February 23, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:SUV safety
Anti-SUV people, of whom there are a lot in my neck of the woulds, like to point out that many SUV's are less safe than sedans. The reason that SUV's are less safe is not, of course, that there is something inherently wrong with the vehicles; it's that people who buy SUV's often drive them like morons. They don't account for the higher center of gravity, trying to take turns as if they were in a sports car, which makes the vehicle roll. They are lulled by the enhanced acceleration that four wheel drive offers in bad conditions, driving as if their stopping ability were also enhanced. (All cars have four-wheel braking, and your average SUV actually stops slower than a normal car, because it's heavier--momentum = mass X velocity.) The truck frame is stiffer than a car frame, so morons lower the tire pressure in order to make the ride feel cushier, which can cause all sorts of exciting accidents.
It seems to me that if you're really interested in reducing accidents, the thing to do is to tell as many people as possible not to drive like morons, rather than taking a grim pleasure in the sight of so many SUV owners going to an early doom. Far be it from me to credit the government for much of anything, but it seems that the attorney general is trying to do just that, with a really adorable graphic that is now my official favourite advertising mascot of the decade. If you ever drive an SUV, you should check it out pronto.
Update My personal view on SUVs is that they have significant negative externalities which might well warrant government regulation. They impede the view of other drivers, forcing them to get an SUV themselves, or sacrifice road visibility. And they guzzle gas, which causes greenhouse warming and land wars in the Middle East. I would like to see a hefty carbon tax, and wouldn't be all that averse to a tax on vehicle height either, and I know that my libertarian readers are going to try to flay me with a dull cheese grater for saying so, but there you are.
I'm even open to arguments that we should do something about the fact that they are more deadly to other drivers in accidents, while keeping their own occupants safer. Not too open, mind you, because I don't want every college student in a Geo to start arguing for taxing everything larger than a tin can, plus the really dangerous vehicles on the road are big trucks, and I'm too familiar with the economics of transportation to want to ride them off the roads. But I could be persuaded, with the right regulatory proposal.
[What about the argument that their bumpers, being higher, tend to kill occupants of other cars? As far as I can tell, there's no actual, y'know, evidence of this; just the fanciful musings of some people who really, really hate SUVs).
So I'm no lover of SUVs. What I don't like is the moralistic way that people go after SUVs. They tell us it's all about the external characteristics of the vehicle: the tendency to kill other drivers, the visibility, the fuel efficiency. Yet, other vehicles that have similar characteristics, like minivans, inspire none of this ire. Now, this isn't an argument that one can't invade Iraq unless one also goes after every tinpot dictator in the world; clearly activists have to choose their battles. But if someone says that they only care about these bad, objective criteria, and not something else, like the demographics of SUV drivers, and then ignore other vehicles that meet those same, objective criteria, I have to question it. If SUVs as a class were somehow easier to go after than minivans, I could see it, but it's rather the reverse; SUV's are basically well-upholstered light trucks, very hard to regulatorily distinguish from the light trucks people need to do business. Minivans are, if I recall correctly, cars, which we give different mileage criteria from trucks for good reason. (Assuming, for the nonce, that we are going to have a regulatory mileage regime in the first place).
Anti-SUV people are full of impractical plans for somehow banning all SUV's without touching light trucks being used for their intended purpose. But how much easier would it be to address the negative externalities, with carbon or height taxes? And why write long, screedy works on how market research shows that SUV owners are (scientifically proven!) nastier human beings than everyone else?
Update II Here's someone who really doesn't like SUVs.
What's so bad about SUVs? First and foremost, they are far larger and more massive than the use to which they are put requires. This means two things: They are terrible "road hogs" and they are horribly wasteful. Hauling around a ton of unnecessary steel requires power, and that means a big V-8. Now don't get me wrong -- I love big American V-8s. But when they are put to the use of hauling a ton of unnecessary steel with the aerodynamics of a shipping container, they get gas mileage in the low teens in around-town driving (the use to which most SUVs are put). Can you say slavery to Arab oil? The next time you hear a red-blooded American patriot complaining about Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and then drive off in her giant Chevy Subdivision, think about it. Now, take a look around the next time you're on the road. How many SUVs do you see? How many people do you see in each one? It would be more efficient if SUV drivers drove real cars and just mailed checks to Al Qaida. Oh, and this same person is probably one who "doesn't like American cars." Huh?What else do I hate about SUVs? Most people who drive them probably don't realize this, but "real" SUVs are trucks. Suburbans, Expeditions and their slightly smaller siblings are ladder-frame trucks with solid rear axles. Now if you're in the business of hauling literally tons of cargo, ladder frames and solid rear axles are a good thing. But if, like almost all SUV drivers, you simply need to take yourself, (occasionally) one or more human passengers and a little bit of inanimate stuff from point "A" to point "B" on paved roads, this automobile design became outdated 20 years ago at the latest. Now I'll confess that Detroit has done some amazing things to civilize the handling of the truck since Americans decided that they wanted the least sophisticated design possible for their cars about ten years ago. But an SUV is still a truck and it handles like a truck.
And what does Detroit think about all this? They love it. Why? Because when they sell an SUV, they're selling their lowest-tech vehicle that has the least R&D expense and costs the least to produce, since its basically the same product they've been selling -- as a truck -- for the last 50 years. Come on, people! Challenge Detroit! Ask for a product they have to break a sweat to design and build! "No thank you," says Mr. and Mrs. America, "even though we spent the 1980s and 1990s putting down American cars as being technologically inferior to European and Japanese products, we've changed our minds now and want to buy cars that American manufacturers were good at making -- in 1950."
Update III: On reflective thought, the potshot about taking a grim pleasure in the deaths of SUV owners is not quite fair. While I have no doubt that there are anti-SUV people who are not saddened by the fiery deaths of Humvee owners, I have no way of knowing what percentage of anti-SUV people that is. I therefore withdraw the overblown rhetoric.
However, the rhetorical point stands, and I want to make it forcefully: while I understand that trying to ban SUVs satisfies a bundle of goals, among which safety is only one, if you try to argue out of ostensible concern for the safety of SUV owners, while writing (or citing!) pieces that argue that SUV owners are "insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed [people], who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills"--well, let's say I'm underwhelmed by your tender regard. And if you really do care about their safety, then you might suggest, just in the way of a stopgap, things short of a total ban. Because if you do care about their safety, and you recognise that in this imperfect world a total ban on SUV's just might not come to pass (or at the very least, take time during which more people are dying), it behooves you to do whatever you can to prevent needless deaths.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 23, 2005 12:01 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksNot to be too much of a smartass, but momentum isn't exactly the measurement you want. I think you want Kenetic Energy (which is how much energy the brakes and wheels will have to absorb to stop), which is (1/2)*(mass)*(velocity)^2.
