0
SUVs and the dumbing-down process
21 March 2005
I have come to the conclusion, after much observation and contemplation, that SUV drivers have chosen their vehicle to compensate for other shortcomings in their lives.
Just like some short people compensate for their lack of height by being tyrants or powermongers, or by wearing high-heeled shoes, SUV drivers seem to compensate for their lack of intelligence or social skills by driving aggressively, rudely and extremely poorly in a large, gas-guzzling, butt-ugly and dangerous vehicle.
It has been suggested that male SUV drivers are compensating for a small penis, but without direct observation (and I don't wish to do the field work...) I suspect that this does not always apply. In fact, I would hazard a guess that some male SUV drivers are normally endowed farmers and lumberjacks who actually need a four wheel drive vehicle for their livelihoods.
As for the others, that might make an amusing topic in some graduate essay... Surely not all of them are suburbanites.
And it would be equally false to suggest that all female SUV drivers are blondes. Some may simply be driving their husband's car while theirs is in the shop.
SUVs are the modern codpiece. Unlike medieval clothing accessories which had a limited physiological focus, SUVs compensate for a wide range of inadequacies. Not least of all they compensate for the lack of common sense in their owners.
They are proof of the superiority of marketing over thinking.
SUVs are merely overdressed pick-up trucks, a fact many urban drivers don't wish to know because it spoils the image they have of themselves. SUVs are classified by manufacturers in the same category - "light trucks" mostly because the US government exempted light trucks from the requirements to lower emissions. Hence the ferment of marketing effort to sell these bloated, gas-guzzling, butt-ugly behemoths as "sports" and "family" vehicles.
Isn't language wonderful? Any tinpot dictatorship can call itself "the people's republic" of something or other, and every misogynist, bigoted republican can call himself a "compassionate conservative." Old, tired products call themselves "new and improved." Tedious country performers disguise their derivative pap as "crossover music" to get it played on pop stations. Pit bulls get called "family pets."
Truck manufacturers simply followed suit, telling buyers they weren't buying a clumsy, awkward, inefficient truck - no; they were buying a nimble, perky, family-lifestyle-oriented SUV. Hell, if people could be convinced smoking was sexy, cool and good for them, why wouldn't they believe this nonsense?
Then they give their models suggestive, emotive, even evocative names - like Expedition, Tuareg, Yukon, Excursion, Navigator, Tracker, Durango, Cherokee, Kahuna, Typhoon, Tundra, Rover, Frontier, Highlander, or the sloppily mis-spelled Aztek. Instead, of course, of the more truthful Lumpy, Bulbous, Grunty, Top Heavy, Sluggish, Spewing, Guzzler and Butt-Ugly.
Initially it was only the gullible and naive who fell for the marketing line of malarky - simple, uncomplicated but ambitious people who only use their brains to keep their ears from imploding into their nasal cavity. But if you advertise something enough, tell people it's great often and long enough, people will eventually believe it. That's because 90% of all North American consumers get their information from TV, and TV is paid for by the advertising of the companies, including those selling ugly, clumsy trucks craftily disguised as sporting vehicles.
People who can read, people who are critical consumers, who choose their purchases carefully instead of making decisions based on a TV commercial, don't buy SUVs because they are critical consumers. However, we live in a culture of TV watchers who think Seinfeld is actually funny and the Simpsons is profound social commentary.
It's like Wal-Mart: tell people often enough it's cheaper and it's all American-made and people will actually believe it no matter how many articles, newspapers and magazine reports debunk it. Much the way they believe in Santa Claus, astrology and George Bush, people believe in SUV ads.
In the same way, naive folk actually believe it's spontaneous "reality" tv and not something as heavily scripted and choreographed as the WWF. You can laugh at these people, but they really do believe it!
Nowadays it seems well-educated, successful people buy SUVs. But don't be misled by superficial appearances. It's merely proof that advertising is superior to critical thinking. And that speaks volumes about our society - not to mention the acceleratingly sorry state of education that produces them.
And to distract the owners from actually contemplating the true relevance of their purchase, the manufacturers fill these dinosaurs with all sorts of gadgets - including TV sets and game/DVD players. It would take a truly diabolical mind to put a TV set into a several-ton vehicle that is already a road hazard. But it would take a truly dim mind to actually buy one with such a distracting device installed. Of course, they have to have a GPS because it's easy to get lost on the way to the mall, you know... without a GPS drivers would actually have to read street signs, or worse; a map, or even memorize the directions.
