SUV Luv

No, SUVs are like steroids. Too much muscle and no experience controlling it. Too many 100 pound soccermoms trying to manhandle a three ton truck around and failing miserably. They can’t make corners, they can’t park, they can’t see other smaller vehicles and they overestimate their ability vis a vis the truck. And kids in SUVs are far, far worse… those morons think “300 horsepower is fast!” but don’t factor in the 5,000 Lb curb weight or horse-and-carriage-like suspension.

They should require a commercial liscense for any vehicle over two tons IMHO.

If people could see headlines like “Poor Family of Four In Toyota Crushed By 7000 pound SUV Driven By Debt-Ridden Suburbanite” more often, they might change their thinking.

SUVs have substantially higher lethality on the roads. Am I allowed to put spikes and hardened bumpers on my car? The purpose of these is to raise the lethality level of my vehicle. Why do we permit vehicles on the road that impose substantially higher risks on drivers as a whole?

It’s not about vehicle choice. It’s about safety, and when it comes to safety, it’s _collective safety_ that matters.

Mr. Ellis, fortunately those cherries of yours aren’t much of a threat to my life if they happen to crash into my car. (Whether the cherry-eater weighs enough to pose such a threat is another matter.) Larger SUVs and trucks do cause more fatalities and severe injuries to those driving smaller vehicles, with a statistician at Ford Motor Company estimating that an additional 1000 people a year are killed because of the SUV/truck – car size mismatch. As Mr. Judson says, this is a collective safety problem and not merely a matter of vehicle choice.

I think Keith has a point–but then, the fact that other things besides SUVs suck and that we (yes, including me) may be a bit hypocritical for focusing rage on SUVs doesn’t change the facts concerning whether SUVs suck.
Mikhel–It sounds like your family are some of the people who have good reason to drive SUVs. If everyone who drove SUVs lived or might live on a small road in mid-coast Maine, I wouldn’t have an issue with them at all. But that’s not where most SUVs are sold. It doesn’t snow as much in, say, DC.
So–another reason I dislike SUVs (given that the roads in Salt Lake seem to get plowed reasonably quick)–they’re damned hard to see around. Often when I’m driving behind an SUV I can’t see the next road signs until the SUV is through the intersection. And if an SUV is parked on the corner, I can’t see the traffic coming into the intersection until I’m practically in it myself.

My argument isn’t that SUVs are needed in all areas of the country, it’s that many people who are anti-SUVs seem to forget that SUVs do serve a purpose.

Obviously, they can be dangerous. When coupled with the fact that they aren’t always needed — and can always be dangerous — they make for an easy target. A smaller and less dangerous alternative, one might argue, should be used because of its greater safety.

Is there a comparable analogy that might lend a more nuanced consideration of the issue? Well, how about swimming pools?

Here’s a decent site for some basic statistics:

http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html

It deals mostly with children, but it will allow me to make my point.

Are swimming pools necessary? Obviously not: swimming pools need only be used during a small part of the year, and even when used they do not need to be used. Indeed, there are safer, environmentally friendly alternatives to swimming pools: for instance, the smaller ‘kiddie’ pools, which take up less space and are less of a safety hazard. Using kiddie pools would almost certainly significantly decrease the number of deaths and hospitalizations caused each year by regular, bigger swimming pools.

Now, substitute “SUVs” for swimming pools, and “car” for kiddie pools. If the analogy doesn’t work, it’s in the sense that SUVs are more necessary than large swimming pools, not less.

If my analogy is even slightly valid, why shouldn’t we advocate getting rid of deep swimming pools in favor of an alternative: foot deep kiddie pools? If it’s so hot outside you’re in danger of dying, a swimming pool isn’t going to save your life: staying inside and drinking lots of water will. Swimming pools account for roughly 4,000 deaths a year, while SUVs account for anywhere from 9,000 to 12,000, depending on where you get your numbers. And those statistics aren’t all that comparable: if we were able to break it down into “deaths per use” or “deaths per unit”, swimming pools would probably begin to look like more of a concern.

The reason most of us are willing to attack SUVs, is due to the link between the automotive industry and government regulation. The government doesn’t regulate because politicians are sleeping in the extended cab with the industry. The industry doesn’t want to regulate because it will cost them a little more money (or even a lot more money) — and, with a wink and a nudge — they don’t get regulated.

Are SUVs needed by everyone that has them? Of course not. But neither is that new thirty-five foot, descending depth swimming pool.

WTF are you all (especially Mr. Henley) talking about????? Lordy.

Post-war America’s booming economy (from refrigerators to delivered milk in glass bottles, a load that would bring a Surburban 2500 flat down on it’s bumpstops) was carted around in Divco and International Harvester 6 cyl. trucks that barely topped 120 hp.

In the Regan era full sized pickups were (and many still are) quite busy hauling construction equipment to horse trailers on today’s superhighways with a little over 200 hp.