This makes it worse, since it goes by velocity squared: going twice as fast gives you four times the kenetic energy.
Rob:
yes, but momentum is also linear with respect to mass, so that doesn't change the car/SUV calculation.
Jane:
Actually, the amount of grip the tires have on the road is also proportional to the mass of the car, so the two effects cancel out. For that matter, the higher center of gravity is only a problem if it isn't proportionately wider - a Hummer probably corners just fine because it's so freakin' wide (an Explorer or Trooper is another matter, obviously).
The bit about speeding in bad weather is spot-on, though.
He is kind of a cute one, isn't he? I like the commercial that shows him drinking from a trough at the gas station. (A subtle comment on their gas mileage, perchance?)
Anyone care to discuss a suggestion that SUVs be embargoed or at least taxed heavily for driving in truly urban areas? I suppose I could see the need for a farmer or rancher to have one, but a commuter? I doubt it'd ever pass, but it's a thought...
Interestingly, settlement money from Ford is paying for this program. Personally, I think it is kind of silly. The people that drive their esuvees like idiots are not going to be swayed to change their habits by a cute flash animation of a mastodon like thingie.
Actually, the amount of grip the tires have on the road is also proportional to the mass of the car, so the two effects cancel out. For that matter, the higher center of gravity is only a problem if it isn't proportionately wider - a Hummer probably corners just fine because it's so freakin' wide (an Explorer or Trooper is another matter, obviously).
This ignores body roll, which affects the amount of weight on each tire, and thereby it's adhesion.
I drive an all-wheel drive, hi-top convesion van, myself. I also own an SUV which I drive somewhat less frequently, so I have some experience here.
Well, now we know what Snuffaluffagus looks like after a meth binge.
(Must wake up.)
Anyone care to discuss a suggestion that SUVs be embargoed or at least taxed heavily for driving in truly urban areas?
I'd have to check around for a link, but I recently saw something claiming that, at least on many California streets, many SUVs are already banned by current (unenforced) law. The law in question was intended to ban truck traffic in residential areas, and defines the banned vehicles by weight. Many SUVs are over the weight limit.
Anyone else recall this?
Now I don't have a problem with SUVs per say, and I would certainly never consider supporting a proposal banning them. But most people are terrible drivers (I think it was a George Carlin line that people who went 5 miles faster then him were idiots and people who went 5 miles slower were morons) regardless of what they are driving.
Bithead:
Mmm, yeah, I suppose that's more a matter of the softer suspensions of SUVs and the like. And for that matter my tire comment is sort-of-wrong in that it's probably the size of tire footprint (and tire material) that's the limiting factor at these speeds... unsurprisingly, this would mean
Anyhow, what I was arguing was mostly that if you took a standard passenger car, and just made it twice as large (in all dimensions), it would stop just as fast as it does now. (Except that it probably wouldn't run because of square-cube ratio issues, but let's not go there...) Tiny SUV-like vehicles are just as dangerous to the occupants as the big ones - it's not really about the weight. Unless one hits you, but that's a different issue.
Oops, missed a line in last comment:
unsurprisingly, this would mean
... that for hard cornering, you want wide tires, hard suspension, and a wide, low body. Better still, a body shaped to provide downward thrust via aerodynamics. IE, a sportscar.
Let's not forget, public safety not withstanding, an esuvee is a utility vehicle not unlike busses, deul-axle pickup trucks, or even panel vans. I think the distaste for the SUV stems from envy (given their high cost/percieved prestiege). Look, there is no public outcry to ban the aforementioned large vehicles. Demanding that one exercise caution on public roadways is one thing; limiting choice in automobile purchaces is another.
I don't remember getting drunk and ordering the creation of a 16-foot long, 11-foot wide and 10-foot tall mascot, nor the creation of a slow-loading, splashy web site to promote same. Shouldn't libertarians be at least slightly upset about what is probably a pork-stuffed project?
Wait a sec - isn't one theme of your post that if people drive SUVs like they drive their cars, they are more likely to have accidents? E.g., if they take a curve at the same speed they take it with a car (and not just a sports car), they are more likely to roll over.
I understand that others of your points are different -- that SUVs actually encourage people to drive worse. But as I understand the research, if people drive their SUVs exactly like they drive sedans, they will have more accidents. Ergo, it's not quite true that
"The reason that SUV's are less safe is not, of course, that there is something inherently wrong with the vehicles; it's that people who buy SUV's often drive them like morons."
You are just as safe in your SUV as you are in your sedan, *provided you drive more carefully*, especially with regard to rollovers. Not quite a selling point for the manly mastodon of the road, is it?
Does it really matter why SUVs have a worse safety record, if it's not likely to change? People are even harder to change than automotive designs, so as long as SUVs are less safe the "anti-SUV folks" have a point over the "anti-safety folks" (we can all use prejudicial terminology, y'know).
> Anyone care to discuss a suggestion that SUVs be embargoed or at least taxed heavily for driving in truly urban areas?
Because city-folk never go outside their asphalt jungles.
SUVs are fine when used in a fashion that uses their advantages (think skiing trips in the Rockies where salt is not used as liberally as in big cities), but I think that most hatred of SUVs stems from envy. What I find interesting is that average SUV mpg is only 1-2 gallons less than average minivan mpg, yet you don't hear references to those gas guzzling minivans!
Not only am I NOT against SUVs, I'm NOT FOR them either. This should to be a matter of choice. If one is guilty of reckless driving, then consequences should follow (loss of licence, fines, incarcaratoin).
Does anyone really support the prohibition of vehicles that are not nearly the largest on the roads or the highest consumers of petrol?
...and I thought only extreme theocrats sought to restrict liberty.
Does it matter if the SUV driver believes in God?
Anyway, I have long contended that people moving up to a bigger vehicle should have to be able to demostrate to the licensing authority that they can park said larger vehicle.
I know parking isn't as dangerous as driving on the highway, but I would surmise that the many people who park their SUVs poorly are the same who drive their SUVs poorly. Whatever they are doing, they cannot seem to properly handle their machines.
Btw, I used to rail against SUVs until I decided to buy one myself. Terrible huh? But in my defense, I bought one of the smaller SUVs on a car chassis. It's lovely for all the weekend trips to Lowe's.