According to a recent report, the Chevy Blazer was recently named the world's most dangerous vehicle. (Reuters, March 15, 2005):
I almost peed myself laughing the first time I encountered an automatic-transmission SUV with a tachometer. Automatic transmission is the antithesis of all those ads showing SUVs climbing up mountains or driving in the Outback. Real drivers don't drive automatics: beginners and suburbanites do. A tach on an automatic is simply hilarious. It really shows how silly and gullible some people are. The driver, of course, had no idea why I found it funny. To him, it was another of those "essential" gadgets in his SUV.
Somehow, SUVs became icons of success, of a freewheeling, hip lifestyle, much the same way Shania Twain or the Spice Girls have become the icons of progressive jazz. (That's called sarcasm...
)
I guess I still have that "smaller is better" mentality when it comes to consumption, vehicles, fuel and energy use. It's something I learned in the 60s, back in the days when there was a strong environmental consciousness (and conscience). My current car is an Echo hatchback - as small as I could afford. You can imagine how I feel on the highway squeezed between a couple of iron mastodons racing to the mall, their drivers too busy on their cell phones or checking their GPS to notice a little car like mine.
SUV drivers aren't the only idiots on the road, but they seem to make up a significant majority of them. I think it's because they believe the marketing crap about their vehicles being tough, dependable and able to meet any challenge (rather than prone to roll, sluggish handling and bloated). Marketing execs are like politicians. How can you tell when they're lying to you? When their mouth is open...
I personally believe the reason SUV drivers are so astoundingly, egregriously bad is because their cabs are airtight and they quickly consume all the oxygen available as they drive, making them stupid. I'm sure they regain some level of intelligence as soon as they pull into the mall and open the door... but some of the damage appears to be irreversible, because they're soon back in the showroom looking at next year's model - bigger, gaudier, clumsier.
In our lengthy winter up here, with several months of heavy snow and ice, plus limited visibility and treacherous corners, sane drivers slow down and use more caution on the streets. SUV drivers, on the other hand, seem to race over the speed limit without concern - because theirs is a four-wheel-drive vehicle. Therefore they must be invulnerable, invincible. As a result, from my observations, the highest number of vehicles in accidents or pulled from ditches is SUVs. Every year the story repeats itself.
True, some of the problem up here is city drivers who treat narrow country roads or our small town streets like expressways regardless of conditions, visibility or weather. We call them "citiots."
To be fair, not all of them drive SUVs. We also see our share of pickup truck idiots. Being two minutes from the countryside with its numerous farms and orchards, and a booming community with lots of construction work, it's easy to understand why a lot of people own pick-ups. What baffles me are the people who don't need them to carry stuff. Why would anyone living in the suburbs want a truck for highway driving, mall shopping and going out to dinner? It's not like they are efficient, much less attractive.
And don't get me started on the jacked-up "mud boggers" who create their own monster trucks that require a stepladder to get into... and some of them even drive these monstrosities into the wilderness to gleefully race up and down, destroying whatever environment they can reach, taking special delight in finding some pristine spot to mar. They fit in my mind right alongside Republicans and crossover country singers.
Me, I like small cars - like the old Isetta, the perfect size for most urban driving. I would have bought a Mini if the price wasn't so outrageous. I love the new Smart Car, too. Another perfect size. Most of us don't need anything larger. Small cars are more environmentally friendly, handle better and look terrific.
Besides, in a Freudian sense, small vehicles make you appear much larger. The normal driver looks small and frail exiting from any SUV. That certainly reflects on his or her sexual capabilities. In contrast, I (of average height and girth) appear larger, more masculine and potent as I exit my tiny Echo.
Were I much younger and still in my mating dance days, my small car would speak large about my suitability as a potential mate. It says I have all I need to perform adequately - maybe more than enough! - I don't need to compensate by driving a behemoth or wearing high heeled shoes.
Just like some short people compensate for their lack of height by being tyrants or powermongers, or by wearing high-heeled shoes, SUV drivers seem to compensate for their lack of intelligence or social skills by driving aggressively, rudely and extremely poorly in a large, gas-guzzling, butt-ugly and dangerous vehicle.
It has been suggested that male SUV drivers are compensating for a small penis, but without direct observation (and I don't wish to do the field work...) I suspect that this does not always apply. In fact, I would hazard a guess that some male SUV drivers are normally endowed farmers and lumberjacks who actually need a four wheel drive vehicle for their livelihoods.
