I heard this on Sunday evening I'm sure but there's a repeat or maybe part II on tomorrow night with poets and Foxrock yummy mummies discussing SUVs. One of the most interesting points about the show was the feeling that the mummies didn't seem to have any sense that they were part of a class of blonde, sunglass-wearing SUV driving clones though the presenters and other interviewees repeatedly pointed this out to them.
They also mentioned €1300 handbags but I can't remember the name. Worth listening to ...
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Axles of Evil Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:23 am
Two of the participants in the documentary were on with Ryan Tubridy yesterday morning.
Catherine ? is the owner of an SUV, from Foxrock and her other car is a convertible. She doesn't drive the SUV very often but bought it because a friend had one and she liked it. She has it because she likes it, works hard and she's worth it.
Trucks are also big and dangerous, a dirty big Chrylser will consume more fuel and both also come with the ego associated with an SUV.
The poet's point was that the women - and it seems to be almost exclusively women who were discussed - had no sense of identity; that rather than striving to be different, they were striving to be the same.
My difficulty with them is the waste - it appals me to think of the cost of trinkets like these.
There was a lot of crap yesterday about this being a democratic society so Catherine could drive whatever she wanted and we shouldn't all have to be the same (!) but the kind of car you choose to buy has nothing to do with democracy.
I'm reluctant to ascribe any motive to these people for buying their SUVs when they seem (judging from the snippets of the documentary which Ryan played yesterday) unable to explain themselves why they have them.
But the purchase of such a costly item for no practical purpose and when there are a trillion alternatives is, to me, a little sickening.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Axles of Evil Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:32 am
Kate P wrote:
But the purchase of such a costly item for no practical purpose and when there are a trillion alternatives is, to me, a little sickening.
I would agree with that.
On a little aside. I took part in a scavenger hunt a few weeks ago. One of the naughtier tasks that we had to complete was taking a photograph of a "Yummy Drummy" inside their SUV at the Dundrum Shopping Centre. Sounds like a fairly simple task. Unfortunately they all have tinted windows
Last edited by johnfás on Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Axles of Evil Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:33 am
It's to tone down the platinum glare from inside, johnfás.
Part of my problem with them is that they're dangerous. They have a far bigger blind spot than cars, though drivers rarely seem to take account of this. Also, if a person is by a car, they'll break their legs. If a person is hit by an SUV, they're hit higher, and there'll be damage to the internal organs.
Add to that the fact that their headlights are more likely to dazzle you because they're higher up, and you have my reasoning for wanting to smash them.
Most of them have those bull bars as well, which make absolutely no sense in the context of city driving and are incredibly dangerous if you are hit by them. They increase the likelihood of death enormously in a collision with a pedestrian.
You are right about the headlights as well. Same for Smart cars though. Was driving back from Wexford last summer and someone needed to follow me, they were driving a Smart car - complete disaster in the dark and rain with their headlights beating into my rearview mirror.
It's not just a yummy mummy thing, a lot of young lads from where I live are buying these yokes. Where they get the money is beyond me but you can be sure it's on credit. In fairness, they're put to a little more use in fields and the like. But mainly it's a peer pressure thing, the rural equivilant to them little fighter-jet cars you see in town.
I'd agree with the sentiments that alot of it is down to peer pressure. Anyone I know with one (outside of needing that sort of vehicle for work) tends to fit into a certain category... not to be overly stereotyping or anything!
I'd agree with the sentiments that alot of it is down to peer pressure. Anyone I know with one (outside of needing that sort of vehicle for work) tends to fit into a certain category... not to be overly stereotyping or anything!
Its no good trying to appeal to peoples' better nature. There are EU regulations on safe design for vehicles. We need much tighter regulation of vehicles both on safety grounds and on grounds of fuel consumption and emissions. The car industry lobby works hard to keep EU regulation levels low:- people and politicians need to push back against that pressure.
Car's have got much safer through the The EU NCAP scheme. They have this great website so you can check out safety of each model for passengers and pedestrians: take a look at the 4 x 4 results for pedestrians and compare with small family car here:-
NCAP only introduced the pedestrian test recently. I expect to see improvements in all categories now the bad and dangerous design standards are in full view.