If any of you can point me to another vehicle that can haul my 5 six kids (and kid required necessities)comfortably, provide cargo space for the various home renovation materials, provides the handleing to avoid the oblivous morons in the little sports cars who think 6ft is plenty space to change lanes, provides enough traction and heigth to navigate through the small lakes created by Houston thunder storms, I'll buy. Until then I'm keeping my Suburban.
Let's not forget, public safety not withstanding, an esuvee is a utility vehicle not unlike busses, deul-axle pickup trucks, or even panel vans.
Seen what the standard equipment is on most SUVs these days? It's a bit of an upgrade from most busses, panel vans, and larger trucks, and they are clearly being targeted at something besides a market for "utility" vehicles.
I think the distaste for the SUV stems from envy (given their high cost/percieved prestiege).
Nonsense, most of those vehicles are being driven on stiff monthly payments, not actual ownership. Yippee skippee, what an envy-builder. My distaste stems from the fact that I drive a small, fuel-efficient Toyota and my view of the road ahead can be completely cut off by any SUV larger than a mid-compact.
For those actually using the thing for offroad, backcountry, or utility purposes, fine; but the number of single-occupant commuters lumbering around in those vehicles, towing nothing but a 30-gallon gas tank and carrying no more cargo than a cell phone and a coat, is simply staggering.
A mid-size car would have required perhaps three-fifths the quantity of natural resources, used gasoline and other fluids more charitably across its lifespan, and put somewhat less wear on the road surface. Also, it would throw much less crap onto my windshield during inclement weather, because it would be suspended at a height for clearing asphalt, not boulders.
Look, there is no public outcry to ban the aforementioned large vehicles.
Because they typically serve actual needs, rather than "because I can afford it" levels of waste?
Demanding that one exercise caution on public roadways is one thing; limiting choice in automobile purchaces is another.
On this much, we agree. I'll settle for an unconditional deletion of the CAFE exemption for any large vehicle that can reasonably defined as "passenger," with owners of actual business-use vehicles being permitted to deduct that additional cost on their taxes -- and then see what the roadscape looks like five years from now.
What's with all the selective "freedom of choice".
Must one demonstrate an "approved benefit" to society before making a purchase?
I seem to recall that a controversial 20th century female philosopher wrote that the individual is the smallest minority...a minority of one.
"Anyway, I have long contended that people moving up to a bigger vehicle should have to be able to demostrate to the licensing authority that they can park said larger vehicle."
Amen to that. Regardless of the rest of the debate, I think there should be a law in place authorizing citizens to vigorously "key" any vehicle that crosses the boundaries of its parking space.
If I had a nickel for every time I've lost a perfectly good space because some a$$hole decided to park his Landcruiser in 1.3 spaces at a 25 degree angle...
I must dispute the comment that SUV-hatred stems from envy. It stems from the fact that most of the SUV-drivers who block my vision, threaten my safety and take up multiple parking spaces don't actually need SUVs. They never take them off-road, they don't haul large amounts of goods, they don't haul large numbers of passengers and they don't use them to handle tough road conditions.
Hey, if you're a contractor using your truck to haul lumber or Mexican day laborers, more power to you. But most SUV drivers are, quite simply, poseurs who don't haul anything more cumbersome than groceries.
And people hate poseurs.
I've found that he most common parking space hogs are actually sports car drivers who, presumably, are deathly afraid of dings.
I don't think it's just that SUV drivers misjudge the handling requirements of their vehicles; I think a lot of them are just bad drivers, period, and the elevation and bulk of the vehicle make some bad tendencies worse. I don't drive at all, so I generally encounter SUVs while I'm on foot, trying to cross the street or get from the street through a supermarket parking lot in one piece. I swear that a lot of these people are completely oblivious to the outside world. The drivers of those massive, blown-up pickup trucks are much the same. (The pickup trucks that have quite evidently been used all the time actually to haul stuff, on the other hand, tend to have careful and courteous drivers.)
That said, most of the SUV hatred is just about class. If we were talking about bad gas mileage or pollution or even visibility, people would be keying 30-year-old VW vans. They don't.
DRB, I don't think most SUV drivers are attempting to make themselves look like people who routinely haul stuff. If they're poseurs, what are they posing as? (Now, the 4x4 and luxury-pickup drivers I'll grant you.)
When I'm driving the full-size pickup, SUVs seem cute. When I'm driving the Camry, I hate them.
What about the argument that their bumpers, being higher, tend to kill occupants of other cars? As far as I can tell, there's no actual, y'know, evidence of this; just the fanciful musings of some people who really, really hate SUVs).
I distinctly remember following up some of the citations for this in High and Mighty and yes, there is actual, y'know, evidence of it.
"I don't think it's just that SUV drivers misjudge the handling requirements of their vehicles; I think a lot of them are just bad drivers, period, and the elevation and bulk of the vehicle make some bad tendencies worse."
I agree that's true in many cases. In other cases, I think people cut their teeth on compact or midsize cars and can't handle the larger vehicle, but it doesn't stop them from buying it.
By the way, a big factor for suburbanites buying SUVs is minivan-phobia. A lot of bourgeois soccer-moms-of-two don't want to own their fate.
I am stunned that no one has commented with an economists explanation for this. Here are two.
1) If an SUV makes people feel safer, they will respond to this by driving faster (because making safety cheap relative to speed also makes speed expensive relative to safety). Driving faster decreases your ability to properly respond to all situations - therefore the sense that SUV drivers are worse.
2) If you know you are a bad driver, what would you buy - a vehicle that is more or less likely to suffer damage when in an accident? Perhaps the lousy drivers prefer SUV's.
I think it was Armen Alchian who said that if we wanted to make people drive safely, we'd mount a short spear on the steering wheel pointed at the driver's heart.
I don't hate SUVs, but I do think the drivers ought to bear the externalized costs. As a bonus, that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
BTW, Jane, your spam blacklist doesn't seem to like my Gmail or Yahoo! address.
Minivan-phobia is a great point. What are the alternatives? I suppose that one could stick with the large sedan or move to an in-between spot (the Subaru wagon, popular in the Pacific Northwest).
Detroit has got to adapt to this -- I wonder what it shall be...
I don't have an SUV bud I do drive a minivan, which I will grant has many of the same attributes as an SUV. Most of the time, I am alone in the car but it sure comes in handy in my role as an Assistant Scoutmaster. Since I cannot afford 2 vehicles, I would suggest a libertaian compromise.
