Yeah and a big screen TV does not pose a great risk to others

Anyway, I didn't mention "eliminating" the oversize SUVs, that implies that those of us commenting on them are saying there should be legislation or whatnot, which is not what I said or see here. And no-one is deeming "the SUV as not needed by anyone." Rather the choice to use them so much when they are obvisously not needed; single guy commuting alone in it everyday, using it for a couple of kids just because a van or wagon isn't macho enough, whatever, you get the drift - its clear when the really huge SUVs are truly required vs use for a daily trip to Starbucks for a latte. So the extrapolation that eliminating it then leads to other things being eliminated is not what I see as accurate to what is being expressed - we are simply stating our opinions and the reasons for those opinions, which includes danger to others, etc, just as people have expressed their opinions about people who buy Pontiac Aztecs or anything they do not agree with.

However I could agree with legislation that tickets and tows them when they park in compact spaces and makes PDC manditory

 

...a some of the threads on bicycle sites. With the more 'enthusiastic' members there talking about ALL CARS the way SUV's are being talked about here. Just insert bicycle in place of MINI and all motor vehicles in place of SUV's and it's all the same discussions. I went carless and bicycle only for 2.5 years. Had a bike utility trailor to shop etc. My home work and shopping were all adjacent to trails and it worked great for me in a environment where it was a pain to own or try to park a car. So, I built up enough eco green points to be allowed my truck for hauling boats, bikes, tractors, and lumber.

Just keep in mind if any of us get to feel to much 'holier than thou' that there are plenty of cyclist's who feel the same about all cars, including MINIs, as some here do about SUV's.

I'll bet you could go to a SUV board and find people putting down Hummers as being to big and SUV's as being 'right sized'.

Now, the threads like this that are CORRECT are on my sailing forums where they point out power boats are the root of all evil, and that sailors are rightous and shall inherit the earth. Just kidding power boaters! Well mostly.

Whatever your chosen place in the transportation food chain, there's a bigger fish and smaller fish up and down stream of you that probably think you've got it all wrong. Poor people, if only they new they were all wrong and that only we have the right answer.

 

My post was not directed at you or anyone in particular. To tell the truth I have not even read this entire thread. I was saying that the "need" comments I hear come from many sources not necesarily this thread. I did not make that clear - my fault.

The big screen does pose a threat in my slippery slope world.

Then we can talk our sweat shop produced clothing.

The single commuter guy may have a large boat or motorcycles or atvs or who knows what that he tows on weekends and for all we know he has some need after hours and he only has one vehicle.

 

Amen! to mmatarella's post. Those who criticize the choices of others make themselves look petty. Generalizations about people (and what they drive) usually are either wrong or none of our business (or both). Let's just accept the diversity of the road and motor on!

 

Yup that was me. I still have a full size van (not a SUV). But I drove around by myself 95% of the time. Needed, or wanted, to be able to haul around and tow those large items. In my case back then I lived less than 5 miles from work so I wasn't too concerned about the mileage it got. Parking availability and insurance costs dictated one vehicle that could do it all. Once I moved out-a-ways the van became the 0-1 day a week vehicle and I got the MINI as a daily driver.

Surely there are a subset of SUV drivers for whom a SUV is the logical best choice to fill their needs. And the rest have one because it's the 'In' thing to have. I hope SUV haters can tell which is the case before unleashing their wrath on any given poor soul.

Actually, 1/4th of the reason I still keep it, or need SOME type of roomy vehicle in addition to the MINI is to occasionally take my folks off on a trip to visit family and such. Dad has painful neuropathy and can't sit in a normal car for long. In the conversion van he can REALLY stretch out with legs propped up straight out and is actually comfortable enough to sleep. I think of it as a small RV... But unike most RV's it gets 21-22 mpg on the long trips. So keep in mind some of those behemoths might just be good sons and daughters!

