Comments on: SUV Luv

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:25:09 +0000

Oh good, I’ll get the last word then, in which to say again (my turn to repeat patiently) that I’m not dissembling, nor hair-splitting, nor using diversionary tactics. Also to repeat that it’s bad behavior to call people loonies, and to say they’re dissembling based on one’s own (incorrect) interpretation of their comments. It’s even worse to refuse to admit the bad behavior and to deliver a lecture instead. It is, in short, rude, pompous, and tawdry.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:48:33 +0000

You can keep saying the Sun is the Moon, but that doesn’t make it so. (Ophelia, or Kate?) You wrote (and I’ll quote for the third time): “The car was deliberately designed in such a way that it is inherently dangerous to millions and millions of cars already on the road.” I paraphrased: “SUVs [are] deliberately designed to be be dangerous…” In your rebuttal comment, you also wrote: “Inadvertent harm, byproduct harm – those are just as harmful as deliberate, malicious harm.” Notice the use of the word “deliberate” in that last sentence. In it, the word “deliberate” does not merely mean “with deliberation”, it means “intentionally”. In the first sentence, its connotation is more ambiguous—it’s more arguably “with deliberation”. However, the word “designed” itself implies “with deliberation”. Using “deliberately” as a qualifier of “designed” can only connote a specific design…a specific design deliberated to result in inherent danger to other vehicles. However, you also include the qualifier “in such a way” which mitigates this. Still, avoiding the word “deliberately” would have avoided the connotation of “intention”, as would a few other choices such as “knowingly”. That you undertsand “deliberately” to have such a connotation is clear from your other usage, which is unambiguous. The overall effect is that you know what is true (they are not designed with the intent that they be dangerous), but wanted the rhetorical force of the implication. This is because you are outraged at what you correctly perceive as negligence. But you felt the need to gild the lilly. And then you made two risible accusations that I doubt you really do believe and that you haven’t bothered to attempt to defend. If you don’t want to be called a loony, don’t say lunatic things. You went off the deep end with your comment. Personally, I think you got over-excited and a little drunk on your rhetoric. Definitely something I’ve done from time to time. It’s best to admit it gracefully rather than take the usual low-road of hair-splitting and diversionary tactics. And that’s really all I have to say about your comment.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:48:48 +0000

Blimey, Mr Ellis – who do you think you are? I am not dissembling. Nor am I lying. I know what my quote said, since I just quoted it. I meant ‘deliberately’ but I meant it in the sentence I said, not in your inaccurate paraphrase. The point of the word ‘deliberately’ is that the designers must have been aware of how dangerous that would be to other cars – they are engineers after all! – and designed it that way anyway. Deliberately. I.e. in reckless disregard for the consequences to other people. No, I didn’t ‘defend’ my hyperbole, I don’t have time to go over every single word, I don’t in fact have time for this, but you’re so irritatingly rude I’m stealing some. I don’t actually feel a need to ‘defend’ everything I say against what you choose to accuse me of. I did not intend to blur the distinction. I am not dissembling. Okay? Now if you want to disagree with me, could you kindly manage to do it without calling me either a liar or loony? Do you not realize that telling people they’re dissembling is not good manners? Does it not strike you that I haven’t said anything to you that would warrant such gratuitous rudeness? Because it certainly strikes me.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:41:50 +0000

Ms. Benson: no, you are dissembling. Here is your quote: “The car was deliberately designed in such a way that it is inherently dangerous to millions and millions of cars already on the road.” I am fully aware that you are aware that SUVs aren’t actually designed to be dangerous. I am also aware that the tone of your post, your other (undefended, I note) hyperbole, and the exact wording of the quote in question, specifically the inclusion of the word “deliberately” all strongly indicate that you intended to blur the distinction between “designed to be dangerous” and “designed in such a way that they are in fact dangerous”. If you want to be held strictly accountable only to the letter and not to the spirit, then quit inflating your spirit with so much heated rhetoric. And if you truly believe your other two quotes, you are loony. If you don’t really, then what can we make of your demand to be read carefully and taken literally? This poses a conundrum for you—a conundrum I think would be nicely solved if you wrote with more responsibility.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:08:10 +0000

Oops! I read carelessly myself. Mea culpa. Pot to kettle: sorry. Bad, bad. It’s not some of you who read carelessly, it’s just one of you: Keith Ellis, who misreads and misparaphrases what I said and then calls my views loony. Take it easy with the snotty comments, dude, if you’re not going to address what people actually say.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:02:26 +0000

Oh, and Keith Ellis, to answer you on your own level – ‘No.’ Yes.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:01:27 +0000