I will park the minivan unless I absolutely need it if those of you who are offended by it would just chip in for a 2005 Toyota Camry Solara SLE (Absolutely Red) for me.
one of the main reasons for having a minivan is to hold more stuff and haul more people. do we have any stats on relative occupancy rates for suvs and minivans?
My SUV gets the same mileage as the sedans I was looking at. And it is way more comfortable than any other car I ever owned. Sure is a nice change to finally be able to see past the car ahead of me too.
What's the difference between a SUV driven solo and a pickup driven solo? At least half the cars in my parking lot at work are pickups, add SUV's & minivans and the cars are outnumbered 3 to one.
As far as CAFE is concerned, minivans are trucks. Which is appropriate, since they get trucky gas mileage: almost every minivan you can buy weighs two tons or more, right there on the scale with Ford Explorers and such, and the laws of physics snicker at considerations of social acceptability.
I've actually thought that the Ford Escape hybvrid is a nice start - 33 miles to the gallon. Now if they would just make a full size SUV or station wagon as an SUV, that would counter a lot of arguments about fuel efficiency and supporting terrorism.
I believe Nora meant to suggest that they make a full size SUV or station wagon as a hybrid. Hybrids are in fact inescapably less efficient than a direct drive. They only offer improved mileage if they spend enough time not moving to recover the loss. They make no sense at all for a non-stop long distance drive.
triticale, that's quite true about hybrids. I really don't understand the push to give hybrids access to carpool lanes. Obviously, you want hybrids in the stop-and-go traffic if you want them anywhere; that's where they are efficient.
I happen to own a hybrid - a Toyota Prius. It offers improved mileage in all modes. Although it gets its best mileage while driven in an urban setting, when driven on the open road, it operates just like any other vehicle in its class and with similar mileage.
I love my Prius. It's comfortable, gets great mileage, has good handling characteristics etc.
I also drive a GMC Safari. I put over 30000 miles per year on it and it's a good solid work van.
So; to the hybrid haters on the right, and the SUV haters on the left - all of you can piss off. It's my money and I'll spend it on any vehicle I please! As far as I'm concerned, the only requirement any of these vehicles has to have is that I LIKE it good enough to spend MY OWN money on it.
Roy
What bothers too many people is that SUVs are bought and used by people who "don't really need them." It's okay for someone, such as a contractor, to have an SUV. Just not an attorney or CPA who works in the city. What if the attorney takes her girl scouts camping with the SUV or the CPA uses the SUV on weekends to haul home improvement supplies? Really, just who is best able to judge what type of vehicle best meets someone's needs? The person who's buying it or those of us whose only contact with the person is as we pass each other on the freeway?
Jane suggests a carbon tax or a vehicle height tax. (Say it ain't so, Jane!) The problem with such taxes is that they are very regressive. The poor schmuck who "needs" the SUV for work may not make as much money as the professional who uses one for commuting, yet it'll be the schmuck who can least avoid the tax.
Perhaps, rather than a tax, buyers should have to take a test "proving" that they "need" an SUV. That way, we can just keep the wrong people from owning them. I'm sure we can find people willing to screen prospective SUV owners. Why stop there? There are lots of things that people use every day that waste resources. What about private jets? Talk about your energy wasters and greenhouse gas emitters! Or, how about expensive coffee drinks? We could embed a computer chip in your forearm so the guy at Starbucks will know that you've exceeded your daily limit. (Want more than two cups a day? Get your doctor to say you need it -- and then wait in that line over there to have some government agent second guess your doctor.) I'm sure you can come up with other products that we cannot trust people to decide on their own whether to buy or not. Me? I think we should ban tongue piercing. That hunk of metal HAS to have a better use somewhere, like in an SUV...
> For those actually using the thing for offroad, backcountry, or utility purposes, fine; but the number of single-occupant commuters lumbering around in those vehicles, towing nothing but a 30-gallon gas tank and carrying no more cargo than a cell phone and a coat, is simply staggering.
My SO often drives alone in her minivan, but occasionally she drives with 5 other people.
Okay, so she'll buy a small second car to make you happy, but how does she handle dropping people off or picking them up without offending your sensibilities?
> 1) If an SUV makes people feel safer, they will respond to this by driving faster (because making safety cheap relative to speed also makes speed expensive relative to safety).
So, I take it you also want to ban seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, Volvos, etc.
Roy, I don't "hate" hybrids; I think they're brilliant. All I'm saying is that putting them preferentially in carpool lanes, where they are no more efficient than other late-model small cars, is silly. It's not as though people need incentives to buy hybrids; at least here in CA, dealers can't get them in fast enough. So why the carpool-lane thing? Just so that the people who can afford a Prius not only get to feel virtuous while driving but get to avoid all the traffic too?
Based on observation, a lot of SUV drivers have no idea how long their vehicle is or what its turning radius is (watch one in a parking lot sometime). Why shouldn't there be a requirement for a special drivers test to demonstrate competence in handling such a large, massive vehicle?
Michelle,
My "hate hybrids" comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at all of those who tend to sneer at hybrid owners. Having said that, the sneering against hybrids is far, far outweighed by the sneering against SUV's. My point is that either way, it's my own money and I'll spend it as I please. I don't need to satisfy someone elses definition of need.
To address your point - the Prius is based on the Toyota Echo, a non-hybrid. My Prius, while driven steadily at highway speeds, gets approx 42mpg. That's still better mileage than the Echo and most all other cars in that class.
I'm from Kentucky and we don't have carpool lanes here - not yet anyway. So what California decides to do is really none of my business. All I ask is that they return the favor.
Roy
David,
Drivers license requirements are set by each individual state. And there is indeed a requirement in all states that a driver must demonstrate competence in handling "large, massive vehicles". It's called a commercial drivers license (CDL). However, SUV's don't come anywhere close to the states definition of "large" and "massive". Indeed, most "sport utility" vehicles are no longer than the average family station wagon or minivan. I'm not talking about the Expedition or the Hummer. Those types are really luxury vehicles and not as common. The most common SUV, vehicles like the Ford Explorer, are actually smaller than my GMC Safari. Getting the states to require drivers of those types of vehicles to get a special license such as a CDL, is a non-starter - as it should be IMO.
It seems to me that the biggest complaint against SUV's is not really the vehicles themselves, it's the driving habits of SUV owners. Well, I do a lot of driving in my work - over 50000 miles per year - and I can tell you from experience that crappy driving is an equal opportunity activity. Amazingly, most folks really are competant drivers. If they weren't the carnage on our roads would be much, much worse. (Hey, it takes "skill" to be able to drive down the freeway, holding a coffe' in one hand, a cell phone in the other, - steering with your knees - all while listening to the latest tunes on the stereo.) I believe that the really bad drivers tend to stick out in the crowd. And if you are predisposed to dislike SUV's, then a bad driver in an SUV will stick out even more.