As for the others, that might make an amusing topic in some graduate essay... Surely not all of them are suburbanites.
And it would be equally false to suggest that all female SUV drivers are blondes. Some may simply be driving their husband's car while theirs is in the shop.
SUVs are the modern codpiece. Unlike medieval clothing accessories which had a limited physiological focus, SUVs compensate for a wide range of inadequacies. Not least of all they compensate for the lack of common sense in their owners.
They are proof of the superiority of marketing over thinking.
SUVs are merely overdressed pick-up trucks, a fact many urban drivers don't wish to know because it spoils the image they have of themselves. SUVs are classified by manufacturers in the same category - "light trucks" mostly because the US government exempted light trucks from the requirements to lower emissions. Hence the ferment of marketing effort to sell these bloated, gas-guzzling, butt-ugly behemoths as "sports" and "family" vehicles.
Isn't language wonderful? Any tinpot dictatorship can call itself "the people's republic" of something or other, and every misogynist, bigoted republican can call himself a "compassionate conservative." Old, tired products call themselves "new and improved." Tedious country performers disguise their derivative pap as "crossover music" to get it played on pop stations. Pit bulls get called "family pets."
Truck manufacturers simply followed suit, telling buyers they weren't buying a clumsy, awkward, inefficient truck - no; they were buying a nimble, perky, family-lifestyle-oriented SUV. Hell, if people could be convinced smoking was sexy, cool and good for them, why wouldn't they believe this nonsense?
Then they give their models suggestive, emotive, even evocative names - like Expedition, Tuareg, Yukon, Excursion, Navigator, Tracker, Durango, Cherokee, Kahuna, Typhoon, Tundra, Rover, Frontier, Highlander, or the sloppily mis-spelled Aztek. Instead, of course, of the more truthful Lumpy, Bulbous, Grunty, Top Heavy, Sluggish, Spewing, Guzzler and Butt-Ugly.
Initially it was only the gullible and naive who fell for the marketing line of malarky - simple, uncomplicated but ambitious people who only use their brains to keep their ears from imploding into their nasal cavity. But if you advertise something enough, tell people it's great often and long enough, people will eventually believe it. That's because 90% of all North American consumers get their information from TV, and TV is paid for by the advertising of the companies, including those selling ugly, clumsy trucks craftily disguised as sporting vehicles.
People who can read, people who are critical consumers, who choose their purchases carefully instead of making decisions based on a TV commercial, don't buy SUVs because they are critical consumers. However, we live in a culture of TV watchers who think Seinfeld is actually funny and the Simpsons is profound social commentary.
It's like Wal-Mart: tell people often enough it's cheaper and it's all American-made and people will actually believe it no matter how many articles, newspapers and magazine reports debunk it. Much the way they believe in Santa Claus, astrology and George Bush, people believe in SUV ads.
In the same way, naive folk actually believe it's spontaneous "reality" tv and not something as heavily scripted and choreographed as the WWF. You can laugh at these people, but they really do believe it!
Nowadays it seems well-educated, successful people buy SUVs. But don't be misled by superficial appearances. It's merely proof that advertising is superior to critical thinking. And that speaks volumes about our society - not to mention the acceleratingly sorry state of education that produces them.
And to distract the owners from actually contemplating the true relevance of their purchase, the manufacturers fill these dinosaurs with all sorts of gadgets - including TV sets and game/DVD players. It would take a truly diabolical mind to put a TV set into a several-ton vehicle that is already a road hazard. But it would take a truly dim mind to actually buy one with such a distracting device installed. Of course, they have to have a GPS because it's easy to get lost on the way to the mall, you know... without a GPS drivers would actually have to read street signs, or worse; a map, or even memorize the directions.
According to a recent report, the Chevy Blazer was recently named the world's most dangerous vehicle. (Reuters, March 15, 2005):
Quote
The overall driver death rate, for 199 models studied during the 2000-2003 calendar years, was 87 per million registered vehicles annually, the Insurance Institute said.
Weighing in at more than three times the overall rate, the Insurance Institute said the two-door, two-wheel-drive Blazer — a midsize sport utility vehicle — had an average of 308 driver deaths per million. The Blazer also had the highest rate of driver deaths in rollover accidents at 251 per million.
