Down below, an offhand comment from Colin led to a spirited debate about SUVs that led me to do a little research on the much debated "safety" of SUVs. Before I could publish my opus, those rat-bastards at the New York Times trumped me by coming out with a fairly good article on the subject this morning.
No one really debates the environmental issues with SUVs: They guzzle way too much gas, pollute like a son-of-gun, and are generally the worst thing to happen to roads since the Patrick Swayze film "Roadhouse". They are so bad on the environment, even the conservatives are starting to turn on them - check out Ariana Huffington's Detroit Project, which accuses Americans who drive SUVs of increasing our dependance on Middle East oil and (taking a page from the Drug Wars) indirectly supporting terrorists. Nice to see the right coming up with an answer to the fuel consumption problem that doesn't only involve Alaska.
But the rationale has always been that the increased pollution and decreased fuel efficiency is worth it because SUVs are so much "safer" than normal cars (or, god forbid, small cars) - and who wouldn't pay a few more cents at the pump to keep Billy from dying a horrible death in the backseat of a Mini-Cooper? True enough - kind of. You see, SUVs create a nice little prisoner's dilemma: the reason they are "safer" is because they cause more deaths to all smaller cars, making their fatality statistics go up, and making SUV fatality statistics look good in comparison. It would be kind of like if the New York City police dealt with a high murder rate by going over to Brooklyn and shooting a lot of people to raise the neighboring murder rate. Still, the fact is, on an individual level, you should buy an SUV, because they are safer - assuming you don't roll it over, or hit something equally large or larger. Well, really you should buy a huge pickup truck - those are even "safer" than SUVs (using the same comparative logic), but Soccer Mom won't stand for that - at least not until Porsche makes one. The problem is, on a collective level, if we all followed that logic, the 'safety' factor would evaporate, simply because we would run out of smaller cars to crush - once everyone is driving an SUV, the Hummers become the "safe" cars. Then, you can move on to the Godzilla SUV. Eventually, we can all drive Bradley tanks - which is probably a better idea than deploying them in the battlefield where good soldiers might be put at risk by these too-slow dogs.
In my mind, this is a perfect area for legislation: The market will have a hard time correcting this race for the "biggest, heaviest," because individually, driving an SUV is a smart choice, but collectively, it gets disasterous. Ban SUV's? Well, that's not going to happen, so let's get real: How about tougher fuel standards? Weight-based auto taxes? Tougher emission standards? One random SUV owner every year sacrificed on national televison in a 'reality television - lottery' hybrid? A death penalty for SUV drivers? I'm open to reasonable suggestions . . .
If you want to know more about SUV safety, you Salon fans have an article to read, and you public television fans can turn to Frontline's examination of the issue.
If you want more Anti-SUV info, try this link to a site with an agenda, but also some good information culled from the NHSTA, among others. If you are one of those dopes who thinks vandalism is a great way to serve the public, you can become an SUV "Tagger" and affix things like bumper stickers and fake parking tickets to SUVs. But if you get shot, I'm not going to feel real bad for you.
If you want to hear the other side? Well, not a lot out there - people don't feel a need to talk about them, they just buy 'em and drive 'em. But you could start with SUV One or suv.com to start your quest.
| SUVs |
I’d also suggest licensing SUVs differently, maybe like commercial trucks or something similar. We already require different licenses for different driving situations, why not require soovee drivers to be able to handle their vehicles better? Just ’cause it has four wheels doesn’t make it a car.
And yes, of course one of the best answers is to jack fuel-efficiency standards way up. Our Honda gets something approaching 30 MPG on the highway, and it’s a ten-year-old.
Pretty funny, JP. I like how you proffer links to both sides - kudos on the due process. And your passion on the matter is equal to my passion for driving them. All stats aside, a day after I got my first Explorer I was driving one morning down a very crowded Third Street in L.A. I suddenly took note of a phenomenon I'd previously been unaware of: All the Honda Civics and Mazda Miatas around me were furiously changing lanes, wildly accelerating and braking, tailgating each other, running reds, cursing, honking, swapping paint...
I sat up high, looking down on this malestrom of life-threatening chaos, cruising at the 30 mph limit, slowly stopping at reds, slowly accelerating at greens, never changing lanes. I was like, "How come I'm not driving like they are?" The answer came in the same flash: This bigass hunk of steel I'm pushing is making me drive like a little old lady. Windows up, CD humming, bird's-eye on the insanity around me - I was safe, I was driving safe, anybody with me would have been safe, I was groovin'. If all that costs me - and the world - 10 more mpg's, it's worth every drop.
Hate to be a nitpicker here, but in the interests of public education - Ariana Huffington is no longer a conservative. Hasn't been one since she wrote "How to Overthrow the Government" a few years back (2000?) about the failures of the two-party system. She's become an often refreshing advocate for citizen engagement.
Comment #3 :: link :: January 30, 2003 09:00 AMM-----:
I’m glad that you drive safer in a soovee, but not all of the SUV drivers are like you, and the issues of SUV safety, as Jim mentioned elsewhere, don’t just have to do with how you drive, but rather with the aggregate population of SUV drivers. I do thank you, however, for doing your part to bring down the death rate among SUV drivers, passengers, and those into (over?) whom they run.