Roy
As several have mentioned, one of the attractions of SUVs (and minivans) is the cargo space, even if it's only used occasionally.
If somebody came up with a Corolla-sized vehicle that could carry 6 adults and/or $500 of stuff from Home Depot, the lines would be around the block. Not sure how this would work; I guess some sort of modular system is the most likely to actually happen (vs, say, a Heinlein-esque "bigger inside than out" vehicle).
The Greg Burch rant is a bit bizarre. He thinks SUV drivers don't like American cars, but they buy from Detroit anyway? He also seems a bit ignorant about what killed the station wagon: it's spelled CAFE. But "Chevy Subdivision" is clever.
Roy,
All I can say re SUVs is that around here (Marin County, CA) the people who careen through supermarket parking lots oblivious to pedestrians, turn without signalling, don't check the crosswalks, &c. seem to me to be disproportionately SUV drivers. (I can't rule out the possibility that I remember bad SUV drivers more vividly just because they literally loom larger, but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.)
Re your Prius, I don't think I've ever seen a Toyota Echo. Were they even marketed here? (Incidentally, I was in London a little under a year ago and was staggered by how small the typical car was — here we see a Mini and think "aw, how cute," but there it was almost average-size. There was a darling two-seater called a SmartCar that I saw around quite a bit, shaped sort of like a miniaturized minivan with most of its middle removed, so that in profile it was nearly square.)
I have a neigbor who drives an MB G500 (the big Hummer like thing), while she smokes a cigarette, talks on her cell phone and her little dog toto bounces around he lap barking at everything. Scares the living $#@! out of me.
I accept the externality arguments on safety and fuel economy about "light" trucks. If I were the three branches of Government here is what I would do:
1. Raise the Gas Tax to about $3.00/gal. Not only do we need to encourage fuel economy for enviromental reasons, even more importantly, we need to encourage it for foreign policy reasons.
Furthermore, we need the revenue. Our military involvement in the Middle East (which I heartily approve of) has cost ~$10^11 per year for the last 3 years and will continue for several more years. The Gas Tax is a very appropriate way to pay that bill.
2. Impose an annual tax on each motor vehicle by the pound at an increasing rate say $.01/lb for the first 2000 lbs $.02 for the next 2000, $.04 etc. Most sedans would pay about $50 to $60.
Use the money from this tax to buy old gas guzzlers from banks that have taken them on lease terminations and repos. Maybe even low income persons (at say 25% DDB depreciation) who have owned the beast for a couple of years. Park the things in the desert.
3. Repeal CAFE, its less than useless. It is a defacto sales tax on new cars. it slows the sales of new cars and thus the replacement of old poluting unsafe beasts with newer safer cars. The average vehicle in the US fleet lasts 15 to 17 years. We need to speed up turnover to increase economy and decrease polution.
4. Require anybody who drives a vehicle that weighs more than 6000 lbs (Hummers), is more than 80 in wide or has a center of gravity above some number of inches above ground to have a Commercial Drivers Licence.
None of these measures would outlaw anything, but I think they would introduce some sanity to the highways and our country's finances.
BTW, I drive a V6 Accord. If all of this became law, my next car would be the Accura TSX which has a 4 cyl motor and is a little smaller.
If I were really worried about safety, I would drive the biggest MB S-Class sedan I could lay my hands on. Plenty of metal. Much safer to drive, much less likely to roll.
Unless they're actively involved in a campaign to kill me and my countrymen, I don't get excited about anyone else's death. But I do, when driving down the highway in wintertime, get a chuckle at the expense of all the SUV owners stranded in deep snowdrifts because they didn't know that 4WD doesn't help you stop.
Such people are unlikely to be stranded for long enough to die of hypothermia...but hopefully the experience will be painful enough to serve as a teaching tool.
The sideswipe at Galdwell is a wee bit unfair - the article on SUVs that he was discussing is actually rather well researched, and has some great data on road deaths broken down by vehicle model.
Someone mentioned a modular system to expand cargo capacity as needed. While this wouldn't help with carrying passengers, what about a utility trailer for that $500 Home Depot trip? My little Saturn SL1 is rated to pull 1,000 pounds and I have a 4x8 trailer that folds up to save space in the garage. (The trailer: http://www2.northerntool.com/product-1/465468.htm)
I heard tell that road wear varies as the 4th power of axle weight. Road maintenance should be charged accordingly. Vehicle registration should be [average axle weight]^4 * [no of axles] * [mileage] + [admin costs]. Then carbon tax per gallon at the pump. Then third party road accident and injury insurance premiums based on propensity of vehicle to do damage.
SUV came about as a end run around the CAFE standards - SUV are light trucks, so didn't count against fleet mileage. They are at best a sorry replacement for a proper family car - the Vista Cruiser(http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofwgn.htm
Wide enough that a piece of plywood can go in the back with the tailgate down, wide enough for 3 to sit in the back seat, roof rack to hold luggage, real bumper for light duty hitch.
cas,
SUV's vary greatly between brands and models. What I can tell you is that my son moved up from a Toyota Sienna minivan to a Chevy Suburban after their 4th boy was born, because it had the additional space they needed. And we still got them a Thule for long trips.
In my neck of the woods, people use SUVs, mini-vans and pickups identically most of the time: driver, possibly one passenger and little or no cargo. But they all come in very handy for the times when you need to pack the family for the weekend trip to the grandparents or bring home the goodies from Home Depot or Costco.
I used to have an SUV as my large-capacity vehicle. I got sick of the poor ride and handling and now own a mini-van, but that was a personal preference. My impact on other drivers (visibility, gas mileage, parking room) is pretty much the same as it was before.
Given the current trends towards SUV/mini-van/truck hybrids (e.g., Pontiac Aztek, four-door crew cabs) how could you possibly design any sort ban that would affect the "bad" vehicles but not the "good" ones?
> Then third party road accident and injury insurance premiums based on propensity of vehicle to do damage.
In this universe, insurance companies do not voluntarily subsidize any subgroup. Why? Because if they do so, they lose customers in other groups to insurance companies that don't subsidize. Losing those customers means that the subsidy must end.
> Then carbon tax per gallon at the pump.
You are planning to give me a subsidy for the carbon I take out of the atmosphere, right? (Thanks to the plants I own, I take a lot more out than the urban concerned.) And, I get credit for the increased plant growth due to said carbon.
