Sign On
Create Account

Last

TypeCreatedCategoryCreatorSortVotesHidesRating
single22-Dec-1997cars/drivingmilktree unsorted691252.2%

Advanced_Stats

Sport utility vehicles are...




VotesAnswer
18an environmental nightmare and a threat to everyone else on the road.
9Cool....
13not my thing, but I don't mind others having them
2basically trucks and should have the same restrictions as semi's
2safe, relyable, transportation
1the perfect family wagon
14Ideal for someone who lives on a ranch, but silly in the city.

UserComment
bill Survey Central Gold Subscriber Double Gold Star Survey Creator
posted 22-Dec-1997 10:16pm  
The headlights in my rearview mirror thing is annoying, but otherwise I have no beef. ...The cell-phone drivers are much more evil.
mcarlos
posted 22-Dec-1997 11:22pm  
i thought suv's were silly in the city until i drove in nyc - but i still think a land rover is excessive anywhere excepting the most extreme geography
Jaime
posted 23-Dec-1997 3:27am  
I prefer a small one...
doom
posted 23-Dec-1997 8:51am  
All I want for Christmas is a Hummer....
fiore
posted 23-Dec-1997 11:58am  
They are pretty unsafe and people want them just to have them. They almost NEVER go off-road with them. It's become a status symbol.
steve
posted 23-Dec-1997 5:20pm  
Moreover, there seems to be a correlation between owning one and driving like a timid MORON.
Dahlia
posted 24-Dec-1997 5:00am  
I'm neither here nor there about them.
gilly
posted 24-Dec-1997 11:09am  
Great for New England winters!
Atzilut
posted 24-Dec-1997 3:02pm  
irrelevant
llyra
posted 1-Jan-1998 5:54am  
(*) other: annoying, especially when you're in a sports car
jefff
posted 2-Jan-1998 2:44am  
Federal Highway Safety Commision says: twice as likely to be involved in two-car accident, 3x more likely to flip, 5x more likely to be involved in *fatal* accident (usually to occupant in other, smaller car). They're a scam by auto makers to avoid environemntal regs ("off-road" vehicles don't have to comply with as stringent safety/mileage req's)
zoomie
posted 4-Jan-1998 1:51am  
If this question refers to those trucks with huge tires, then they should have to pay extra licensing fees and/or not be allowed on the street.
Jimmy
posted 5-Jan-1998 2:11am  
Wow. I like this one.
Timmi
posted 5-Jan-1998 2:16pm  
...a means of transport to be chosen/used according to whatever criteria the chooser/user cares to apply.
quark
posted 7-Jan-1998 4:41pm  
I still have to put the sign on my tire rack saying, "If you can read this, chances are I can't see you."
graffin
posted 23-Jan-1998 10:27pm  
they're especially relyable. I can rely on that.
weth
posted 30-Jan-1998 6:39pm  
I'm glad that Massachusetts plans to levy a special tax on them. Are the controls really that different, or do just idiot drivers buy them?
milktree
posted 23-Feb-1998 7:25pm  
Most people who drive them are driving them for the style, and not for the need. If you live on a dirt road in snow or mud country, they make sense, but if you live in the city they're a joke.
Dolemite
posted 2-Mar-1998 12:44am  
They're nice for families and camping. I personally would prefer a car.
joe
posted 20-Mar-1998 3:54pm  
Ideal for someone who lives on a ranch, but silly in the city
daver
posted 16-May-1998 6:49pm  
I picked basically trucks, but I don't think that they're in the same class as semi's. One common trend that I have seen, both with SUV's and minivans, is that the drivers of these vehicles drive as if they believed the salesweasel when he said "It handles just like a car". (N.B. I own an SUV. I do not drive it like it were a car) I'm all for tiered licensing, European style. My standard driver's license allows me to drive vehicles up to 26,000! pounds. That's ludicrous. Vehicles that size handle significantly differently than cars and require significantly different training. I feel that a "standard" driver's license should be good up to 4000-5000 pounds. That's about the range where the vehicle starts handling differently from a regular car (and yes, this would include some land yachts presently counted as a car) On a similar note, my motorcycle license allows me to drive motorcycles and sidecar rigs (I've driven both). Both of them have completely different handling characterisrtics. Their only common point is less than four wheels.
lelle
posted 17-May-1998 3:09pm  
None of the above. Most of the current SUV's are silly, period. Typical mine's-bigger-than-yours syndrome. I like older ones though -- I learned to drive an old (late 70's) Chevy Blazer, in steep mountain terrain. That was fun. :)
reality
posted 25-Jun-1998 12:09pm  
something that has become trendy, and will eventually go back to being just purchased by the people who want/will use them.
phi
posted 27-Jun-1998 6:03pm  
Subaru's edition seems less silly than the rest. daver: To pick examples from the last two SUVs I drove, I don't drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee like a car, but I do drive a Suzuki like a car, because, well, the Suzuki is a car underneath and the Jeep is a truck underneath. But they're both "SUV"s. So it depends.
pandora
posted 23-Oct-1998 6:25pm  
They're the cool new vehicle to have, but I've heard that they're not quite environmentally friendly. I really don't see a need for them in a suburban setting.
magbast
posted 3-Jan-1999 9:33pm  
i dig em
North79
posted 17-Jan-1999 11:10pm  
They are so trendy these days. Anybody who's anybody has one on my street and it bugs the hell out of me. These people drive to and from work everyday in vehicles that are better used off-roading. How ridiculous.
Last
Advanced_Stats

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

 
Link this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/110.html

Hits: 2 today (8 in the last 30 days)