I would like to point out that people suck. That is why they buy SUVs, that is why they vote against tax increases even when they are specifically told it will cost them and others less fortunate vital services (in OR at least) and why local small town political bosses zone their own towns to accommodate only McMansion development. No one ever thinks of the others that they share the planet with. And it has become too easy to take an attitude of "Let me take mine before someone else does". Interestingly the lack of scarcity has no detriment to this. If anything the more we, as a society have, the more we individually covet. I say we all should pack our bags and move to Amish Country and force everyone to watch "Meet John Doe" over and over. Oh crap, the Amish don't have VCRs. I guess there is no perfect solution.
Comment #5 :: link :: January 30, 2003 09:00 AMAnother suggestion to all who bag on SUVs: Grab your significant other and fly to LAX (if you're not already there), go to Hertz (per previous website booking), and rent a monstrous, indulgent, grotesque Lincoln Navigator on a one week/one way deal . Spend a couple days cruising LA, taking in the urban/suburban road experience. Float down to Newport 40th St. for some of the world's raddest boogie-boarding and fish tacos. Then take I-10 east to Calif. 62. Roll east to Joshua Tree, enter J.T. N'tl Park, find a campsite, build a fire, climb the rocks by moonlight, and fart-bag it in the back of your Nav. After an a.m. hike, roll north to 29 Palms, dine on huevos rancheros, then cruise north to East Mojave national monument. Cruise all those little desert two-laners, pace yourself by the freight trains, stop at the vistas, climb the dunes, then pick up I-15 for a few miles north. Stop at the Nevada line, ride the world's highest and longest roller coaster, maybe play some no-stakes $2 b.j. Then roll to Vegas, crawl the Strip unfettered by noise and traffic, snag your hotel (recommend Hard Rock) and clean up. After two nights, take a side trip to Death Valley, fart-bag it in your Nav, wake up on Mars, drop a few nickels in Beatty on the way to Lake Mead, where you camp & swim in America's most inviting fresh water. Return your Nav at LAS just in time for your return flight. A day later, when you're strap-hanging on the 6, tell me you ain't souled - uh, sold.
Tell me safety and living don't trump the shit out of politics.
Actually, as somebody who has done some off roading on much rough roads, I can tell you that most American SUVs are pretty poor at it. In Africa, after a Land Rover most people preferred to drive a Toyota pickup. Those are built to handle going off road. Most SUVs break pretty quickly if you put them in the conditions they show in the TV commercials. They're are all about looks, not performance. That's why the car-talk guys hate them, not for political reasons. As for riding on well paved roads, I'd prefer something that doesn't roll over, and that gets more than 8 miles to the gallon. If you prefer a cucoon to the handling of a sports-car you might want to try one of the old "boat" style cars that the old folk drive. They do all the things that you've said a Navigator does. On the other hand, if you really enjoy driving, then you need some road feel, and there are lots of great sports cars which would be much more fun for that same drive.
Comment #7 :: link :: January 31, 2003 09:00 AMI had posted this before but it got lost somehow. See "Unsafe at any speed" for more info. The point is that SUVs are designed to look safe, but they're actually less safe than cars in collisions since they tend to roll-over. Driving an SUV is about looking safe, but not at all about being safe. A minivan is much better that way, but it's "unhip" (10 years ago everyone would have laughed if you said the Navigator would be hip. They had SUVs then --- they were completely uncool).
Comment #8 :: link :: January 31, 2003 09:00 AMFirst, none of the roads I mentioned are unpaved. The Navigator is not suited to off-roading; it's suited to passenger loads of 3 or more, freight, and recreational activity, not including off-roading.
Second, you wrote "they're (SUVs) actually less safe than cars in collisions since they tend to roll-over." If you've been reading the comments or linking from them, you'd know this to be not true. You are 30% more likely to die in a crash if you're not in an SUV, despite any degree of roll-over propensity. Safety is not an argument against SUVs.
The only viable argument against SUVs is they use more gas and cause more pollution than conventional vehicles. You have to weigh these realities against the fact SUVs are substantially safer than conventionals. You can go with the gas/pollution side, or you can go with the safety side. Others buy them for convenience, such as transporting kids - safely.
Just to quibble: I disagree with the statement "safety is not an argument against SUVs."
As I note in my original post, I would agree with the statement that "safety is not an argument against buying an SUV in the current legislative/commercial market."
However, I stand by my argument that safety is a fine reason for legislating (either directly or indirectly) to phase out, downsize or penalize the SUV.
To make the point clear, I used the analogy of violent crime in my original post. To continue it: I would agree with the statement, "safety is not an argument against carrying a gun while living in a high-crime area." I would also agree with the statement, "carrying a gun in a currently high-crime area may make the carrier, as an individual, safer."
But I would not agree with either the statement "carrying a gun while living in a high-crime area makes that area, taken as a whole, safer," nor the statement "safty is not an argument against carrying guns."
I would instead support the statements, "removing guns from high-crime areas will contribute overall to making those areas safer," or "removing SUVs from public roads will contribute overall to making those roads safer."
So safety is a fine reason to oppose SUVs politically, even if it is an invalid reason to choose against currently purchasing one as a consumer.
And please don't tell me that if SUVs are criminal, only criminals will own SUVs . . . :-)
