| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |
| Type | Created | Category | Creator | Sort | Votes | Hides | Rating | |
| single | 22-Dec-1997 | cars/driving | milktree | unsorted | 69 | 12 | 52.2% |
|
| User | Comment |
|---|---|
| bill | 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. |
If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On
| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |