustang and I remember a lot of times a semi merging into my lane because they didn't see me.  I've rarely, if ever, had that happen with the SUVs I've driven.

And I will admit to not being a fan of anti-lock brakes. I've spent more money on brakes for my Saturn Vue (four-wheel disc) than any other vehicle. I'll trade any perceived safety benefits of ABS away in exchange for less expense in maintenance.

I think it depends on where you live.  They are a massive help in places where it snows a lot.  If I lived in Phoenix, they would be less important to me and would have probably never even had them engage.

Chris

[1995hoo]

I'm beginning to think HighwayStar is a troll and the user name is a waste of a perfectly good Deep Purple song.

....

I was beginning to wonder whether HighwayStar is a kernals12 sockpuppet, but HighwayStar's comments actually seem to reflect some minimal level of thought instead of consisting solely of single- (or partial-)sentence one-line non sequiturs. Replies 195 and 197 are further reason for wondering whether they are either sockpuppets or otherwise in cahoots in the trolling industry.

[HighwayStar]

I'm beginning to think HighwayStar is a troll and the user name is a waste of a perfectly good Deep Purple song.

....

I was beginning to wonder whether HighwayStar is a kernals12 sockpuppet, but HighwayStar's comments actually seem to reflect some minimal level of thought instead of consisting solely of single- (or partial-)sentence one-line non sequiturs. Replies 195 and 197 are further reason for wondering whether they are either sockpuppets or otherwise in cahoots in the trolling industry.

Rest assured I am neither a troll nor a sock puppet. 
And I will point out this was the thread for "unpopular" opinions, so I put forth what was likely my most unpopular opinion. 

[hotdogPi]

I'm beginning to think HighwayStar is a troll and the user name is a waste of a perfectly good Deep Purple song.

....

I was beginning to wonder whether HighwayStar is a kernals12 sockpuppet, but HighwayStar's comments actually seem to reflect some minimal level of thought instead of consisting solely of single- (or partial-)sentence one-line non sequiturs. Replies 195 and 197 are further reason for wondering whether they are either sockpuppets or otherwise in cahoots in the trolling industry.

HighwayStar doesn't sound like a kid.

Does this sound like kernals12?

I find it a bit amusing that some commenters have effectively put their ostrich-head-in-the-sand regarding the negative impacts of Interstate construction when those impacts are well documented.  The underlying question, which I can see this study assisting with (if done right, as sparker may have a point), is whether the positive benefits to travel, safety, and the economy, outweigh the negative drawbacks of displacement and environmental damage that have occurred over the years.

Of course, if the politicians and engineers of the '50s and '60s hadn't been so cheap and wonton in their bulldozing, this would be a far different question to answer.  I am firmly of the belief that today's negative viewpoint of freeways (especially in urban areas) would be far less negative if the fair-market-value, relocation-assistance, and environmental-mitigation programs of today had existed when the Interstates first began construction.

I don't think its fair to say that we are putting our heads in the sand, its more that we have been through this many times over and are tired of hearing the same old arguments.
Did the freeways displace people? Of course they did, but the harsh reality is that most of the displacement was moving people out of slums where many were not even property owners to start with. Sure there has been plenty of romanticism of the inner city before the freeway, but the actual evidence indicates that whoever could leave the cities for the suburbs did, so to think that uprooting a few involuntarily was enough to even enter into the impact calculation is dubious. I lived in a part of DC for a while that was "saved" from the freeways and I have a hard time believing that the area was better off for it.
My hometown has the same issue, people displaced by a mine, and a great deal of romanticism about the days before that. But an objective look at the facts shows that people were living in squalid conditions that were almost invariably worse than where they ended up.
In any case, trying to put a dollar value on the freeways is not something that is ever going to work, as a key function was always their value as defense highways, which is essentially impossible to put a dollar value on from an economic analysis standpoint.

If they're being forced to move either way, then isn't the comparison appropriate?  However, since the end of the draft, parents choose to enlist, which is a big difference.

My point in making that comparison is that there IS an entire subclass of Americans that move their families regularly so they can serve us, and to ask any American to move once for the good of society as a whole should not be an unreasonable request.