 

These forums would be pretty empty if people didn't express their opinions on them, and it does not make someone look petty in my opinion to state them in context, especially if it can/does effect them directly. I, for the most part don't take to generalizations but when the facts support things (ie large SUVs do not avoid accidents well due to handling/size/braking/weight and cause more fatalities in other vehicles) there is credence to support the opinion. And again, I do know that a percentage of the giant vehicles are used/needed (and just fwiw I was not considering conversion vans in my thoughts on this - its really the oversize SUVs, H2s ,etc that play a role in the not bought for a real use issue).

So take it in context and I'll just continue to do my best not to get mowed over by another person that doesn't know the limitations/how to drive their behemouth

PS: The percentage of cyclists I see obeying the rules of the road is tiny but I don't make generalizations about all of them

 

Sometimes there is a very fine line between the expression of an opinion and the desire to force that opinion on others. When the opinion stated includes broad generalizations or presumptions based on guesses or bias it gets closer to being over that line.

I am not saying you crossed that line and in fact your post is very well stated. But there are others that sometimes do not state it quite as well.

Also I want to add that the stats on SUV safety, as with stats on most things, can be very misleading. I know there are stats on rollovers and fatalities etc that can lead one to think that the SUV is less safe. But those stats do not always take into account that there are an awful lot of SUVs out there. I think closer to valid stats would factor fatalities per mile driven or something of that nature. I would also bet that if one wanted to they could come up with stats showing SUVs being more safe in certain circumstances. You know how stats can be.

 

Completely off topic, sorry. In this area at MOST cyclists do run stop signs etc. I've been hit while on my bike by other bikes at least half a dozen times when coming to a stop at a stop sign. I'm a avid biker and I'll admit the majority are aweful.

 

Electric shock-
You should really read the whole thread before posting so we don't have to keep talking about the same things that are already on the table.

This is not a case of choosing what statistics to show and which to hide to make the SUV look good or evil. Most SUVs are NOT as safe as cars, and that is an inevitable, proven fact. Here is the link to that very well done article posted earlier by Edge: http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/suv.pdf and if you think this is just a liberal propaganda piece, just google any combonation of the words "SUV, dangerous, accidents, deaths, etc." and have a read from any number of reputable news and research sites.

SUVs are useful, but they must be regulated to have safer designs and better handling capabilities, not to mention better gas milage through lighter design and more efficient engines. Then they can still have the storage capacity, off road capability AND be as safe as many of the other vehicles on the road. People will buy anything these days, and if there was a vehicle that gave you an electric shock every time you touched the pedals and literally smelled like poo, while leaving a slippery, dangerous poo trail on the road behing it, there would be some guy that owns one that would say, "Don't criticize my choice; I have certain needs; It's not your place to tell me what to drive; blah, blah..."

I believe there is an equilibrium in all things, and choices must be balanced. Personal want vs personal need, environmental impact vs efficiency, public safety vs private safety. Gradual change through responsibility will help the SUV become a safer part of our lives, but it will not happen on its own. Don't ever trust any person in a position of power (government, corporate, regulatory, etc.) to do the right thing for you. Change always begins at the bottom, with the consumer, the public. Look back in the 60s and 70s, car safety standards didn't change themselves... How about civil rights? Had to fight for that, too... If we think that something is acceptable then nothing would ever change.

Thank you for listening.

-Steve (Yea capitalism! )

 

Proven fact? I just simply can't believe that. Very little in this universe is proven fact.

I have yet to read that entire article but from what I saw, if you look at the bottom ten in vehicle deaths (ten worst) you will see that six are cars, two are pickups and only two are SUVs. None of the bottom six are SUVs. I could take those same numbers and make an argument that the real problem is US car makers. Look at the best ten. You will see that in the top ten only four are made by US car makers. In the ten worst, 9 out of ten are US cars.

I also see that the Chevy Suburban, one of the biggest and baddest of the SUVs, in total deaths, is in the top half. Fared better than cars like the Corolla, Civic and Altima.

Again it is not my intention to defend the SUV, but rather to point out how generalizations and stats can both be used as arguments against them in not always the best way.

As to the latter part of your post that I quoted, I essentially made the same statement in a previous post and I have no problem with change and in fact I welcome it.

