Hummercide

W K said:

"Antti Salonen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike S. mikeshaw2@coxdotnet said:

Ain't America great? We can drive gas-guzzling road hogs if we choose

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pay the penalties, or drive compact cars if we don't. Sure beats a lot

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

other countries in the world that don't have a choice!

Just out of interest, can you name those countries where such choice isn't available? I've been
to about thirty countries, and people drove everything from a Fiat 500 to Hummer in every single
one of them.

Perhaps north Korea? But thats because they haven't got the money. Albania? You cannot buy them
there but you can get them shipped from germany (where you don't buy them either).

Its another interesting thing I've noticed since the start of this war. Apparantly America is also
the only nation in the world where one is allowed to openly criticise the government.

Since the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore, the intl. stereotype is quite the opposite.

Kw

"Benjamin Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W. K. said:

Its another interesting thing I've noticed since the start of this war. Apparantly America is
also the only nation in the world where one is allowed to openly criticise the government.

Huh? It's one of the national pastimes here in Canada.

Quite. But its a quote from a US broadcaster, and the bit in the thread suggesting that the US is
something special when it comes to freedom to drive what you like reminded me of it.

Almost any country that isn't a dictatorship has the government being criticised. Even apartheid
south africa.

"Kit Wolf" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 08:25:35 +0000, W K wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Its another interesting thing I've noticed since the start of this war. Apparantly America is
also the only nation in the world where one is

allowed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to openly criticise the government.

Since the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore, the intl. stereotype is quite the opposite.

Stereotype? As I said, it was the words from the mouth of a broadcaster.

oh ... Michael Moore ... I saw him at the oscars. Free to speak but drowned out by people shouting.

In article said:

Its another interesting thing I've noticed since the start of this war. Apparantly America is also
the only nation in the world where one is allowed to openly criticise the government.

I'm envious. Just last month, I told a friend (in confidence) that I didn't really like the new
sales tax. Unfortunately, the secret police were listening in on our conversation. They hauled me in
and interrogated me for hours. Now, I'm under special watch.

-Pete

--
--
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot taste the difference between
fried dog and fried cat?

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

...

Quoted message said:

That's not true. Crash safety has to do with the strength of the passenger compartment, and how
well that structure is designed to collapse and absorb energy. This is how Indy cars weighing only
1500 LB can crash into a wall (infinite mass) at 200 MPH, and the driver walk away. You don't make

But the car is destroyed and the wall is unhurt. That's just an extension of what happens when a
7000lb SUV hits a 2000lb sub-compact. The car is destroyed and the SUV is largely undamaged. Of
course if you compare them both hitting the wall or a tree, the occupant of the car is probably more
likely to survive than the SUV driver for the reasons you mention.

Quoted message said:

it safer by making it bigger and heavier. It's a lot more complicated than that. SUV's don't
address these "complications" because they're not required to by law, as cars are.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

Quoted message said:

The funny thing is that most of the people bashing SUVs haven't even owned one.

duh.

"Robin Hubert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I saw a "new" Hummer (GM truck platform) recently while riding my bike. There was a guy with his
10yr old kid with him. The driver had the stiff-arm-on-the-top-of-the-steering wheel "cool" look.
I was cracking up laughing (really, not mocking), the dad looked [censored]-off, the kid, embarrassed.
He lead-footed himself from the stop just to prove himself. Funny, eh?

I took a ride in a Hummer. I was embarrassed to be aboard, but most of the people we passed were
waving and giving the thumbs up. Sad.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Dietrich

Wiegmann) said:

"Robin Hubert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I saw a "new" Hummer (GM truck platform) recently while riding my bike. There was a guy with his
10yr old kid with him. The driver had the stiff-arm-on-the-top-of-the-steering wheel "cool"
look. I was cracking up laughing (really, not mocking), the dad looked [censored]-off, the kid,
embarrassed. He lead-footed himself from the stop just to prove himself. Funny, eh?

I took a ride in a Hummer. I was embarrassed to be aboard, but most of the people we passed were
waving and giving the thumbs up. Sad.

IIRC Pre-war Hummer H2s ( loaded ) were selling for about 50K US$.

They are now asking, according to the local paper, 37K US$.

Sad for those that bought them earlier, and even worse if it means more of them.