Hmm. Some of you guys seem to be careless readers, frankly. “SUVs aren’t deliberately designed to be be dangerous;” I didn’t say they were. That’s careless reading. I said something different – and this is not a quibble, this is the center of the argument. I said, ‘they are designed and built in such a way that their bumpers are above those of smaller cars, right?’ Not that they are designed to be dangerous, but that they are designed in such a way that they are in fact dangerous. Please tell me you can see the difference – it’s so basic. It’s so basic to a lot of things – such as why one is not supposed to drive with insane recklessness even though one’s intention in doing it may be just to get where one is going sooner than everyone else. Inadvertent harm, byproduct harm – those are just as harmful as deliberate, malicious harm. Grownups are supposed to have learned things like that. You know, as in ‘Don’t swing your arms around that way while you have that stick in your hand, you might – oh now look what you’ve done.’

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:01:39 +0000

“I think there are practical engineering steps that can be taken which would not cost all that much…” I agree. But they would cost, and as the SUV market is very competitive, consumers are very price-aware. Given that, I support a regulatory solution. I’d like to end the CAFE loopholes for SUVs, and I’d like to see some of the safety improvements you allude to required by regulation. (Within reason, of course.)

By: David W.

David W. — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:50:03 +0000

Mr. Ellis, you’re correct in noting the problem is one of vehicle disparity, which is why having cars that are vulnerable in collisions with higher, stiffer SUV/LTs (LT=LightTruck) is a problem. Whether or not a buyer is deliberately intending to pose a greater danger to a car isn’t the problem either, as you also correctly note. However as the disparity in vehicle sizes has increased over the past 10 years, we’re now seeing more deaths and severe injuries in car-SUV/LT collisions. I think there are practical engineering steps that can be taken which would not cost all that much, starting with putting a limit on bumper height, much as a limit has already been put on how low a car may ride.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:15:23 +0000

“If sales of 8,000+ pound vehicles that were three feet high started rising because drivers wanted the option of having a swimming pool in the back of their vehicle, why, according to you all those drivers of vehicles weighing 4,000 pounds are now responsible for their being more likely to die in collisions with them.” You misunderstood me. In my motorcycle example, it is the autmobile owners who are responsible for the motorcyclists’ deaths, not the motorcyclists. Just as it is, supposedly, the responsibility of the SUV owners now, and, in your example, would be the responsibility of the 8,000+ pound vehicle owners. If, however, you personally think that motorcyclists are responsible for their own risk-taking in being on the road with automobiles, then you might ask yourself why you don’t think the same of non-SUV owners with regards to SUVs. My point was that the moral calculus of the anti-SUV camp is simplistic and, probably, self-serving. To be consistent, it should equally apply to motorcycles vs. other vehicles, and you’re an example of someone who’s unwilling to be consistent in this way. I’d agree with Ms. Benson’s view if I agreed with her assumptions. Sadly, I think her assumptions are loony. SUVs aren’t deliberately designed to be be dangerous; SUV owners don’t purchase them in order to be dangerous to other vehicles. Perhaps some are attracted to their imposing presence, but I’m quite certain that SUVs’ other characteristics are far more compelling to most purchasers. In terms of safety, the public policy issue here is one of the danger of a large disparity in vehicle weights that results in a difficulty of designing vehicles that are mutually safe. If everyone drove SUVs, this issue would dissapear. The danger is not inherent in the SUVs, it’s in the disparity. If greatly increased fuel efficiency standards resulted in a burgeoning American ultra-compact and two-wheeled vehicle market, the result would be a transition of the same exact problem except between a lighter class of mismatched vehicles. Yes, the problem would likely be somewhat less severe (due to the less overall kinetic energy involved), but it would still be significant. In terms of energy consumption, SUVs are wasteful. I don’t deny that. But their waste is but a drop in the bucket and trivial compared to the average American energy expenditure.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:52:42 +0000

“The car was deliberately designed in such a way that it is inherently dangerous to millions and millions of cars already on the road.” No. “It’s based on appealing to people’s desire to say ‘Get the hell out of my way I’m driving a great big huge car and if you don’t I’ll mash you so ha.’” Also, no. “people who buy them thinking ‘If I get in a crash I want it to be the other people who are killed not me so I’ll be the one in the bigger car because that’s safer for me and more dangerous for other people hurrah.’” Again, no. One last quote of yours: “I find all this suspicion and amateur psychology extremely odd.” Now read the first three again.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:42:03 +0000