 

How about "is generally accepted as being the truth by nearly every study ever performed on the subject?"
I agree, nothing is fact, even gravity is a theory. (if you disagree, please see the proper definition for theory and hypothesis)

I guess my main point is: SUVs are not the best they can be, right now.

 

Yep. And I did not really want to be as disagreeable as you perhaps thought.

But seriously now. Look at the safety record of US auto makers compared to others. It is not good. Then we also know how the US auto makers became very dependent on SUV sales and now we know that GM is shrinking and Toyota is likely to replace GM as the number one auto maker in the world.

So what then really is the problem? I am all for your 60s activism. The SUV is the object of disdain but its misdirected if you ask me.

 

It is INDEED a slippery slope. I think it is good that you pointed it out.

In the early 70's, the "bad guy" was the muscle car. As history tells us (and some of us remember) the muscle car died in 1972. Look what we got...sputtering, stinking, butt-ugly cars that wouldn't pull a greasy string out of a cat's butt. (Remember such classics as the 78 Cutlass with the 260 CI V8, what about the Ford Fairmount, the Chrysler K-Kar? Real winners...)

Drive what makes you happy and enjoy it while you still can whether it's a MINI, an International CXT or anything in between.

Rawhyde

 

Unfortunately, this argument, if extended, can quickly get your MINI taken away. Why?

There is ABSOLUTELY no need EVER to have a car capable of driving 142 MPH on ANY US Road. What a pure waste. NOR is there any use for any vehicle that can exceed the speed limits by two time. NO reason at all. Totally waste since that would be ILLEGAL.

I wouldnt argue down that route because everyone knows "speed kills", especially in the hands of young drivers.

 

Death to the SUV! Death to the SUV!

 

Now I have read this entire thread and that "Big and Bad" article.

If that article was intended by someone here to be "proof" that the SUV is unsafe, then it is not a good example. I am sure better examples can be found.

And yes the article has a definite bias. Of all the vehicles on the list regarding vehicle safety, the author chooses to compare the Escalade to the Windstar. You could do the same with the Windstar and the Sunfire, Neon, Cavalier or Grand Am.

As someone else indicated, comparing a Trailblazer and Boxster for handling is completely silly.

However the article is not really intending to say that SUVs are unsafe. In fact it is about addressing the "feeling" or perception that some people have that SUVs are safer. On that subject it has some good points.

In fact that article also makes some of my points. One being that statistics are not necessarily reliable. If you look at the stats you can conclude that minivans are safer vehicles. Yet the stats do not take into account the drivers who drive various vehicles. Minivans presumably are more commonly driven by families - moms mostly. A mom is less likely to be an aggressive risk taking driver especially with the kids in back. So do we credit the vehicle or the drivers of that vehicle?

 

I don't know, but I do know that many Moms around here drive SUVs and are among those who can't seem to see very well, navigate or park such high large things (not only have I observed it in action and saved my cars from such driving and parking Moms, but I have even heard the remark "I can't see out of it" referring to seeing to the rear/rear side from the above on more then one occasion). And among those weren't even the super large ones (oddly two were in different years of the Lexus RXs), the height of the SUVs seems to be a big cause of it. Aggressive driving is only part of what contributes to accidents, the rest is causing accidents for other reasons and not being able to control the vehicle well enough for emergency maneuvers and avoid them - and likely the vans good visibility among other things do make them safer. Also, the rollover factor in the SUVs still seems to be a problem.


Anyway, I'm glad no-one is disputing that the large SUVs cause more serious injuries/fatalities to those driving passenger cars. Did a quick search and there seems to be a lot of supporting info on it, its not just a play with the stats sort of fact, even the automaker's acknowledge the problem (and these are not biased sources as far as I can see):

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LTV/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/0...ring.suv.reut/
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/runge.html
http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstract.00005373-200210000-00022.htm;jsessionid=D0U2bIY6iN893izD26V5Tm241m2zB Spo77i817hhTKQ4WzzjAlrA!231839128!-949856145!9001!-1

This one might be biased but the site its from seems to have people's best interests at heart: http://www.citizen.org/documents/Mic...Statistics.pdf

In the search I also ran accross the fact that pedestrians are much more likely to die as a result of being struck by an SUV/large truck vs a passenger car since they are so much higher and blunter.

