Sensible Erection | Big and Bad - How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety

Thursday, 19 February 2004

Big and Bad - How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety

quote [ Then there's this notion that you need to be up high. That's a contradiction, because the people who buy these S.U.V.s know at the cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover. But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller I'm safer. ]

A long, but very interesting article by Malcolm Gladwell that looks at how unsafe S.U.V.s are, but how the things that make them unsafe are the same features that make American drivers feel safe.

[by Robyn@10:09amGMT] [+10 Interesting]

Comments

smith0101 said @ 10:20am GMT on 19th Feb
True and untrue.

my dad has back pain unless he sits upright, so he'd be choosing an upright-sitting car with headroom no matter whether it was a gas-guzzler or not.

once he'd chosen that, he realized that a slight height advantage over other cars gave him better view of traffic conditions ahead, allowing him to better deal with dangerous driving conditions (sudden stops, emergencies on the roadway, crazy people around him). Of course, once everybody is at the same height, that advantage is lost....

I also think that four-wheel-drive is indisputably a safety factor if you ever have driving rain, heavy snow, or mud to deal with.

joseph said @ 10:40am GMT on 19th Feb
taller vehicles are more prone to roll over in an accident. also, because of the height, drivers' perception of their speed is different than in a lower vehicle. being further from the road, it appears to them that they are travelling slower, leading them to drive faster on average.

k0k0peli said @ 10:49am GMT on 19th Feb
Those of us in SUVs *MUST* be aware that we're driving a TRUCK not a sportster. Perhaps airhorns and rifle racks should be mandatory.

Shalmaneser said @ 1:11pm GMT on 19th Feb
Well, couldn't that rollover problem be remedied by making the SUV wider?

And as for driving faster, I'd give you that point if not for this little "speedometer" device that most vehicles nowadays seem to come with. If you're driving eighty on average (and on an interstate, that's about right, frankly), you should be able to figure it out pretty quickly and trim it down for the school zones.

windex said @ 3:19pm GMT on 19th Feb
Yes, I feel that two lane highways should be made into single lane highways so that SUV's can be twice as wide and SAFER than those little "half lane" cars all over the road! They could get run over, you know.

... end sarcasm.

Shalmaneser said @ 4:42pm GMT on 19th Feb
I always did get the idea that at least part of the reason people driving little, fuel-efficient cars were upset about SUVs was the anxiety produced from driving around among them. Sort of like being a cat wandering through the rocking chair store.

Or just a certain degree of irritation that, having denied themselves the luxury of a roomy gas-guzzler, they are surrounded by people who didn't. Bonfire of the vanities and all that.

windex said @ 5:02pm GMT on 19th Feb
Amazingly enough, that dosen't really bother me that much. I drive a MINI Cooper, and I have enough faith in the vehicle to know that in most impact situations I'm going to be protected or able to avoid the situation entirely.

The problem I have is that the largest group of disrespectful drivers I encounter on the road are driving SUV's and Pickups, and have the mentality that because they have a larger car, you have to get out of the way. I live in Milwaukee, and legions of people I know in Chicago drive with that mentality every day -- even the ones in the little cars! That's sick, and, really, WHO in Chicago NEEDS an SUV?

I had to use my car to stop a SUV owner from running over children they wern't looking for once, and he nearly hit it. I started slowing down because I thought I had seen some children running across the street from behind a group of cars on the other side of the road. The driver behind me started to pass me on the right, and I knew he was driving like an impatient ass, so I got into the middle of the lane (it was wide, to make room for parking on the right) to stop. The guy started going nuts, hitting his horn, and flashing his brights, and then the kids waltzed in front of my then stopped car without looking. Even after that, as soon as he had a chance to pass me going 20 over the speed limit he did (I generally drive 5-10 over like everyone else).

I would like to say that dealing with jackass drivers wasn't primarly isolated to those driving large vehicles, but I'd be lying. The number of jackasses driving riced-out Honda Civics might be high, but it's no where near the number of jackasses driving SUV's and Pickups in large cities.