I find all this suspicion and amateur psychology extremely odd. I don’t feel “virtuous” for finding SUVs disgusting, I just find them disgusting, period. Look – they are designed and built in such a way that their bumpers are above those of smaller cars, right? Nobody even disputes that, right? How much thought does it take to realize that in a collision, that’s going to mean the SUV slices right into the smaller car? That’s the part that’s disgusting! Got that? I don’t pat myself on the back or feel smug or organic or holier than thou or crunchy for saying that; why should I? I don’t feel virtuous for saying, oh, that a strong robust young man who pushes down and kicks a frail 85-year-old woman is disgusting, either. The car was deliberately designed in such a way that it is inherently dangerous to millions and millions of cars already on the road. And then there’s the matter of marketing – take a look at that sometime. It’s based on appealing to people’s desire to say ‘Get the hell out of my way I’m driving a great big huge car and if you don’t I’ll mash you so ha.’ It’s not at all that the SUV-haters are virtuous, it’s that there’s something badly wrong with the people who sell the damn things, and quite a lot wrong with the people who buy them thinking ‘If I get in a crash I want it to be the other people who are killed not me so I’ll be the one in the bigger car because that’s safer for me and more dangerous for other people hurrah.’

By: David W.

David W. — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:22:39 +0000

Mr. Ellis, your point about motorcycles unfortunately ignores something obvious when it comes to vehicle safety. If sales of 8,000+ pound vehicles that were three feet high started rising because drivers wanted the option of having a swimming pool in the back of their vehicle, why, according to you all those drivers of vehicles weighing 4,000 pounds are now responsible for their being more likely to die in collisions with them. The matter of how passenger vehicles match up in terms of weight, height and structure is one that merits serious discussion, and not dismissal based on how virtuous one may or may not be. BTW, smaller cars are not necessarily less safe just because they’re small. Vehicle design is far more important than size, with frames designed with crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, reinforced passenger cabins, etc. A new VW Beetle is far more safe than a similar sized Yugo ever was.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:16:32 +0000

“And the problem isn’t CAFE itself: it’s the cost involved in getting emissions certification for cars that have no well-established US presence, which is why you don’t see low-end Volvos, Audis or other European models in the US market. Which is nothing really to do with CAFE, but with the protectionism of the US auto market.” Methinks you have a rather strange definition of “protectionism”. The safety problem here is the mismatch of kinetic energy between vehicles. SUVs are, in isolation, safer than other vehicles. Controlling for all other variables, vehicles have gotten more dangerous as they’ve gotten smaller and lighter. Mr. Bellmore would like us to believe that CAFE causes larger vehicles to be manufactured than Americans would otherwise purchase in order to satisfy American demand for generally larger vehicles. He’s right. What he doesn’t say is that this is because CAFE exempts SUVs from the same standards as passenger vehicles. Following his chain of reasoning, the problem could equally be solved by removing the loopholes for SUVs. Odd that he doesn’t suggest that solution. But, no matter. Because there’s some problems in general with this safety argument. Remember, what it’s all about is the physical disparity between SUVs and smaller vehicles. And, the thing is, that applies to, say, motorcycles and all other vehicles. Indeed, the conservation argument applies as well. So I suggest that we all consider villifying all four-wheeled vehicle owners because A) their vehicles are inherently dangerous to two-wheeled vehicle passengers in a collision (even moreso than is the case between SUVs and other vehicles), and B) they’re consume far more gasoline than do two-wheeled vehicles. Clearly, automobile owners are purchasing their vehicles in order to be more dangerous to motorcyclists and because they are wasteful and selfish. Right? I don’t deny that there are significant issues here in terms of vehicle safety regulation and energy consumption. I think we should collectively think about these issues and proceed as we agree best. But I am deeply suspicious of the motivations and rationalizations of those who have very strong feelings about this. I think they are both simplifying a complex issue, and are inflating a personal bugbear into a public policy issue (and public morality stance) far, far out of proportion to its inherent importance. There’s something I find, frankly, repugnant about that. Also, frighteningly common.

By: nick

nick — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:20:36 +0000

Another poster made a point I ment to make: smaller cars are actually less safe in any high speed accident: they are simply more likely to, well, crunch. If that’s true (and I’m sceptical of its general truth), it’s only true in the US, and is a consequence of a top-heavy market, in which smaller cars—the much-derided Geo Metro, for instance—are considered the vehicle of the poor and desparate. But, as others have said, raise the cost of petrol to $4/gal and the debate changes. And the problem isn’t CAFE itself: it’s the cost involved in getting emissions certification for cars that have no well-established US presence, which is why you don’t see low-end Volvos, Audis or other European models in the US market. Which is nothing really to do with CAFE, but with the protectionism of the US auto market.