Gothamist: Hummer Bummer

Rich

Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:07:26 -0500

Get the minivan if you haven't already. We just picked up a Toyota Sienna 2 weeks ago, with side window airbags and stability control. We also have the 8 passenger seating which lets 3 people sit in the 2nd row, opening the back to lots of luggage space or pets. NHTSA and IIHS rate the Sienna very well in a crash. Consumer Reports got 21mpg, although we're getting less than 19 so far.

Stephanie

Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:10:39 -0500

Seriously, my husband and I are deciding b/w the H2 and a mini-van. We have 3 kids under 4, no major urban parking issues and just want the safest vehicle possible for them. Comments?

Bub

Fri, 07 May 2004 23:25:28 -0500

"That's right, no regulations on the strength of the roof in a rollover. None. Where is that 4 tons of steel now? Crushing the driver and his family to death." You say that like it's a bad thing... I would tend to agree that the major reason not to buy a Hummer or other SUV, particularly if one lives in the NYC area, is that it makes one look like a "major league asshole," to quote president Bush. Of course, if you feel a deep need to buy one of these things, that's probably exactly what you are. But are you sure you want everyone else to know?

Patrick

Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:19:07 -0500

Sterling, Sterling, Sterling. Obviously, no one has clued you in on the "military design" of the H2. Hate to break it to you, but it's a Tahoe. Well, a Tahoe with a few tons of superfluous chrome, cup holders, etc... The "military design" of the H2 is actually the simple box-on-frame construction that makes up the components of it's sister ship, the Chevy Tahoe. I could go outside with a Sharpie marker and write H2 on my Chevy Prism and it would be about as close to the original Hummer as the H2 is. So, yes, if a H2 and a Jetta (they seem to be popular on this thread) were to go head to head, medieval tourny style, yes, the Jetta itself would get creamed. But since the H2 is 4 tons of unyeilding steel, the H2 occupant will have just as high a risk of injury as the occupant of the amply crumple-zoned Jetta. But that is assuming that the Jetta driver does not use the superior handling of the Jetta to avoid the accident all together. Were the H2 driver try to swerve, then the H2 might find itself on it's non-government regulated roof. That's right, no regulations on the strength of the roof in a rollover. None. Where is that 4 tons of steel now? Crushing the driver and his family to death.

Jammypup

Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:10:55 -0500

Doug understood Sterling did not

christine

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:27:13 -0500

that FUH2 website was the funniest thing!

Doug

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:01:01 -0500

If you read Gladwell's article it seems that drivers of smaller cars are more likely to avoid accidents in the first place since a Jetta, for example, handles better than most SUVs. I don't know about you, but if I were to buy a car I'd rather get the one that would help me avoid the accident altogether rather than the one that would get in more accidents but help me survive them. Call me crazy, but I'm not too fond of whiplash or trips to the body shop. And actually, Sterling, it really depends on what kind of "fixed" object you are talking about. Sure, an SUV is more likely to take out a parking meter or mailbox at 5 mph. Fine. But what about a concrete barrier, embankment or wall? As mentioned before, sedans have crumple zones that take the energy of the accident and disperse it before it reaches the driver. SUVs have no (or little) crumple zones, thereby sending a larger amount of energy to the driver, snapping him forward, backward and any which way.

Sterling

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:46:47 -0500

I am willing to yield on the Hummer going out of style (it is kinda fugly) but not on safety. In an accident with any other vehicle, the Hummer occupant is more likely to walk away. This is simply because the Hummer is 4 tons of steel. It is based on a military design and is overbuilt. In collisions with fixed objects, the Hummer occupants are also more likely to survive, in part because a 4-ton Hummer is more likely to "unfix" the object than a 1.5 ton Jetta. I can't believe you're seriously trying to make an argument that a person would be safer in a little coupe than in a Hummer. Silly.

optimus

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:47:16 -0500

the most effective counterargument: (1) face prospective H2 owner (2) look at owner, look at H2, look back at owner. (3) place thumb and forefinger about an inch and a half apart and smirk. if you want a more cerebral argument, there was an article in harper's several years ago that did a nice job pulling apart the allure of the SUV boom. (actually, look here --http://www.prelinger.com/suv/harpers.html .. !)

Doug

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:30:02 -0500

Jimbo, You are correct. My apologies.