And, you're planning to pay said tax on your heating oil, etc.
Disclaimers:
I own an SUV (Jeep Grand Cherokee).
I am as tall as our pseudonymous hostess, but much larger.
I sit very straight when I drive.
I drive an SUV, among other reasons, because I can sit up straight in it without tilting my head to one side to clear the headliner of the vehicle, or reclining the seatback to create headroom. (My eyes, like those of many children's dolls, tend to close when I recline; and, this tendency is increasing as I mature and is worse after dark.)
In the 70s, I drove Ford Pintos (2), which had sufficient headroom. I now typically buy the smallest vehicle I can sit up straight in. That does not include any known sports car (which I would probably enjoy owning) or most small and mid-sized cars (typically described as mid-size or full size by car rental companies), domestic or foreign. Renting a car "across the pond" is a real challenge, typically soluble only by renting a Volvo "estate", BMW, Mercedes or minivan.
I have no aversion to driving an "upholstered roller skate" if I can sit up straight and be comfortable for ~9 hours (driving time to 2 granddaughters). I haven't found one yet.
Scott,
Your fold-up trailer is a start. Not bad for $200, tho adding sides would be nice. Given how bad some SUV drivers are, I have to worry about how they'd handle Saturn + trailer.
Ideally, you'd have a basic car that seated two, with maybe two add-ons for more passengers, and another one or two add-ons for cargo. Sans add-ons, you'd have a zippy little car that's great for commuting; one or two add-ons would give you something like a big sedan or a small staion wagon, decent space and decent power. Adding on a third or fourth module would give you lots of room for the soccer team or a Home Depot run, at the cost of logy acceleration.
How the car owner would assemble the modules without a crane of some sort is an exercise left to the reader...
Ed, I'm not so big - about 5'9" - but I'm only comfortahle sitting up straight, and I can't do that in any car. Car seats are several inches closer to the floor than normal office seats or living-room furniture. (I've measured them.) This leaves my knees up in mid-air, and over a long drive the pressure seems to cut off circulation or something. Even with such a low seat, the carmakers also have to build a reclining angle into the seat so even people of average height don't bump their heads on the low roofs.
So I drive a pickup truck. I also have an occasional need for the cargo-handling capability, but mainly it's because something like a Dodge Dakota is the smallest vehicle made nowadays that I can sit comfortably in.
In this universe, insurance companies do not voluntarily subsidize any subgroup. Why? Because if they do so, they lose customers in other groups to insurance companies that don't subsidize. Losing those customers means that the subsidy must end.Actually that's not quite true. Insurance companies will gladly subsidize customers in one group if the gain from retaining members of that group as customers and selling them other kinds of insurance (e.g. home, life) outweighs the loss from losing other auto-insurance customers. It's the same principle as "loss leaders" at your local supermarket, and is explained further in High and Mighty. Love it or hate it (or its author), that book should be required reading for anyone getting into this debate.
"> 1) If an SUV makes people feel safer, they will respond to this by driving faster (because making safety cheap relative to speed also makes speed expensive relative to safety).
So, I take it you also want to ban seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, Volvos, etc."
Something a safety engineer has to remember is that, the safer people feel, the more dangerously they will act. Seatbelts and ABS are clear wins -they improve safety a lot, and only encourage a bit more dangerous driving.
The trouble with SUV's is when they make the drivers feel much safer than they actually are. They are trucks. They should be driven accordingly (taking the curves slower and allowing more stopping distance), but I often see people zipping along in a huge SUV like it was a sports car. Not that I see any role for government in changing this.
And I can confirm that on ice, the 4WD in 1997 Dodge Dakotas (and presumably the Durango, which is an SUV on a Dakota frame) gives you so much stability that it's easy to forget that you are driving on ice until it's time to stop. My daughter borrowed my pickup one snowy day and came back complaining that it wouldn't brake in 4WD. It actually brakes exactly the same whether you are in 4WD or 2WD.
Doesn't anyone here remember how we ended up with SUVs? People have always loved big cars. They used to drive big cars. Then the Government decided to mandate higher mileage standards for cars, with the result that lots fewer big cars were made, and the ones that were made were smaller. Well, people still wanted big cars and they discovered that they could drive these big SUVs that were a lot like big cars - big engines, comfortable insides, lots of room for kids and groceries - plus they had great visibility, were safer in crashes and could drive in 5 inches of unplowed snow, and because they were exempt from the CAFR regs, the car makers could make lots of them. Wow! My guess is that even if you repealed CAFE at this point, people would stick with their SUVs because they are so damn much fun.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, as Mao once said. I'll stick to my convertible; but you want to drive an Expedition, and you can afford it, go for it, it's a free country.
PJ: Add $50 for tires and about $150 for hardware and green-treated plywood for a trailer box. I like your modular car idea but don't currently own the necessary crane.
To address your point - the Prius is based on the Toyota Echo, a non-hybrid. My Prius, while driven steadily at highway speeds, gets approx 42mpg. That's still better mileage than the Echo and most all other cars in that class.
The latest-generation Prius features a hatchback design and a 200hp powertrain, with estimated fuel economy of 55 hwy/60 city. And contrary to what someone else said, a well-designed hybrid CAN have significantly higher fuel economy than a standard vehcile, because most vehicles don't need or efficiently use the power they have available except when accellerating from a stop, passing, or climbing a hill. A good hybrid design bypasses this by using the motor to augment a much smaller engine. The motor can then run without the engine in some low-speed stop-and-go situations (which otherwise really kill gas mileage) and the engine can run without the motor for many types of highway cruising.
What isn't free is the gigantic battery pack that goes along with this design -- although I don't know if anyone has ever comprehensively compared the externalities associated with that, against the reduced gas mileage of a similar car running standard engine...
My SO often drives alone in her minivan, but occasionally she drives with 5 other people....Okay, so she'll buy a small second car to make you happy, but how does she handle dropping people off or picking them up without offending your sensibilities?
If she gets the use out of it, she's welcome to it. And I assume that if YOU ever need to haul five other people, you can borrow the van from her?
However, I *know* people who own large SUVs almost exclusively for single-person commuting or relatively light passenger/cargo needs, so I'm reasonably confident that many of the drivers I see daily aren't weekend Cub Scout warriors or whatever. Those who are, great. Those who try to justify resource extravagance because they "might go to Home Depot this month" are making excuses; very few people have no access to the necessary vehicle in a case like that.
What about the argument that their bumpers, being higher, tend to kill occupants of other cars? As far as I can tell, there's no actual, y'know, evidence of this; just the fanciful musings of some people who really, really hate SUVs).