FWIW

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution

[email hidden] (JerZ Fox) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

No one should be driving a Hummer unless they're wearing dog tags, fatigues, and a flak jacket!

Okay, I don't own a SUV and probably never will. No big deal to me. So why not have your
representative sponsor a bill that forbids purchase by other people of products that you personally
don't like?

Brian

Frank Krygowski said:

JerZ Fox said:

No one should be driving a Hummer unless they're wearing dog tags, fatigues, and a flak jacket!

You mean those guys have to stop playing "Let's pretend"? :-(

And those guys with the team jerseys on their Ti bikes with minispoked wheels?

The world is full of pretense. It's part of the sociology of being human. Nature of the beast so to
speak and worth a good chuckle from time to time, but hardly worth increasing ones pulse rate over.

I might add, it may be that the nitwits pulling this "hummercide action" were doing a bit of
pretending as well. Perhaps they were "enviro macquis" braving hazards at the hands of evil
corporate forces to strike a blow against globalism and environmental degradation? Maybe they were
wearing blue leotards with red capes as they struck at the heart of American excess and
environmental irresponsibility?

Let's pretend they were.

SMH

"JerZ Fox" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No one should be driving a Hummer unless they're wearing dog tags,

fatigues,

Quoted message said:

and a flak jacket!

I would tend to agree with that statement, but there are always those that want one just 'cause they
can have one. From my time in the Army, the military Humvee isn't a good road vehicle at all. Not
enough space, bad handling on the roads, and is way big. Now taking it off-road is another thing
completely since that is what it was designed for.

I can see back-country outfitters, desert tour companies, oil companies and the like needing one for
their businesses, but for the everyday man? Nope.

Remind me to tell you about my friend that owns a wind power consulting business' "new" Unimog.

Mike

"Chris Neary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The funny thing is that most of the people bashing SUVs haven't even

owned

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one. Just like green eggs and ham... Go figure.

I drive SUVs often for my work, which requires me to go on ranch lands or fireroads to access the
jobsites.

Cherokees, 'burbans, Broncos, Explorers - I've driven them all and can

state

Quoted message said:

authoritatively their on-road handling characteristics leave *a lot* to be desired.

I wouldn't trade our mini-van for any of the conventional body-on-frame SUVs. Compared to them it
handles like a sports car, carries more (ever

try

Quoted message said:

to stuff a tandem in an SUV?), while being more comfortable and getting better mileage.

Unless you need to tow something or have serious off-road capability , you're just buying hype.

Never said that SUVs drove well. Just that if you do need the space, etc. that they are a great
thing to own. I miss owning a sports car, and probably am going to own another in the next 12-18
months. I'm going to add the car to my mini "fleet," because its hard to carry bikes without
scratching either the bikes or the car in a convertible.

I started thinking about SUVs. Seems that they've been around for ages. If the Chevy commercials are
to be believed, they've been around since the 20s. The International Harvester Scouts, Jeep
Cherokees/Chiefs, the Ford Broncos, and etc. have been plying our roads for decades before anyone
decided that they were "bad." Hell, up until a few (last oil crisis) years ago, ALL (with a very few
exceptions) cars got [censored]-poor mileage.

Some of y'all are sure to remember the 60s and 70s. My little brother owns a 70 Eldo with a 502ci
engine. My truck gets better gas mileage than his car, burns the fuel cleaner, and is safer to
drive, but y'all aren't [censored] about his Eldo... Or the VW minivans, bugs, or pickups that are
still plying our roadways spewing out unburned hydrocarbons...

The only thing I can see that is different is the size of the cars on the highways. As sizes of cars
have become more and more disparate, now all of a sudden you're getting people scared, so SUVs must
be evil. When mom and dad were driving Buick Roadmaster wagons, it didn't really matter that the
Scout in the next lane was so big, 'cause you were riding in something equally as massive. Now that
the Honda Civic (eg.) is so small and the Caddy Escalade (eg.) is so big, the Caddy is wasteful,
dangerous, and a menace on the roads. Amazing how perceptions change...

Mike

"Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Never said that SUVs drove well. Just that if you do need the space, etc. that they are a great
thing to own.

That's the funny thing...SUV's are generally far less space efficient than a similar size minivan.