So, in regards to your ".. irritation that, having denied themselves the luxury of a roomy gas-guzzler, .." comment, I happen to feel that people driving large vehicles are missing out on the fun of driving -- with a responsibile driver behind the wheel, the MINI is capible of doing some very neat, safe and legal acrobatics on the road with very little effort -- SUV's are simply too disconnected on pavement for the same to be true of them.

Shalmaneser said @ 6:19pm GMT on 19th Feb
Possibly it's merely that the frequency of bad drivers in SUVs and smaller cars is the same, but fear and fear alone keeps many of the ones in smaller cars in line? Exceptions, as you've noted, in Chicago.

As for the question of need, it's futile to ask "need". If you went through the average citizens house and said of everything, "Do you _need_ this?" the answer to almost everything would be no. All you _need_ is a place to keep the cold out, the rain off, and a sleeping mat and bowl. Beyond that, it's a question of want. And wanting is a good thing.

mitchje said @ 6:57pm GMT on 19th Feb
"... really, WHO in Chicago NEEDS an SUV? " Not I. Nor my wife; she drives a MINI Cooper and I drive a VW Beetle. It ticks me off to no end the number of useless monster truck-size SUVs I see hogging the cramped streets here in Chicago. I'm even more upset by their abuse of valuable on-street parking. Like most cities laid out before anyone had cars (or more recently developed areas, at most one per family), parking is at a real premium now that more people own cars. And I'm all for car ownership. But my wife and I can park both our cars in the same space as one Hummer (and yes, you do see a lot of those things lumbering around Chicago streets, not just your average-size SUVs, of which there are also way too many). Chicago gets a lot of snow and maybe all-wheel drive would help, but like other cities it has these wonderful things called "the El train" and "the bus lines" to keep things moving when your car is stuck or the weather is too dangerous to drive. To those in rural areas, I say buy whatever works for you. To my asshole road-hog neighbors in Chicago, I say your SUV is probably a BIG mistake.

kngpmp said @ 11:18pm GMT on 19th Feb
Actually the auto makers have already reacheed the limit of how big an SUV can get.(concerning issues with safety drivablitly, gas) Unless you retropfit a Big Rig and add seating.

Mousepractice said @ 10:25am GMT on 19th Feb
This looks really familiar - I think it was a link from inside a previous post on either SE or POE. Still, good work in bringing it to the masses.

k0k0peli said @ 11:15am GMT on 19th Feb [Score:1 Interesting]
First, SUVs as gas-guzzlers: our used Explorer (20 mpg) replaced a used Dynasty commute car (30 mpg - but it blew up) and an old Land Cruiser (15 mpg - sold it on the Net for bookoo bucks) and an ancient Chevy pickup garbage scow (10 mpg - it blew up too - sold it for US$100 including garbage). The Explorer is clearly more efficient than the fleet it replaced, and is just as suitable for hauling passengers and cargo.

Second, the safety of SUVs: when deer jump out in front of us, a smaller car like the old Dynasty gets creamed; the Explorer gets a cracked grille, which I replace for US$100. And we don't generally slalom in the burbs or play Freeway Dodg'em. And we never had Firestone tires. In its world, the Explorer is one of the safer vehicles around.

Third, the utility of 4WD: We're up a rutted dirt track at 1100m (3500ft) in a cedar-fir forest in the Sierra Nevada mountains. We were snowed in last week, but we got out in the Explorer whilst FWD sedans skidded impotently in the slush. Even in good weather, visiting friends & family leave their sedans & minivans home and arrive in 4x4s. Venturing down our road in a 2WD or low-clearance vehicle is a Very Bad Idea.

That said, I don't see any real use for Expeditions, Hummers, Alcantes etc except as backcountry limos - otherwise they're very expensive pacifiers, and folks up in this country don't drive those beasts. Folks from the burbs downhill DO drive'em however, and badly.

