Replies

Then why infringe on the rights of everyone else to own one?

Aside from the little problem of putting more money than necessary in the hands of our enemies which you refuse to acknowledge, there's another problem, and that problem might not even exist in California, which I assume is where you are writing from, but it's a fact of life on the East coast.

The problem is that if SUVs were the occasional vehicle here and there, they would not obstruct everybody's vision in dangerous ways but, when one out of three or one out of four vehicles in the daily rush hour is a van or SUV, then nobody including the SUV and van drivers can ever see further than one or two cars in front of him, and that is dangerous.

The question is not individual rights. The question is, do you and other SUV owners have some sort of a group right to endanger yourselves and everybody else in such a manner?

Like I say, the guy driving an SUV off road, on a hunting trip, to the beach or whatever does not bother me. It doesn't consume that much gas or cause that much danger. The guy driving an SUV with three or four people in the HOV lanes does not bother me either. The guy driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle with just him, which appears to be most of them, I would tax into tommorrow.

The problem is that if SUVs were the occasional vehicle here and there, they would not obstruct everybody's vision in dangerous ways but, when one out of three or one out of four vehicles in the daily rush hour is a van or SUV, then nobody including the SUV and van drivers can ever see further than one or two cars in front of him, and that is dangerous.

If you're driving close enough for lack of forward visibility to reach the point of being "dangerous", you are too damned close to the driver in front of you. There have always been full-sized pickup trucks, vans, buses and assorted other vision-blocking motor vehicles on the road. When the SUV became popular, all that happened was that the ride height of the average "station wagon" was lifted to be more equivalent to that of the pickups and vans. Small cars have always been at risk of being squashed (Gee, go figure...). If the roads were still chock-full of Ford Country Squires and Oldsmobile Vista Cruisers, the small-car advocates would still be out there, crying: "Unfair! Unfair!" It is by pure happenstance that the SUV turned out to be the automotive "whipping-boy" of choice.

The question is not individual rights. The question is, do you and other SUV owners have some sort of a group right to endanger yourselves and everybody else in such a manner?

That question has been posed to motorcyclists many times. The answer is that everybody makes their own choices, no groups are involved. FWIW, it could also be asked of drivers who prefer sub-compact cars, sports cars, or drivers of older cars with no anti-lock brakes, etc. and so forth. Take your pick, each of them is at risk and is a risk to others. Each of us is, too - every time we pull out of the driveway.

Like I say, the guy driving an SUV off road, on a hunting trip, to the beach or whatever does not bother me. It doesn't consume that much gas or cause that much danger. The guy driving an SUV with three or four people in the HOV lanes does not bother me either. The guy driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle with just him, which appears to be most of them, I would tax into tommorrow.

Who are you, the watchdog for Approved Vehicular Usage? The guys who you see "most of the time" might have dropped off the kiddos at school a few minutes earlier, or be hauling something in the back for a co-worker, or be leaving after work to hitch-up the boat for a weekend at the coast. The truth is, you can only guess at how the vehicles that you see are being used by their owners. Do try to mind your own business when it comes to other people and their money, Mr. "Tax-'Em Into Tomorrow".

" Aside from the little problem of putting more money than necessary in the hands of our enemies which you refuse to acknowledge, there's another problem, and that problem might not even exist in California, which I assume is where you are writing from, but it's a fact of life on the East coast."

Hands of our enemies? Texaco and Exxon are now our enemies? They have a large vested interest in ARAMCO. I've already stated in several postings my opinion about the Saudis. Glass 'em and take the oil if they don't play ball. Period end of conversation on that point. I'm from Florida also, and as per my earlier postings, we don't really care what the rest of the nation thinks about the South. We have been and always will be freedom and independent minded.

" The problem is that if SUVs were the occasional vehicle here and there, they would not obstruct everybody's vision in dangerous ways but, when one out of three or one out of four vehicles in the daily rush hour is a van or SUV, then nobody including the SUV and van drivers can ever see further than one or two cars in front of him, and that is dangerous."

Based on that logic, all buses, semis and delivery trucks should be banned from driving in any urban area from 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3 p.m to 7 p.m. daily. That would be disasterous for commerce. The danger is not the SUV, it's the driver. And an idiot in a Dodge Neon is as dangerous as an idiot in an Expedition. The difference is one idiot has more money than the other one. Based on that apporach we should have means and intelligence tests for driver's liscenses. I'm all in favor of that. It might get the bad drivers off the road who are on motorcycles and do wheelies on our back streets also.

"The question is not individual rights. The question is, do you and other SUV owners have some sort of a group right to endanger yourselves and everybody else in such a manner?"

I never said it was a right. It's a privelage. It's also about freedom of choice. First we ban smoking period. Then drinking. Then fast food. Then SUVs. It's a slippery slope and we're already on it. Where do you stop? When they ban you because you're too short, too fat or too liberal? Will you be supportive of banning individual choice when you can only eat red tofu on Tuesdays and white tofu on Fridays? This was America, not North Korea.

" Like I say, the guy driving an SUV off road, on a hunting trip, to the beach or whatever does not bother me. It doesn't consume that much gas or cause that much danger. The guy driving an SUV with three or four people in the HOV lanes does not bother me either. The guy driving an SUV as a commuter vehicle with just him, which appears to be most of them, I would tax into tommorrow."

We already are taxed into tommorrow. It's called the gasoline tax. But as long as those of us with the means and income to afford it are willing to pay it, then we're fine. The base cost of gas is only about .68 cents per gallon. It's the taxes that make it extreme. If I elect to commute in an SUV by myself, which I do all of the time, it's my choice. But remember your words. Soda pop is already taxed in Commiefornia. Smoking is overtaxed now in NYC. What you may wish for may end up with everything you enjoy in life being taxed to an extreme where you do not have the means to afford it. Those of us that can still afford it will laugh. And that's when you'll wake up and realize that you supported the stripping of individual freedom of choice. It's the path of least resistance chosen by the left. And it's the path our nation is following now. The "blame the other guy" game. Sad. I like the stars and bars much more than the hammer and sickle on our flag.