1996 Jeep GC vs 1990 Chevy minivan (I had both at the same time for a while) The high floor of the
Jeep (to accomodate the 4WD bits) seriously impacted its cargo capacity. 3 people and 5 bikes would
easily fit inside the Lumina. Getting 2 bikes into the Jeep was problematic.

Or 6 people, and 2 weeks of vacation stuff inside the Lumina. Again, no way in the Jeep.

But the minivan isn't as "cool" the a rough, tough SUV....🙂

Pete

In article <U1jja.3195$2d3.2190@fed1read06>, mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet says...

...

Quoted message said:

Never said that SUVs drove well. Just that if you do need the space, etc. that they are a great
thing to own. I miss owning a sports car, and probably am going to own another in the next 12-18
months. I'm going to add the car to my mini "fleet," because its hard to carry bikes without
scratching either the bikes or the car in a convertible.

I started thinking about SUVs. Seems that they've been around for ages. If the Chevy commercials
are to be believed, they've been around since the 20s. The International Harvester Scouts, Jeep
Cherokees/Chiefs, the Ford Broncos, and etc. have been plying our roads for decades before anyone
decided that they were "bad."

Nobody says they are "bad" if people need them to do their job, or drive home on a muddy road, or
whatever. 30+ years ago, the only people who drove them were ones who needed their special
abilities. However, they are an ENORMOUS waste when a parent drives their kid 7 miles to soccer
practice in a 7000lb Suburban on paved city streets.

Quoted message said:

Hell, up until a few (last oil crisis) years ago, ALL (with a very few exceptions) cars got
[censored]-poor mileage.

Some of y'all are sure to remember the 60s and 70s. My little brother owns a 70 Eldo with a 502ci
engine. My truck gets better gas mileage than his car, burns the fuel cleaner, and is safer to
drive, but y'all aren't [censored] about his Eldo...

Yes, I am <GG>

Quoted message said:

Or the VW minivans, bugs, or pickups that are still plying our roadways spewing out unburned
hydrocarbons...

Yes, I am <GG>

Quoted message said:

The only thing I can see that is different is the size of the cars on the highways. As sizes of
cars have become more and more disparate, now all of a sudden you're getting people scared, so
SUVs must be evil. When mom and dad were driving Buick Roadmaster wagons, it didn't really matter
that the Scout in the next lane was so big, 'cause you were riding in something equally as
massive. Now that the Honda Civic (eg.) is so small and the Caddy Escalade (eg.) is so big, the
Caddy is wasteful, dangerous, and a menace on the roads. Amazing how perceptions change...

Times change, too. And people become more aware of how wasteful and polluting some of these fads
are. In the 60's there was little choice and even less awareness of how wasteful we were. We've
grown up as a society since then.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

Stephen Harding said:

Frank Krygowski said:

JerZ Fox said:

No one should be driving a Hummer unless they're wearing dog tags, fatigues, and a flak
jacket!

You mean those guys have to stop playing "Let's pretend"? :-(

And those guys with the team jerseys on their Ti bikes with minispoked wheels?

The world is full of pretense.

Sure. Most people need mental training wheels.

That doesn't make a Hummer driver any less a fool. It just gives him company.

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

"H. M. Leary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IIRC Pre-war Hummer H2s ( loaded ) were selling for about

50K US$.

Quoted message said:

They are now asking, according to the local paper, 37K

US$.

Quoted message said:

Sad for those that bought them earlier, and even worse if

it means more of them.

Could it be those >$2.00 CA gas prices (do people anywhere else buy Hummers)?

Matt O.

"archer" <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article

<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's not true. Crash safety has to do with the

strength

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the passenger compartment, and how well that

structure is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

designed to collapse and absorb energy. This is how

Indy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cars weighing only 1500 LB can crash into a wall

(infinite

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mass) at 200 MPH, and the driver walk away. You don't

make

Quoted message said:

But the car is destroyed and the wall is unhurt. That's

just an

Quoted message said:

extension of what happens when a 7000lb SUV hits a 2000lb

sub-compact.

Quoted message said:

The car is destroyed and the SUV is largely undamaged.

First, that's not true. The SUV *is not* undamaged. Often a side impact by a fairly light vehicle
will intrude deeply into the passenger compartment of an SUV.