The article noted that SUVs are just PUs with extra bodywork. But just as animal-rights guys prefer to target fur-clad matrons rather than leather-clad bikers, so car-safety guy prefer to harass SUV drivers than PU drivers. In each case, the former are less likely to be armed and dangerous.

Oogforpres said @ 12:50pm GMT on 19th Feb
Good points, and you have to factor in the incompentence of Bay Area drivers coming up to the ski slopes in considering SUV drivers in the Sierra (people who drive all year without seeing snow aren't too bright when they go driving in a blizzard). But I have to ask, what's with you and cars blowing up?

k0k0peli said @ 6:34pm GMT on 19th Feb
It's FUN blowing up cars. Just don't burn yer lips on the tailpipe.

The Dynasty blew up because it got whacked on the road - a wheel came off an oncoming trailer and hit the radiator at 100 mph - thought we had it repaired OK but apparently not, coolant leaked and the aluminium block cracked and ADIOS.

The '68 Chev PU didn't actually blow up in '01, more like the tank rusted out and drowned the fuel system and cylinders with rust. And the smog district boundary expanded out to our then-Russian-River locale. Repairs and smogging and insurance would have cost more than we wanted to spend. So we cut our losses and signed up for trash service.

noone said @ 1:50pm GMT on 19th Feb [Score:1 Underrated]
Look, none of the rational critics of SUV's are against someone in your situation (bad dirt road, real instances of rough weather, etc) owning and using a SUV. But you have to realize that your situation is not actually the only or even typical one of SUV owners. It's those who never travel out of some city, those whose SUV's have never had any occasion other than the two snows a year to use 4WD, that really spawn and cement the criticisms.

SUV's are associated with waste because many of the people who get them don't actually need them, and the features like safety which they desire could easily be gotten in a less wasteful vehicle.

Similar case. My father and all his friends own huge trucks with horrible fuel efficiency, but they are also all farmers who would tear through a smaller trucks in a year (I know I saw many trucks die in my father's service when I was younger). In contrast, a cousin of mine that rarely ventures outside the Dallas area also has such a truck, and the pure absurdity of it has been the topic of more than one conversation. His status symbol isn't. And if I had to guess which class of owners the trucks (and SUV's) I see here is town have, I would guess they are closer to my cousin than my father and his friends.

Shalmaneser said @ 2:07pm GMT on 19th Feb
Last I checked, gas wasn't being rationed. You may, if you choose, leave your car idling in your driveway overnight for the hell of it. You can drive around in circles for hours. You can take random road trips to the middle of nowhere. You may, in short, use as much gas as you can pay for. Just like you can use as much of anything else as you can pay for. If you don't like how it's being used, outbid.

throwout01 said @ 2:48pm GMT on 19th Feb
wow wth are you talking about? have you never heard of environmental conservation?

housewares said @ 4:02pm GMT on 19th Feb
What is the environmental reason for "conserving" oil?

k0k0peli said @ 6:24pm GMT on 19th Feb
quote [ What is the environmental reason for "conserving" oil? ]

To keep the continental plates lubricated. #8-)

But I digress. What's really STUPID about burning oil is that we're WASTING an irreplacable resource for chemical engineering. There are many chemical processes that require petroleum as a feedstock - once we burn all the oil, modern chemical technology is gonna go bye-bye.

But I have a solution. Catch everyone who weights over 300 lbs, render them down, convert'em into bio-diesel, and fuel the US truck fleet. Hey, it's a start...

Shalmaneser said @ 7:08pm GMT on 19th Feb
And once we run out of Whale Oil, Nantucket will be dark forever.

bobuser said @ 3:28pm GMT on 20th Feb
Conserving oil has only a little to do with. I tend to breath air most of the time. I like my air to be laced with the fewest number of toxins possible. Every time I see a Humvee or an Expedition I see someone trying to kill me, simply because he's an asshole who is trying to compensate for having a little dick.
Furthermore, I know that everytime that asshole gets into his asshole vehicle some tinpot dictator with too much oil starts cheering, and sending a few more dollars to another asshole developing nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel. As well as driving US foreign policy in directions that a bad for the country.

