Replies

"...I've yet to see one of them start themselves up and go out around town looking for innocent victims...."

Your are just parroting one of Rush Limbaugh's weaker conceits. "SUV's don't kill, the drivers of SUV's kill."

That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A Large SUV is more likely to kill passengers of a car in which it is involved in an accident than a smaller passenger car like a Honda accord. Pressumably, in a large population the drivers of Hondas and Tahoes are of equal ability (although the SUV driver is likely to have a higher testosterone level). Therefore, it must be the size and nature of the vehicle that accounts for the kill rate discrepancy. Thus, the nature of the SUV itself is dangerous.

The writer of this article is clearly a left-wing sissy. Having said that, he makes some valid points.

I don't have anything against SUVs, but many people buy them for the wrong reasons. As a result, quite a few people are dead or paralyzed right now and a lot of hydrocarbons have been wasted. It's a free country, but that doesn't excuse stupid decision making.

Thus, the nature of the SUV itself is dangerous.

The nature of a Democrat loved city bus is much more dangerous. Two weeks ago I almost got run over by a silent electric bus running a red light, a trick they do that all the time because they can. I've never seen a bus driver get a ticket, they just don't. They cause hundreds of accidents every day by blocking vision for other drivers. They weigh 10 tons spewing out cancer causing diesel smoke that coats the city in a black grime. Last week a bus killed a woman in an SUV. There was little damage to the bus. Why don't the socialists talk much of making buses more environmentally friendly and less dangerous to aluminum can drivers? If they are going to be jealous over SUVs they need to give equal treatment to buses. Also, why aren't they trying to get semi-trucks off the road and onto their other love, train tracks?

Rush is Right there. Problem with your arguement. That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A .50 Caliber is more likely to kill people in which it is involved in an shooting than a smaller .22 Caliber. Pressumably, in a large population the shooters of .22's and .50's are of equal ability (although the .50 caliber shooter is likely to have a higher testosterone level). Therefore, it must be the size and nature of the gun that accounts for the kill rate discrepancy. Thus, the nature of the .50 caliber itself is dangerous.

That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A Large SUV is more likely to kill passengers of a car in which it is involved in an accident than a smaller passenger car like a Honda accord

I bet there are more 16 wheelers on the road than SUVs and I can assure you if they run over you, you are dead meat.