Jimbo

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:21:34 -0500

Doug, Are you nuts?! Arnold would crush either vehicle and have it driven before him and hear the lamentations of der owners!

Oudemia

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:05:49 -0500

Thank you, Jen. Tra la la.

Doug

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:01:47 -0500

Just look at the picture with the entry. If Arnold were hit by that Hummer, he would go under, not over the car and likely be crushed by one of the H2's giant wheels. In comparison, if he were hit by a smaller car - a Jetta, a NYC taxi, a Lexus sedan, a Chevy Malibu, whatever - he'd stand a chance of surviving because he'd be thrown onto the car's hood and pushed off to the side. Cars typically have "soft" hoods that increase the chance that, should they hit a pedestrian, no one will be killed. It's simple physics.

jen

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:15:19 -0500

tell her to read this: http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html jetta deaths: 70 ford explorer: 148 peep that, sterling. idiot.

Bummer

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:15:13 -0500

i second the Kieth Bradsher book recommendation. Perfect summer reading in a time of high gas prices. it is a fallacy to think that SUVs are safe. SUVs are less safe for their occupant�s because the vehicles themselves have poor handling and poor braking. i'm not sure about Hummers, but many of the other SUVs are also prone to rollovers, which are especially deadly. in addition, SUVs are incredibly dangerous to other vehicles in accidents, especially Non-head-on collisions. due to the disparity in weight and the disparity in bumper heights, there is a great risk of injury to other drivers. as mentioned before, Hummers (and other vehicles greater 8,000 lb) are omitted from the fuel efficiency regulations. this inefficiency increases the dependence on foreign petroleum as well as emitting a great deal of pollution into the already smog filled air.

Tim N.

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:05:37 -0500

Try this... "Honey, you'll look like an a**hole." My wife never fails with that line.

jammypup

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:59:08 -0500

Sterling, I read somewhere that occupants of the larger truck based SUVS were more likely to die inside the truck (than in a car) if it hit something else like a tree. I.e. the comparison is not between a truck hitting a car but a car hitting tree and a truck hitting a tree. Cars have energy absorbing crumple zones that decelerate the forces of an impact quite dramatically. Trucks, being built on a separate box section frame, do not have this so the impact is not absorbed by the body of the truck. Thus the passengers bear the brunt of the impact. Imagine hitting one of those concrete barriers at speed instead of hitting those yellow energy absorbing containers first.

jammypup

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:52:54 -0500

How about simply appealing to the husbands herd mentality? Namely, sales of this model have dropped off a cliff as ppl realize that it is not all that it is cracked out to be. Dealers that used to have ppl fighting over them now have over 50 days worth of inventory. This truck is so over - the husband should be told.

Sterling

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:50:30 -0500

Oudemia - There is NO WAY you have better survivability in a Jetta than a Hummer. No way. And Doug - who cares? It's just a car. And it's fun, and you can drive over other cars if they get in your way.

Oudemia

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:43:43 -0500

There is a great article on SUVs in an early January New Yorker. Does not seem to be available online, unfortunately. People riding in SUVs are more likely to die than people riding in the subcompact Jetta.

Doug

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:29:07 -0500

Living on an island - Manhattan or Long Island, for example - means that a car would probably be useless in the event of any sort of "urban apocalypse." I seem to remember tunnels and bridges being shut down on 9/11 and during the blackout last summer. Sterling, the woman gave no indication that the vehicle would only be driven on weekends. And besides, a smaller, more efficient car emits less polution than a Hummer even when it is only driven on weekends.

Sterling

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:08:53 -0500

How bad could it be for the environment when it's only going to be driven on weekends? Get the Hummer: lots of useful cargo space, and unstoppable in the event of urban apocalypse. (There's an optional ski rack you can get, if you have the skylight option, which doubles as a mounting bracket for an .80 caliber machine gun.) If you have kids, there's no safer vehicle for them to ride in - throw weight equals security.

brooklynlady

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:53:33 -0500

Help me, I'm rich and my 'problem' is trying to convince hubby not to buy an expensive toy. Alright, that was kind of unfair - good for wifey for having a social conscience. Those Hummers should be illegal in NYC.

Ruidh

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:05:05 -0500

What is it with Tonka yellow trucks? Do the people who buy them not realize that everyone knows they had an unfufilling childhood?