 

Again I fear that I will be seen as a blind defender of SUVs. I really am not but I feel compelled to present some sort of counterpoint especially in the areas of generalizations and statistics.

The first link you posted is nearly ten years old and even admits that the higher incidence of LTV accidents may be due to the dramatic rise in popularity of such vehicles during the studied period. I am sure there is some value in that study anyway.

The second link doesn't really say much other than that both the auto industry and the government are slow to respond to SUV safety concerns. No surprise there.

The third link makes a good case. It is mostly about rollover and SUV to car crashes and is compelling. I would like though to see if there is any counterbalance or lack of it. According to the industry (not a great source) SUVs are safer in side and rear impact cases. Since rollovers are only 3% of total accidents, maybe the benefits of side and rear impact safety overcomes the rollover weakness.

If you refer back to the "Big and Bad" article SUVs as a class seem slighlty more likely to have fatal accidents but there are many non-suvs that are at least as bad if not worse.

Your fourth link, although you indicate a bias is there, seems to have the best numbers and is scary. It shows the ratio of the other car fatalities. I find this one scary because I think the freedom to risk one's own health is debatable but putting the health of others at risk is more serious.

But one thing that is clear from that fourth link and something I have said before in the SUV topic threads, is that the pickup is the worst of all - by far. So this kind of thing leads me to say, as I have said in other places before, - why does the SUV get all the bad press? The pickup is far and away the number one selling vehicle in the US. If I remember right, the top three selling vehicles are all pickups. The top being the Ford F series at over 900,000 units sold per year. The best selling car (behind three pickups) is the Camry at a number of about half of that.

Another conclusion I am coming up with is that if I am an auto insurance company I hate the SUV and pickup. SUVs and pickups have a higher incidence of death for those other than the driver. Why is this important? If you are driving and are responsible for an accident and you die, your auto insurance pays your family little to nothing for your death. If someone other than you dies, then the insurance is likely to pay the policy limit to the family or estate of the dead. So if I am an auto insurance company I would sponsor all sorts of studies on how unsafe SUVs and pickups are.

I continue to be alarmed by the numbers that show that most of the safer vehicles are not made by US auto makers and most of the less safe vehicles are made by the US makers. I remain convinced that the safety issue is not as much about SUVs as it is about US auto makers. I am all for anything that forces the US auto makers to be more competitive in both the US and abroad.

 

By the way - after posting earlier on this thread today, I went to go read today's paper. In the paper is a full page ad from Ford with the banner: "The safest Ford Explorer yet". It goes on to say something about having recieved a five star crash rating.

Funny in light of this discussion.

 

Okay, let’s assume for the sake of argument that SUVs are the most dangerous vehicles on the road. Let’s accept all the statistics that support that proposition. Let’s stipulate to that “fact” even though pickups may deserve some attention. The reasons can be any or all including the high center of gravity, the mass/weight, the poor visibility, the poor drivability, or the bad driver. Let’s concede that point to the SUV-bashers. Now let’s assume that those who hate SUVs are successful in their campaign to get them all off the road so that they don’t endanger them and the rest of us in our Mini Coopers. All SUV owners have been shamed into voluntarily taking them to the recycler or they have been outlawed.

Now that those nasty, dangerous, and wasteful SUVs are out of the picture, whom will the SUV-bashers pick on next? Pickup truck owners? Mini-van owners? Cadillac owners? There will always be a vehicle next in line that will now be statistically the most dangerous vehicle on the road, or will offend someone’s sensibilities for some other reason (such as it’s a foreign car—what about U.S. jobs?), and someone will be out to demonize those vehicles and the people who drive them. As long as there is a threat on the road, they will find a villain to go after. They seem to be seeking a perfectly riskless road trip. So they will find some other offender to go after. The logical extension of this successful “war on SUVs” will be that ultimately only one brand of vehicle will be left—the safest vehicle on the planet as determined by a report published in the New Yorker, I presume—and it probably will not be a Mini Cooper.