I distinctly remember following up some of the citations for this in High and Mighty and yes, there is actual, y'know, evidence of it.
Yup...ever see a mid-size Chevy or Honda sedan being loaded onto a wrecker with the entire trunk crushed like a soda can all the way to the back seat? That's what happens in 50mph rush-hour traffic when a truck or SUV driver fails to slow fast enough. A car just doesn't have as much structural material at that height. In other combinations of impact direction/speed (or body style), one can guess what the results would be.
Sometimes it seems like there is an inner totalitarian lurking in every libertarian breast. It comes out whenever one is REALLY annoyed. And it usually is expressed as "they don't really NEED..." See also: cell phones.
A modest proposal: require every SUV driver to be able to parallel park the damned thing between two stanchions at a reasonable separation.
That would separate people who have basic driving skills from the soccer moms who seem to think they need the adjacent zip codes available to them to provide clearance for their land yachts.
And make cell phone usage while driving one a capital offense.
/rant
MarkM:
Ed, I'm not so big - about 5'9" - but I'm only comfortahle sitting up straight, and I can't do that in any car. Car seats are several inches closer to the floor than normal office seats or living-room furniture. (I've measured them.) This leaves my knees up in mid-air, and over a long drive the pressure seems to cut off circulation or something. Even with such a low seat, the carmakers also have to build a reclining angle into the seat so even people of average height don't bump their heads on the low roofs.
Mark, don't recline the seat; move the entire seat away from the steering wheel. I'm over six feet, and that works just fine.
> If she gets the use out of it, she's welcome to it.
NOt so fast. The "they don't need it" faction sees her driving alone and insist that something be done.
> However, I *know* people who own large SUVs almost exclusively
Almost is an interesting word. It points out that said person DOES use the capability that you "know" they don't need.
> they "might go to Home Depot this month" are making excuses; very few people have no access to the necessary vehicle in a case like that.
Very few people have no access because other people own those vehicles, including folks that you think shouldn't.
I've got a neighbor who rarely uses his vehicle's full capacity for his own needs, but friends and family do.
Which reminds me - I've yet to run into an SUV hater who hasn't made use of one owned by an acquaintance. It's sort of like the "too pure to own a car" folks who are often cadging rides.
And, what is it with you folks and parallel parking? I haven't parallel parked my econobox for years.
As usual, just when I've decide that I can no longer tolerate your anti-liberal bias and my finger is hovering over the button that will delete your blog from My Favorites, you post something that I agree with.
Congratulations.
I think minivans are actually safer.
Plus, it seems like people who buy minivans actually have a normal sensible reason for doing so. Sort of like pick-up trucks.
SUVs are often bought by city dwellers who absolutely have no need or desire to use the SUVs for any of their useful purposes.
I don't hate SUVs, exactly... I hate that they're popular for all kinds of stupid reasons. And that their popularity makes for all sorts of problems.
And yeah, most of the people who drive them don't seem to know how to drive a truck.
I don't think it's fair to say that I'm an SUV hater... I think I'm more of a hater of SUV love. HAHAHA!
The trailer idea is a non-starter. If you think SUVs are dangerous, wait until you get behind an underpowered sedan pulling a trailer, driven by someone who only uses it once a month. And then it tries to back up, loaded with 4'x8' sheets of plywood and 10' 2x4s! Disaster.
And what's this "greenhouse warming" nonsense? How many times does that myth have to be exploded?
And, what is it with you folks and parallel parking? I haven't parallel parked my econobox for years.
It's not important in itself any more, but it's a measure of driving skill: the ability to judge where exactly how much space the vehicle requires, and to handle the vehicle.
Driving a tight slalom course between pylons would serve the same purpose, viz., to determine whether the prospective driver can control the vehicle.
Note that applicants for commercial driver's license, IIRC, have to fulfill requirements similar to these, and for the same reason - namely, those who can't do so are dangerous in that vehicle.
"I don't hate SUVs, exactly... I hate that they're popular for all kinds of stupid reasons."
And the principle we keep returning to is that other people aren't THINKING right. They probably need some deep reeducation. Maybe we could start a camp....
I've yet to run into an SUV hater who hasn't made use of one owned by an acquaintance.
I hope you never do run into one, for the reasons mentioned above. ;) Seriously, though, there are two problems with your statement above. First, how do you define "SUV hater"? Do you include anyone who is bothered by increased oil dependence and pollution, decreased safety, or unfair tax breaks? Second, how do you know who has or has not made use of an acquaintance's SUV? That's not something I know about most of my own "SUV hating" friends or coworkers, let alone people I meet casually. I do know that I personally have never used someone else's SUV, so I could be a counterexample to such a claim.
The people you claim you know sound like haters and hypocrites. I suggest spending less time hanging out with either group, regardless of their beliefs about SUVs or anything else.
I like cars, but I've never owned one; I've always driven a mini-pickup; if I ever marry, I will probably get an SUV based on a mini-pickup. The gas mileage on a Toyota Tacoma is as good as a Camry; you can haul more stuff; but the big advantage is interior height. I'm 6'4"; I have never found a modern car in which I can sit up straight and still see stoplights.
hi all,
i liked robert schwartz's comments. if we agree that there are negative externalities associated with the suv's, his suggestions are an interesting place to start a conversation...
"My distaste stems from the fact that I drive a small, fuel-efficient Toyota and my view of the road ahead can be completely cut off by any SUV larger than a mid-compact."
And all of you people in sadans are a major threat to the people driving the truly fuel efficient vehicles: motorcycles.
Should sadan's be banned too since they interefere with people's completely reasonable desire to drive a motorcycle without being run over by a sadan?
In any event, why on earth should your desire to drive a vehicle with less protection somehow mean that everyone else should too, in order to protect you?
And small vehicles, however well they do against other tin cans, don't do as well against stationary things which aren't going change their mass just to suit you (e.g. trees).
The gas mileage on a Toyota Tacoma is as good as a Camry
Toyota claims 24/33 MPG for the Camry, and 18/22 for the Tacoma. Nice try.
OK, Platypus, you're right on specs; I was basing my comparison on my experience with my Tacoma and that of a couple friends who have Camry's; I get 24-26 mpg and they get very close to the same.
But even if there is a gas mileage differential, I still can't see out of a Camry well enough to drive safely, while sitting in a position that I can stay on for more than a few minutes.
You get more than the manufacturer's ideal-condition specs? How...unusual.
