Does anyone else hate Hummer owners?

Adam Locked wrote:

I hate Hybrid car owners, and all their sumg!

Yes, a lot of these dumbasses don't realize that the total negative impact on the environment with their hybrids can actually be MORE than an SUV like the Chevy Tahoe.

Those batteries in hybrids aren't very environmentally-friendly.

i don't disgree with the objective of conservation. i don't disagree that the H2 is a joke.

i'm bewildered that you (all) would condemn an H2, when eliminating all of them won't make a measureable difference. after all, it's not like H2 owners' 2nd choice is a hybrid civic or a bicycle. while at the same time you end up deemphasizing worse offenders - i would bet you'd be equally up in arms if we tried to ban older cars that get bad mileage and pollute more. can't target the lower class's and (gasp) illegal aliens' rights to affordable transportation.

it's all symbolic, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It's not all sound and fury. Some guy driving an '86 Caprice because he got it for $500 and can't afford anything else is in a different category than someone in a Hummer or a Navigator because they can afford to be. The former may be polluting and consuming resources but has little choice. The former is doing the same but is choosing to.

It's the US. We have a tradition of conspicuous consumption. But those who consume conspicuously are going to get mixed reactions and it's as legitimate to be disgusted by someone who drives a Hummer as it is to be impressed by one. People who drive Hummers have the right to do so. People who are disgusted by Hummer owners have the right to be. If you have a Hummer and are bothered by the disdain many of us hold you in, you've got all that metal and plush interior to protect you and you knew when you bought the car what some people's reactions would be.

True, batteries are not environmentally friendly in general, however, you must consider two things: First, battery technology has been changing rapidly over the past 20 years. Today's batteries are nothing like what we had even a decade ago and I doubt that the batteries coming on line over the next several years will be anything like what we have now (hey, just try to buy a AA NiCd these days-good luck). Second, the batteries in a hybrid last for pretty much the life of the car (or so say Honda and Toyota), and once they are past their useful life, the components of the batteries can be recycled (I understand that Toyota already has a recycling program in place). But hey, let's say for the sake of argument that the batteries die prematurely at 100,000 miles and CAN'T be recycled. Seeing that the hybrid probably has double the mileage of the aforementioned SUV (and I'm talking about a large hybrid, not a Prius which is around 60 MPG), the hybrid will have saved around 50,000 miles work of fuel. At 16 MPG (the combined rating of the Tahoe), that's around 3000 gallons of fuel that the hybrid didn't burn. That's a serious environmental impact, and remember, this assumes a short life for the batteries and NO recycling.

I'm afraid your claim doesn't wash.

Perhaps not, but the Hummer is emblematic of a larger problem and I don't think anyone is saying that only Hummers should be the target of any sort of regulation or what-have-you (although that is how the thread started).

Again, no one is trying to "ban" SUVs so this is a non-starter.

You make a compelling case for raising the minimum wage and creating a workable equal-access health care system, as well as improved mass-transit!

Interesting factoid: In spite of the increases in technology applied to automobiles such as electronic fuel injection, superior tires, engine management systems, etc., the fleet average fuel economy of today is around 10% WORSE than it was 20 years ago. Why? Because today's vehicles are larger and have MUCH larger engines. Light trucks and SUVs made up only 25% or so of the fleet back in the 80's yet today they make up something like 50%. If we simply went back to driving the same size cars that we used 20 years ago, we could save 10% on fuel and still have higher performance (thanks to the added technology).

JimFiore wrote:

studmuffin wrote:

...the ability to pay for and own a hummer (without going massively into debt) is a clear symbol of worldly success.

Sure, if you define "worldy success" strictly in terms of financial wherewithall, but does money give people the right to do anything? Not everyone would define worldy success that way and many would not define their personal success solely in terms of their ability to acquire more consumer goods.

They are wrong.

In regards to your last point, 20 years ago, there were at least 30-40 million less population in the ol' USA? Auto companies just like any other business are out there to make a profit. Point is, consumers want SUVs and big cars and that's the market today. 20 years ago, we were driving station wagons. Americans always drove larger cars as compared to Europe.

First, the fact that there are X more people makes no difference as I was talking about percentages of vehicles. Second, never confuse what you WANT with what you NEED.

The fact remains that if, on average, the country went back to the size vehicles used 20 years ago, we'd be using 10% less fuel while getting better performance than we did at that time. Whether or not those cars were smaller or larger than contemporary European vehicles doesn't change the fact either.

Your debutante knows what you NEED.

You might want to check www.fuh2.com

What is worse to you

1. Driving a Hummer

2. Wearing a IPOD running and calling yourself a runner

Good site.

There have been some great posts by HRE and Jim regarding this subject. What I find so interesting and really telling are the responses people make when confronted with the idea of responsibility limiting their behavior for the good of others. It strikes many as an extreme notion made by self righteous radicals.

So many of the posts try to rationalize behavior that is clearly not in the country's best interests by arguments that (1) others things waste more energy. (2) personal attacks (3) this individual waste doesn't make that big of difference.

Its such an alien concept to many the idea of limiting behavior for the good of others.

Is it that some people when they were kids never heard the word, "NO".

reality check wrote:

Is it that some people when they were kids never heard the word, "NO".

No, it's just that some people actually have the ability to get what they want and aren't ashamed to do so.

i took a piss in a h2's gass tank before. then the silent alarm went off and the owner came out, and i ran away. he didnt catch me.

Although this is clearly irrelevant to the argument, I guessing that those have have posted against waste on this board may have a greater yearly income.

As far as not being ashamed, when you act in a way that unnecessarily wastes a limited valued commodity, shame may not be a bad thing to feel.

No, it's just that some people actually have the ability to get what they want and aren't ashamed to do so.[/quote]

pompadour wrote:

[quote]LeVee James wrote:

Get yourself a Nissan Tundra if you want a large but fun-to-drive vehicle.

Didn't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if its been said buuuuuuuuut:

Hey assface, the Tundra is made by Toyota, not Nissan. They make the Titan.

Jim Fiore,

You need some new sources of info. Literally almost every post I see from you has some sort of misinformation in it (or specualtion that you present as fact). The batteries in hybrid cars do not last the life of the car.

I am curious what you hate more --

The suburbs

SUVs

People who have children

"Big Oil"

Wal Mart

People who go to church

The latest cause celebre that makes you feel righteous

The H2 is actually just a Tahoe with different clothing. Really, they're built on the exact same platform.

I think that's about the 80th link to fuh2.com. ENOUGH ALREADY, WE'VE SEEN IT.