I'd say the benefits are not equivalent.  Serving in the military has the opportunity to benefit the protection and welfare all of America, plus other countries.  Building a freeway through a particular neighborhood... ummm... allows people to get somewhere faster.

Last time I checked, there was no draft in US for a while, so whoever is in the military basically chosen that lifestyle for themselves.
You may also argue that waking up someone at night is not a big deal, as there are people working graveyard shift, or have professionally crazy schedule (such as transportation workers - bus drivers, plane crews, who has to work 5AM-6AM departures). Again, a personal choice.

[1995hoo]

....

And I will point out this was the thread for "unpopular" opinions, so I put forth what was likely my most unpopular opinion. 

I'd wager that so far you certainly win that award!

I'm beginning to think HighwayStar is a troll and the user name is a waste of a perfectly good Deep Purple song.

....

I was beginning to wonder whether HighwayStar is a kernals12 sockpuppet, but HighwayStar's comments actually seem to reflect some minimal level of thought instead of consisting solely of single- (or partial-)sentence one-line non sequiturs. Replies 195 and 197 are further reason for wondering whether they are either sockpuppets or otherwise in cahoots in the trolling industry.

HighwayStar doesn't sound like a kid.

Does this sound like kernals12?

....

I will readily concede that I have not attempted to read the whole thread nor the whole "ban SUVs" subthread.

[HighwayStar]

....

And I will point out this was the thread for "unpopular" opinions, so I put forth what was likely my most unpopular opinion. 

I'd wager that so far you certainly win that award!

I'm beginning to think HighwayStar is a troll and the user name is a waste of a perfectly good Deep Purple song.

....

I was beginning to wonder whether HighwayStar is a kernals12 sockpuppet, but HighwayStar's comments actually seem to reflect some minimal level of thought instead of consisting solely of single- (or partial-)sentence one-line non sequiturs. Replies 195 and 197 are further reason for wondering whether they are either sockpuppets or otherwise in cahoots in the trolling industry.

HighwayStar doesn't sound like a kid.

Does this sound like kernals12?

....

I will readily concede that I have not attempted to read the whole thread nor the whole "ban SUVs" subthread.

At this point I would not suggest you do. Basically it boils down to I don't like them, for a variety of reasons, and would happy for them to go away.
Others own them, and would like them to stay.

[kphoger]

I don't like them, for a variety of reasons, and would happy for them to go away.

That's a terrible reason to think something should be banned.

[HighwayStar]

I don't like them, for a variety of reasons, and would happy for them to go away.

That's a terrible reason to think something should be banned.

for a variety of reasons is a very good reason, but I was not going to relist them all over again. And like it or not most positions boil down to preference anyway so its not that unique.

[kphoger]

I don't like them, for a variety of reasons, and would happy for them to go away.

That's a terrible reason to think something should be banned.

for a variety of reasons is a very good reason, but I was not going to relist them all over again. And like it or not most positions boil down to preference anyway so its not that unique.

No, "I don't like them" is a terrible reason.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Continue discussion over here. Thanks.

[HighwayStar]

I don't like them, for a variety of reasons, and would happy for them to go away.

That's a terrible reason to think something should be banned.

for a variety of reasons is a very good reason, but I was not going to relist them all over again. And like it or not most positions boil down to preference anyway so its not that unique.

No, "I don't like them" is a terrible reason.

Again, there are reasons I don't like them. Poor fuel economy, poor handling, override accidents, etc.

[1995hoo]

I don't like them, for a variety of reasons, and would happy for them to go away.

That's a terrible reason to think something should be banned.

for a variety of reasons is a very good reason, but I was not going to relist them all over again. And like it or not most positions boil down to preference anyway so its not that unique.

I will disagree with you insofar as you might be agreeing with the words "should be banned." I can't disagree with your statement that you "would be happy for them to go away," as that is distinctly different from banning something (and I recognize a lot of the earlier discussion was about the idea of banning them). I can think of some things I find extraordinarily annoying that I'd like to see go away–the #1 such thing is the portable basketball hoop the people two doors up the street have in their driveway–but that I would never even consider suggesting should be banned.