One day on the way home from work, I made the turn off the interstate and around the cloverleaf to the two lane road that lead to the town where I lived. I went this way everyday. But, today was just weird.
There was an SUV up in a tree upside down. No, this wasn't a commerical shoot or something like that. It was a real, one car (SUV) accident that put an SUV up in a tree. Did a blow out do that? How the heck did it get up there? Who knows.
But, from that day forward, I won't drive one. I like my pickup truck.
What kills me about SUV drivers is that they drive so civilized. When it rained in Houston, you had the SUV drivers stopping for little puddles, instead of just moving on through. I was driving a car, so I had to slow down, which meant that I'd lose my bow wave and stall. Move darn it. But, then some SUVs are build like tender little cars. With a pickup truck, nobody is deluded into dainty driving. And, it takes much more to lose your bow wave.
Platypus,
I don't know where you're getting your specs; the http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/tacoma/specs.html>Toyota page gives the mileage for a Tacoma as 20/27. And with a small-engine, manual transmission vehicle (car or truck) driving sensibly will definitely bump gas mileage a bit.
Sam, I was getting them from the very same page, except I hadn't noticed that the display defaults to the double-cab version. Do you know what model "cas" bought, or is it just convenient to assume s/he bought the highest-mileage version? Even if s/he had, does that support a general claim ("The gas mileage on a Toyota Tacoma is as good as a Camry" - not "my Tacoma") about Tacoma mileage vs. Camry? 20/27 still isn't the same as 24/33, is it? Even the amended claim is highly suspect.
Much of the appeal of SUVs (and minivans before them) is their classification as trucks allows them to add features that would be impossible under the automobile CAFÉ standards. The solution to this, as evidenced by most of the commenters here, is to broaden the CAFÉ standards to include trucks (or at least those obviously used for passengers). And this is a generally market-friendly site. Maybe this is a side effect of CAFÉ, and the solution is eliminating the regulatory regime. If smaller cars could still have the luxuries instead of the gas mileage, would the high-profile look ever have taken hold? It seems the impulse to make other people think like you is not absent in the libertarian-minded.
NOt so fast. The "they don't need it" faction sees her driving alone and insist that something be done.
Maybe some of them do. I don't target individual SUV drivers when I drive my compact; I can, however, envision the road with maybe half as many trucks and SUVs after deleting the ones that are merely someone's warped idea of a commuter cruiser, and it has better visibility and fewer splash/mud spray hazards during inclement weather.
Almost is an interesting word. It points out that said person DOES use the capability that you "know" they don't need.
Lop about six inches off each leg of your high horse there. It's a pretty obvious phenomenon that once a person has a device capable of 'x,' s/he will use it for 'x' once in a while, even if s/he would have made other arrangements in the absence of having that device.
Very few people have no access because other people own those vehicles,
Yup.
including folks that you think shouldn't.
Wow, "true" and "false" both found their way into one sentence. How wonderfully political of you. Yes, folks who use a large truck or SUV wastefully may provide another source for a friend to borrow it for legitimate purposes, but (a) that doesn't mean the externalities it creates are justified the rest of the time on that basis and (b) in the absence of that vehicle, the friend in need may just as easily be able to borrow such a vehicle from someone who DOES get sport or utility use out of it, or else rent.
I've got a neighbor who rarely uses his vehicle's full capacity for his own needs, but friends and family do.
Wonderful. Where did I object to this that you should feel the need to insert it here?
Which reminds me - I've yet to run into an SUV hater who hasn't made use of one owned by an acquaintance. It's sort of like the "too pure to own a car" folks who are often cadging rides.
I hope you're not calling me an "SUV hater." I expressed distaste for unnecessarily large vehicles, but I have made adequate provision for necessarily large vehicles. As for the rest, platypus already demolished it.
And, what is it with you folks and parallel parking? I haven't parallel parked my econobox for years.
Apparently your lifestyle doesn't require you to street-park in a moderately dense urban or suburban/residential area.
And all of you people in sadans are a major threat to the people driving the truly fuel efficient vehicles: motorcycles.
Would use one as my primary transporation if I could only afford it, but FWIW around here it's only an eight-to-nine-month-a-year vehicle. The other three to four months are a composite from both summer and winter when we have either extreme cold, snow, hail, high wind, or monsoon-class rainstorms.
Should sadan's be banned too since they interefere with people's completely reasonable desire to drive a motorcycle without being run over by a sadan?
Apples to cucumbers. Most people who drive some sort of enclosed vehicle obtain some level of necessary benefit from it, starting with the fact that it is enclosed.
In any event, why on earth should your desire to drive a vehicle with less protection somehow mean that everyone else should too, in order to protect you?
I suppose if "level of safety" is the only issue at stake, we could equip our roadways solely with armored personnel carriers, and completely ignore the horrendous waste of materials and fuel this would entail. Or we could just hide in the basement bomb shelter.
Or, we can define an acceptable level of risk in our lives, and bring driving within its scope. The fact that driving is risky, however, does not imply an unconditional right to drive the biggest thing someone can get their hands on regardless of actual need, and without regard for the fact that this imposes externalities on others.
And small vehicles, however well they do against other tin cans, don't do as well against stationary things which aren't going change their mass just to suit you (e.g. trees).
Trees and other "staionary things" also tend to stay off the road itself, you may have noticed, barring very unusual circumstances.
We have a fabulous gas-sucking monster, the demon excursionix variety, but we haul 8 people in it daily. Should we get get 2 or 3 smaller cars instead? How about 4 hybrids? With green duo-tone paint. Would that be OK? Of course, we need a few more nuclear power plants to generate the extra electricity.
Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this... but I think the answer to morons in SUVs is simple: require would-be SUV drivers to obtain whatever training/license/etc that is needed to drive a commercial 10 wheeler... with something that big it's better to overcompensate than under...
In re: vans, although they can be of similar size I haven't seen nearly as many morons in vans as I have in SUVs - for people who don't know what they're doing, a big engine encourages bad behavior.
A few years ago, an SUV almost sideswiped me because they weren't looking down (I was driving a Cavalier), swerved away, overcorrected and slammed straight into the guardrail at about 70 mph -- was a miracle that the cars behind were far enough back to avoid hitting her and causing a pileup (disclaimer for anyone wondering - that was a horrifying experience for me and I felt terrible for the SUV driver; I consider SUVs dangerous but get zero satisfaction from any harm suffered by their drivers).
That same mistake would be much less likely in a non-SUV, and if it did happen would be much easier to recover from - once you start losing control in an SUV at any real speed, you have to better than average to keep it on the road.
Comments are Closed.