Shalmaneser said @ 7:45pm GMT on 20th Feb
"I like my air to be laced with the fewest number of toxins possible. "

Ah, that is in fact the problem-- it's not your air. If it was in fact your air, you'd be able to determine what went in it. It's the community's air, and the community doesn't really give two shits about your ideal air standards. If you want "your air" to be pure, buy a tank of it. Failing that, well, welcome to the downside of Democracy.

frosting said @ 3:40am GMT on 21st Feb [Score:-1 Overrated]
The community does indeed give two shits about the quality of the air. It may not be a universal consensus, but I think if you check the numbers you'll find the majority opinion in most civilised countries is that cleaner air is an important goal to work towards.

Just because you personally don't give two shits, that doesn't give you the right to project your opinion onto the community as a whole and assume that you speak for them.

One interesting thing about you, is that you seem to almost loathe "the community", and would prefer to not have anything to do with anyone else in the world. Why is it that you are [presumably] still living in the community, and benefiting from said community? Don't you ever stop to question your hypocracy?

Shalmaneser said @ 4:40am GMT on 21st Feb
I was deriving the "two shits" from the popularity of SUV sales. If you ask people if child beating is bad, do you determine their answer based on whether they say "Yes, it's terrible" or whether they beat their children? We give air quality lip service, and buy SUV's like mad, at least in this country.

As for the community, let's cover the term "necessary evil." Do I require an industrial civilization somewhere to maintain my standard of living? Yes. Do I like people? In general, no. As such, I prefer the route that maintains minimum involvement with others. Do I care if the community is functionining at optimum happiness/joy/whatever? Not a bit...as long as it continues to manufacture consumer goods and services in sufficient quantity to keep me happy.

Look at the concept of community from your viewpoint-- you might, more or less, consider people good and happy things...but consider that a great number of them are, by your standards, trying to poison you.

frosting said @ 6:05am GMT on 21st Feb [Score:-1 Flamebait]
You're not a very appealing individual you know. But I guess you wouldn't dispute that either.

Humanity did not evolve to the civilised state that it largely is today by the actions or opinions of people like you. Nor would it move any further forward if the majority of people were like you.

Shalmaneser said @ 9:18am GMT on 21st Feb
Actually, if you look at a lot of early civilization building, it wasn't exactly done by terribly nice people.

And, let's face it-- whether humanity moves "forward" or not...what, to me, is this quintessence of dust?

Shalmaneser said @ 4:40pm GMT on 19th Feb
Yes. On the other hand, if you want your environment squeaky clean and free from pollutants, and other people prefer it somewhat smokey, why should your views trump theirs? Given the difficulty of owning your own particular chunk of atmosphere, you're stuck with what other people want. Sorry. If it makes you feel any better, the air's a trifle cleaner due to your conservation efforts. Beyond that, it's something of a collective decision, and the collective sure likes their SUVs.

yankster said @ 9:52am GMT on 20th Feb
shalmaneser ... i've noticed you tend to confuse what you can do and what you should do ... for the greater common good, although that may be too esoteric a concept. anyone with half a brain should want clear, rather than smokey skies. if we try to do something about it now, maybe our grandkids won't have to wear respirators whenever they go outdoors. just because there are more fuckwits than their are people with half a brain doesn't mean that what the fuckwits want is the best course for all concerned. your argument, basically, is that you can't fight the masses. well, this is theoretically what government for ... to protect the fuckwits from their own worst instincts. now if only we could get some non-fuckwits to run the government, we'd be all set.

yankster said @ 9:53am GMT on 20th Feb
too esoteric for you, anyway.

Shalmaneser said @ 10:18am GMT on 20th Feb
Right-- I consider it impossible to control the "masses". Which, frankly, includes every other person on the earth. You can, at most, control you.