Part of my problem with them is that they're dangerous. They have a far bigger blind spot than cars, though drivers rarely seem to take account of this. Also, if a person is by a car, they'll break their legs. If a person is hit by an SUV, they're hit higher, and there'll be damage to the internal organs.
Add to that the fact that their headlights are more likely to dazzle you because they're higher up, and you have my reasoning for wanting to smash them.
Yep to all that. I might also like to add that the larger ones are incredibly dangerous on narrow roads as they're very wide, aren't actually much safer than ordinary cars (if at all) because of the rollover risk, and some at least need to be banned on the grounds of excessive fuel consumption. The number of people I see mounting the pavement because they can't make a turn and stay on the appropriate side of the road.... trust me, these yokes aren't safer as you're more likely to have an accident in the first place!!
On the other hand, the smaller SUVs (Hyundai Tucson, Rav4, Honda CRV, Landrover Freelander Subaru Forester, Jeep Patriot... and I think Ford brought out a new one recently too, with a 169 CO2 emission rating), arent any more polluting than a reasonably sized family car, which you would need anyway if you have more than one child, and might cost less to maintain amongst the potholes as the suspensions last longer..particularly important if you're in the habit of heaving lots of stuff/people around (the more people per car, the more eco-friendly anyway)
We need to be discerning, people, there is NO excuse for monsters like the VW Toareg, Volvo XC90, the large Audi SUV and the biggest Landrover, all of which emit more than 300, and sometimes closer to 400gCo2/km. But there are many luxury saloons, commercial vehicles and sports cars that out-emit the smaller SUVs (if anyone has an emissions list for all SUVs, I'd love to see it)
Suggestion... leave the smaller ones alone for those who need the carrying/offroad capacity and tax the living BEJAYSUS out of anything that emits more than 220gCO2/km. Whether it is a LandRover or a Porsche, I don't care. Let 'em pay an extra 10 grand a year for them... and if it makes the things more of a status symbol, let the silly eejits pay for public transport improvements for the rest of us...TAX; the final solution!!!
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Axles of Evil Thu May 01, 2008 12:00 am
Subject: Re: Axles of Evil Thu May 01, 2008 1:08 am
The Irish Times motoring supplement today had a feature about airbags for cyclists - the airbags would be fitted to cars and would inflate if about to hit a cyclist
You Decide the Fate of this SUV Ryan Mickle made a website to help decide what he will do with his Range Rover Sport SUV. Here's his story:
"In 2006, I bought this beautiful but totally excessive Range Rover Sport. A big part of the motivation then was the huge tax write off for heavy SUVs, combined with a short commute and weekly trips to go hiking with friends. Since I moved back to San Francisco, I don't need a car, so I want to take this SUV off the road for good. If I sold it, it'd just keep polluting with someone else behind the wheel. So I'm leaving what to do with it to everyone to help me decide."
Ryan wants your suggestions. Should he blow it up or convert it to biodiesel? Donate it to some organization? Convert it to electric? He's looking for ideas that are both eco and attention-getting. There's a video of him explaining his story below.
he loss, equal to $3.88 a share, was mostly the result of $8 billion in write-downs because of falling demand for and resale values of gas-thirsty pickups and sport utility vehicles in the United States. Ford took charges of $5.3 billion related to lower asset values in North America and $2.1 billion on the lease portfolio at its financing arm, the Ford Motor Credit Company.
The news sent Ford shares tumbling nearly 10 percent in morning trading.
Excluding the write-downs and other charges, the company lost $1 billion from continuing operations, down from a profit of $483 million a year ago. It lost $1.3 billion in North America, where $4-a-gallon gasoline has caused consumers to clamor for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Ford said it would cut production for the rest of the year by an additional 105,000 vehicles, for a total reduction of 26 percent compared with the second half of 2007.
Then, it plans to overhaul three truck factories in North America so they can build small cars and double production of gas-electric hybrid vehicles next year.
The old SUV - great idea at the time and a true flash in the pan...
Like your man above, what is the world going to do with all those shagging yokes that have been built up to now ? Dismantle em and turn them into two or three cars each?