But now you need 400hp for a vehicle that nothing actually fits in?

(Actually, you really care about torque, not hp and that means small diesels but I’m not even going to try to explain that…)

Even if you could haul something decent sized (the Avalanche really is a neat idea), there is nothing stupider than spending an extra $1000 a year gassing up an SUV to save $45 in delivery charges. Not to mention the fact that it’s really nice to have 300lb professional mover “Tiny” there to help you position your Norge.

Disclaimer: We have 3 full sized trucks, which are not only 3/4 ton (instead of weeny 1/2 tons) but crew cabs, also. Why piss around? We have cars for daily commutes, though.

mikhael: “Sensitivity” has nothing to do with controllability.

In the larger scheme of things, SUVs are the target of so much animosity not for the low gas mileage but because they’ve become symbols of middle-class decadence. Service vans, mini-vans, pickup trucks, service trucks, jeeps and large cars get the same gas mileage. But the ubiquity of SUVs driven by housewives seems to really annoy the Van Dyke bearded coffee house pseudo-neo-liberal. Something must be done! By the way, my Ford Explorer runs on Ethanol and is indispensable for driving in North Country New York in the winter.

Raise the price of gas to $4/gal and the importance of this issue, not to mention that of a number of fairly lethal precursor issues, becomes greatly diminished.

Mikhal, brake sensitivity has nothing to do with braking distance. That Lincoln Navigator – with some pretty serious technology in it aimed at improving braking including ABS and dual-rate boosters – comes to a shuddering halt from 60 MPH in about 143 feet. Actually not bad… for a three ton vehicle. A Jaguar XJR does it in 115 feet and a Saab 9-5 in 122 feet (credit the heavier Jag’s performance to some big-assed Brembo rotors). As for cheap SUVs, an Isuzu Rodeo takes 156 feet to stop from 60… and it’s lighter than the Jag. A Jeep Cherokee takes 145 feet and it’s lighter than the Saab!

I got nothing against trucks, I drive an F150 myself, but I do hate and fear the people who think they are just like cars. They aren’t and they should require a harder test to be liscensed to drive them.

I didn’t say that the arguments against SUVs don’t have merit. My point was that the animosity against them is disproportionate. They’re a convenient target for an otherwise unfocused rage and disquiet.

The argument in defense of this sort of thing is always “the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good”, a maxim I hold dear. However, my criticism isn’t that we should be doing much, much better and thus we shouldn’t bother doing slightly better, as it is that in these sorts of situations the disproportionate focus is counter-productive since it’s sort of a misdirection of a great deal of energy to a high-profile but relatively low-benefit cause.

For example, this is how I feel about anti-rape activities that focus on stranger-rape. Whether it’s education, or panic regarding a serial rapist, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of rapes are aquaintance rapes and the real threat to women is from aquaintances, not strangers in parking garages. Yet a great deal of energy is directed toward protecting women from the latter–energy that is not directed toward protecting women from the former. I say this as a former rape crisis hospital “advocate”.

What I object to is that people are bad at risk analysis; they’re prone to groupthink; and they’re nearly invariably drawn to emotionally satisfying but practically meaningless political positions.

And what I really object to in this case is that (I believe) the majority of anti-SUV sentiment is a displaced road-rage, the cumulative discomfort of sharing the street with over-large and threatening vehicles which is rationalized with one or two unrelated but convenient moral arguments. Sort of like bombing innocent Iraqis because some Arabs flew jets into the World Trade Center. “Hmm, I have a strong emotional reaction to something. Surely I can rationalize it somehow into a moral imperative?”

And so it goes.

I could be killed by an SUV that runs a stop sign while I’m driving to work. And would be much more likely to die than if it was a car that ran the stop sign.

Matt, you could be killed by any vehicle that runs a stop sign; and I’m not sure that you’d necessarily be more likely to be killed by an SUV going forty miles an hour, or by a Ford Taurus going forty miles an hour. How could you know that you’d be much more likely? If I’m more likely to be killed by a small F10 pickup than an Escort, should we rail against small pickups next?

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.

It seems to me that this is just an issue for people who agree with one another to agree, pat themselves on the back, and make congratulatory remarks on what great people they are. As Mr. Mills said above, “What I object to is that people are bad at risk analysis; they’re prone to groupthink; and they’re nearly invariably drawn to emotionally satisfying but practically meaningless political positions.”

In other words: bleh.

Swimming pool covers. . . Now there’s a political crusade I can get behind: I don’t have a swimming pool!

It forces us to sell more dangerous cars than are really necessary.

OK, I’m utterly fascinated by the logic here. Am I correct in summarizing your paragraph by saying that, rather than lose market share or profitability, they’ll simply kill more people?

If that’s the case, talk about perverse consequences…

“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.

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.’

“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.

“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.)

Oh, and Keith Ellis, to answer you on your own level –

‘No.’

Yes.

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.

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.