Also, once you have government by the "half a brain" over the "fuckwits", you begin a long and likely violent discussion over what a "fuckwit" is, and how best to exclude them from the political process. Ask each end of the political spectrum about whether the other is composed of fuckwits.

manoreason said @ 3:47pm GMT on 19th Feb
Interesting article. My main problem with big trucks and SUVs is that they are so fucking expensive and unecessary in 90% of cases and, as this artilcle points out, not safer than many other cars. When I see them I always think: "did the dumb fucker who bought that have nothing else to invest all that capital into? Are huge truck payments really worth satisfying that 'reptilian center' of their brains?"

graham said @ 4:11pm GMT on 19th Feb
/me stands at the pump for 10 mins while filling up his suburban (~134L tank).

Wut y'all be talkin' 'bout?

Sente said @ 4:34pm GMT on 19th Feb
What I find interesting are the ridiculous prejudices displayed in the article.

"It's amazing that intelligent, educated women will look at a car and the first thing they will look at is how many cupholders it has."

So, this makes them stupid and ignorant? Now, I'm a man, and a very technically-oriented man at that, but interior design is not a minor or irrelevant car feature! Why the fuck should I trust a car company that doesn't get even the simplest, most obvious things right?

I drink coffee in my car often. I want a fucking cup holder! I want one for me, I want one for every passenger. It's a safety feature, like having the radio dial somewhere you can reach it that doesn't force you reach awkwardly and lessen control of your vehicle. And why the hell don't cars have garbage cans?

These women are looking at a car first as a place where they're going to be spending a lot of time. There's nothing irrational about that. Nor is there anything irrational or infantile about wanting the interior to be padded and curved. Hard, sharp corners are a real safety concern, as well as being a plain pain in the ass when you bump against them getting around in tight spaces.

As for ridiculing people who buy large SUVs for safety: the death and injury statistics (i.e. the relevant ones) actually show that these vehicles are SAFER than the average car. Only when small SUVs (boxed-in jeeps rather than boxed-in trucks) do they appear as unsafe as small cars. Despite all the modern crash safety features, the single most important factor in crash survivability remains vehicle size.

Furthermore, the SUV's safety disadvantages mostly come into play if you drive stupid. If you're a good and cautious driver, and recognize the handling weaknesses of a large SUV, it's a very safe vehicle. In situations you can't do anything about, like being rear-ended, the distance it keeps you from the point of impact, mass, and -- YES! -- even the height all make you much safer than you would be in a smaller vehicle.

I'm not a big fan of SUVs, but the anti-SUV propaganda is mostly wrong and stupid. They're too expensive, use too much gas, handle poorly, and cause too much damage when they crash into things. These are excellent reasons not to buy one. Making up other reasons is deceitful and counterproductive.

EPT said @ 4:41pm GMT on 19th Feb
Once we all drive SUVs so we can see better, some idiot will invent the Mega SUV so that they can see better &c.

The funniest thing in the world was when they started designing them with road clearance but retained the 4WD. So you had a 4WD you couldn't take 4WDing

racerx said @ 5:41pm GMT on 19th Feb
Great article. I read it in the New Yorker a couple months ago and was trying to find an online link to it for SE, but no dice. Nice one.

jmnugent said @ 5:50pm GMT on 19th Feb
Automotive safety is the same as gun safety is the same as household chemical safety. The most important and critical factor isnt the equipment (cars, guns or chemicals) its the intelligence, skill and situational awareness of the person wielding the object.

I have witnessed just like everyone else that it seems like SUV owners have the highest ratio of "get the hell out of my way" mentallity and alot of SUV owners really dont need the SUV they bought. BUT you cant slam Ford or any other manufacturer for individuals dumb mistakes. Everyone has the freedom to spend their money and make dumb choices if they want. However if they make dumb choices on the highways and streets and cause public harm--the person should be held completely responsible. If you cant handle your vehicle, its not the vehicles fault, its yours.

That said, I live in Colorado in the foothills of the Rockies. I'm on my second Jeep Wrangler. (first one finally gave up after many years of high trails and intense off-roading) I wouldnt trade my Jeep for anything. The flexibility of a 4x4 is one of the main values to me. Its not a sports car, and I dont drive it like one...