Second, how the vehicles appear after the accident is immaterial. What counts is the condition of
the occupant. The force of an impact has to go somewhere. If it isn't absorbed by the vehicle, it
gets transmitted to the occupant. This became crystal clear back in the 1950s, when drivers of
Mercedes' 180D/220S were being injured and killed at an alarming rate. The problem was that the car
was built like a tank. It didn't dent, crush, or absorb any energy in collisions, instead
transmitting the forces directly to the driver. This deathtrap car was a revelation to the industry,
prompting a big change in automotive design.

Quoted message said:

Of course if you compare them both hitting the wall or a tree, the occupant

of the car is

Quoted message said:

probably more likely to survive than the SUV driver for

the reasons you

Quoted message said:

mention.

The relevent issue is still how strong each vehicle is against its own weight, and how well it
absorbs energy. And if weight matters at all, physics dictates that speed matters more in terms
of kinetic energy. Going back to your high school physics, draw a vector diagram and you'll see
what I mean.

Take a couple of hypothetical (actually typical) examples.

One, a Honda Civic T-bones a big SUV. The Civic crushes back a couple of feet, absorbing the impact,
and the driver walks away unhurt. OTOH, the SUV isn't strong enough against its own weight to remain
rigid and be pushed sideways, like a normal car would. The Civic intrudes practically to the truck's
centerline, crushing its driver.

Two, how about a head-on collision between the same two vehicles. Again, the Civic's engine
compartment crushes but the passenger compartment remains intact, absorbing the impact and
protecting its driver. But the big SUV, bolstered by rigid frame rails, doesn't crush at all. It
seems hardly damaged, but the force of the impact is transmitted directly to the driver. He dies of
internal injuries where his seat belt practically cuts him in two.

These kinds of things are exactly what happens in the real world.

Automakers are starting to address the SUV safety issue, mostly because of fear of class action
lawsuits. They know these vehicles are less safe, and with so many of them out there now, they're
potentially a huge liability. Some of the newest, most expensive designs -- the BMW X5, for example
-- are as safe as anything else. But the average one is still a tarted-up version of a decades-old
truck design.

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"H. M. Leary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IIRC Pre-war Hummer H2s ( loaded ) were selling for about

50K US$.

Quoted message said:

They are now asking, according to the local paper, 37K

US$.

Quoted message said:

Sad for those that bought them earlier, and even worse if

it means more of them.

Could it be those >$2.00 CA gas prices (do people anywhere else buy Hummers)?

Matt O.

They are all over the place in CT. Usually driven by a 4'10" woman, for some reason. Why anyone
would spend 50k on a gas-guzzling, poor-driving beast like a Hummer is beyond me, particularly
because it's a status symbol here -- there's no place you can take it off road. At least I've taken
my beater Jeep (aka "heep"😉 off road.

--
Bob ctviggen at rcn dot com

W K snipes anonymously:

Quoted message said:

Its another interesting thing I've noticed since the start of this war. Apparantly America is also
the only nation in the world where one is allowed to openly criticise the government.

Oh how patriotic... I guess you didn't go to school and learn about other governments starting with
the Greeks of old. There's more democracy in the world than some conservative (right wing) people
would have you believe.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden] Palo Alto CA

Mike S. said:

I started thinking about SUVs.

Maybe we're accomplishing something! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Seems that they've been around for ages. If the Chevy commercials are to be believed, they've
been around since the 20s. The International Harvester Scouts, Jeep Cherokees/Chiefs, the
Ford Broncos, and etc. have been plying our roads for decades before anyone decided that they
were "bad."

Look, tractor-trailers have been around since the '20s, too. Despite that, if it became fashionable
for every suburban mom to drive a Peterbilt sleeper cab, I'd say they were "bad."

Quoted message said:

Hell, up until a few (last oil crisis) years ago, ALL (with a very few exceptions) cars got
[censored]-poor mileage.

God forbid we ever make any progress, eh?

Quoted message said:

Some of y'all are sure to remember the 60s and 70s. My little brother owns a 70 Eldo with a 502ci
engine. My truck gets better gas mileage than his car, burns the fuel cleaner, and is safer to
drive, but y'all aren't [censored] about his Eldo...

FWIW, back in 1964, I was saying that things like your brother's car were obese and clownish. I
still feel that way. However, there are far fewer of those things than there are SUVs. We're (very
logically) discussing the bigger problem first.

Now if you want to take on the curse of antique vehicles after we solve the SUV idiocy, be my guest.

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]