Highlighting a longstanding trend, the Insurance Institute said “large cars and minivans dominate among vehicle models with very low death rates.” Models with the highest rates are ”mostly small cars and small and midsize SUVs,” it said
Weighing in at more than three times the overall rate, the Insurance Institute said the two-door, two-wheel-drive Blazer — a midsize sport utility vehicle — had an average of 308 driver deaths per million. The Blazer also had the highest rate of driver deaths in rollover accidents at 251 per million.
Highlighting a longstanding trend, the Insurance Institute said “large cars and minivans dominate among vehicle models with very low death rates.” Models with the highest rates are ”mostly small cars and small and midsize SUVs,” it said
I almost peed myself laughing the first time I encountered an automatic-transmission SUV with a tachometer. Automatic transmission is the antithesis of all those ads showing SUVs climbing up mountains or driving in the Outback. Real drivers don't drive automatics: beginners and suburbanites do. A tach on an automatic is simply hilarious. It really shows how silly and gullible some people are. The driver, of course, had no idea why I found it funny. To him, it was another of those "essential" gadgets in his SUV.
Somehow, SUVs became icons of success, of a freewheeling, hip lifestyle, much the same way Shania Twain or the Spice Girls have become the icons of progressive jazz. (That's called sarcasm...
)I guess I still have that "smaller is better" mentality when it comes to consumption, vehicles, fuel and energy use. It's something I learned in the 60s, back in the days when there was a strong environmental consciousness (and conscience). My current car is an Echo hatchback - as small as I could afford. You can imagine how I feel on the highway squeezed between a couple of iron mastodons racing to the mall, their drivers too busy on their cell phones or checking their GPS to notice a little car like mine.
SUV drivers aren't the only idiots on the road, but they seem to make up a significant majority of them. I think it's because they believe the marketing crap about their vehicles being tough, dependable and able to meet any challenge (rather than prone to roll, sluggish handling and bloated). Marketing execs are like politicians. How can you tell when they're lying to you? When their mouth is open...
I personally believe the reason SUV drivers are so astoundingly, egregriously bad is because their cabs are airtight and they quickly consume all the oxygen available as they drive, making them stupid. I'm sure they regain some level of intelligence as soon as they pull into the mall and open the door... but some of the damage appears to be irreversible, because they're soon back in the showroom looking at next year's model - bigger, gaudier, clumsier.
In our lengthy winter up here, with several months of heavy snow and ice, plus limited visibility and treacherous corners, sane drivers slow down and use more caution on the streets. SUV drivers, on the other hand, seem to race over the speed limit without concern - because theirs is a four-wheel-drive vehicle. Therefore they must be invulnerable, invincible. As a result, from my observations, the highest number of vehicles in accidents or pulled from ditches is SUVs. Every year the story repeats itself.
True, some of the problem up here is city drivers who treat narrow country roads or our small town streets like expressways regardless of conditions, visibility or weather. We call them "citiots."
To be fair, not all of them drive SUVs. We also see our share of pickup truck idiots. Being two minutes from the countryside with its numerous farms and orchards, and a booming community with lots of construction work, it's easy to understand why a lot of people own pick-ups. What baffles me are the people who don't need them to carry stuff. Why would anyone living in the suburbs want a truck for highway driving, mall shopping and going out to dinner? It's not like they are efficient, much less attractive.
And don't get me started on the jacked-up "mud boggers" who create their own monster trucks that require a stepladder to get into... and some of them even drive these monstrosities into the wilderness to gleefully race up and down, destroying whatever environment they can reach, taking special delight in finding some pristine spot to mar. They fit in my mind right alongside Republicans and crossover country singers.
Me, I like small cars - like the old Isetta, the perfect size for most urban driving. I would have bought a Mini if the price wasn't so outrageous. I love the new Smart Car, too. Another perfect size. Most of us don't need anything larger. Small cars are more environmentally friendly, handle better and look terrific.
Besides, in a Freudian sense, small vehicles make you appear much larger. The normal driver looks small and frail exiting from any SUV. That certainly reflects on his or her sexual capabilities. In contrast, I (of average height and girth) appear larger, more masculine and potent as I exit my tiny Echo.
Were I much younger and still in my mating dance days, my small car would speak large about my suitability as a potential mate. It says I have all I need to perform adequately - maybe more than enough! - I don't need to compensate by driving a behemoth or wearing high heeled shoes.