Several years ago, I read a study that concluded that the Volvo S80 was the safest vehicle on the road. Today it might be the Honda Accord. Perhaps we should embark on a campaign to outlaw or shame out of existence all other cars just because they are more dangerous than Volvos or Hondas. After all, it would be for our own good. We’d all be safer. And we could just have Circuit City deliver our new wide-screen TVs and we could hire someone take our trash to the dump each spring. We could rent RVs when we want to go to Yellowstone or Death Valley. We don’t need the interior space of an SUV 99 percent of the time. And besides, we can’t have people driving big cars that “waste resources.” Maybe we should ban the wasteful Mini Cooper S and just allow people to buy the less powerful, but more fuel efficient, Mini Cooper. It’s ridiculous.

Look, I’m all for considering safety as a factor in my choice of vehicles. But it is just one of many factors. And even the SUV-bashers must admit to that since they drive Minis instead of Volvos or Hondas. As long as we live in a free society, people will be making their own choices and there will always be some folks who think they know better and, from their position on the high moral ground, will do what they can to make sure that the available choices are limited to those of which they approve. I’m sure there is someone out there who is offended when they see a monster 1960s vintage Cadillac drive by. After all, nobody “needs” a car that big and wasteful. Should we criticize those folks too?

I think we should be a bit more tolerant of others whose choices differ from ours. I don’t even mind if some folks don’t like SUVs. I happen to be one of them, too. I can’t see myself ever owning one. But I don’t make it a point to bash folks who do like them. To each his own. If SUV bashing is successful, I fear my truck will be next.

I sure hope there’s room for me on that high moral ground, if I ever succumb to the SUV-bashers’ perspective. Until then, I’ll drive my Mini when I want to and my truck when I decide I need to. And I hope no one jumps to conclusions about me being selfish, wasteful, or dangerous when they think I’m driving to work all alone in my 4x4 Dodge truck one day. After all, I might be on my way to pick up a truckload of toys to deliver to the U.S. Marines for their Christmas Toys for Tots drive.

Have a Happy New Year!

 

OK, Mr. Econ... nice, witty post but we have just concluded that most of us here are not "SUV Bashers" and what we are doing is not "SUV Bashing". This is not a "War on Terror" that will never end and just keep changinig villans. Someone brought up outlawing the SUV earlier, and we all agreed it is not "the goal". I feel like you have not read the entire thread...
I am not afraid to have an opinion, and I don't know if you call that high moral ground, but if nobody spoke up and talked things out buy taking a position we would quickly lose that freedom to speak freely because it was not in someone's best intrest to allow it.

Chows- 99% of the cars on the road are capable of breaking the speed limit. So what?!?!?!

 

OK, I've been out of the discussion for a few days, very busy with other things (like work!)...

I want to make one point CLEAR, because some of you are missing the point completely that I brought up with regard to safety.

The discussion wasn't focused on the safety of the drivers and passengers of SUVs. It was focused on the increased danger to drivers and passengers of OTHER vehicles around them.

SUVs (yes, and pickups too, but to a lesser extent due to their slightly lighter weight) no matter how well they protect their occupants, are more likely to GET into an accident when a "situation" arises, since they are bigger and heavier, harder to stop, harder to handle (higher center of gravity). Once they are IN the accident, they are also much more likely to cause injury or death to other drivers (and pedestrians).

The top speed of any given vehicle is irrelevant (chows...), because that is a driver factor. The vehicle will only go as fast as the driver chooses to take it.

The fact is that even driving perfectly legal speeds by well intentioned drivers, the vehicle choice will play a role in the outcome of even a possible situation. Heavier vehicles like SUVs are far more likely to turn a "possible" into a "definite", no matter WHO is driving them. (i.e. same driver, different vehicle, different results!)

And THAT was my point. No two vehicles are alike, of course, and by no means am I trying to advocate making all vehicles the same. I'm simply raising the point that in choosing an overwhelmingly underperforming "active safety" vehicle that weighs 50% more or even double most cars, you are automatically increasing the risk for everyone else. Increase the number of these on the roads, all of us are in greater risk.

There will ALWAYS be a "real need" for SUVs and pickups. That was never in question, at least not by me. Banning them altogether is NOT the answer. The issue at hand is the huge number of people who have been and continue to buy them as "daily driver" car replacements. In that case, I think regulations should reflect that, and insist upon better "active safety" features, including reduced weight, better handling, and better braking. Simply calling them "trucks" and regulating them as such, and not cars, is ludicrous, even though they are based on a "truck" platform... simply because most of the time they aren't being USED as trucks.

And for what it's worth, the Chevy TrailBlazer vs. Porsche Boxster test used in the article IS relevant. Why? Because it is only trying to point out "perception" vs. "reality". That people would think the TrailBlazer is safer to be in, when the Boxster would AVOID many accidents that the TrailBlazer was in. The whole "active safety" (Boxster) vs "passive safety" (TrailBlazer) issue... one that far too many people are completely unaware of. That's all it was trying to do, and it did it very well.

 

But 99% of that cannot go 142 MPH. In fact, I'd guess the majority of cars sold in the US can barely get up to 105 which is reasonable enough power to safely pass but not put up a ridiculously high number for US highways.

You said: ... they must be regulated to have safer designs and better handling capabilities, not to mention better gas milage through lighter design and more efficient engines.

I said you might not want to go down that road ...meaning that if you expect leglislation to regulate safety ... then the first thing "they" will go after ain't going to be SUVs but Speeding and having a car than can exceed the speed limit by TWICE certainly needs to be "regulated"

Get it? the point is "regulation" opens a can of worms where you might not want to go

 

I will reiterate because I think you and sandtoast missed my message.

My point was that you really don't want some federal government entity to regulate much of anything because, IMHO, somebody will say: "Hey, speed kills, look how fast those cars can go, lets get them off the road"

If your going to talk safety, the powers to be will look at ALL safety issue and SUVs are not going to be on the top of their list.

On the other hand, YOUNG drivers speeding (and drinking) will be very HIGH on their list.

That was my point

 

I don't think that your point about other car deaths was missed all that much. I pointed it out and I didn't get any disagreement.

The comparing a Boxster with a Trailblazer makes no sense. I stand by that even when as you point out that the point was to address the perception of safety of an SUV. Who the heck really thinks that a Trailblazer handles as well as a Boxster? What would make more sense to me is ask car buyers that have safety on their mind, what is it they are thinking. Are they thinking - I want a car that will help me avoid accidents? I think the answer is no. Are they thinking - if I am involved in an accident, in what vehicle am I more likely to survive? Yes I think that is what they are thinking. So this shouldn't be about comparing the handling of an Boxster to the handling of a Trailblazer (although I understand the point they wanted to make). They should demonstrate the results of high impact accidents for each class of vehicle. That would make more sense to me. Either that or show me numbers that demonstrate that car handling and the better accident avoidance will result in substantially higher chances of survival. Maybe numbers showing that better handling cars are involved in less fatality accidents. Hmm but I thought minivans are the safest and they do not handle so well do they?

Also you seem to be wrong about pickups. From what I read from the links eval posted, pickups are worse. Much worse even than SUVs.

Which bring up a question - if pickups are indeed lighter than SUVs, as Edge says, and presuming that the weight of a vehicle is the major reason why other car deaths increase, than why are pickups worse? Could it be because of the group that drives those vehicles?

The more I read, the more I think that the drivers of various vehicles are the biggest factor in fatalities. Minivans are deemed safer - they are driven by moms to a great extent. Pickups are the least safe and are driven by guys for the most part. So I now declare that from this point forward, moms are to drive pickups and men are to drive minivans. Safety problem solved.

Edge I agree with your major point, perhaps something should be done about any vehicles that demonstrate higher safety risk. I just don't think it should be limited to SUVs.