Merriwether

As some recent threads reveal, there is a desperate need on this forum for a realistic appraisal of automobile fuel consumption, SUV's, the so-called "oil crisis", and related matters. Here's a start to a fair and balanced discussion.

Though greens constantly assail SUV's for their alleged safety deficiencies, CAFE standards are more dangerous than any light trucks. According to a National Academy of Sciences study released in 2002, between 1,300 and 2,600 people died in 1993 (a typical year) because of the reduced automobile size required by CAFE standards.

https://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...ml?id=95000852

The NAS study referred to in this article is now available. See Finding 2 in particular:

https://books.nap.edu/books/030907601...3.html#pagetop

The environmentalist view of auto safety: it matters when large vehicles are being criticized and not otherwise.

Merriwether

A further, excellent discussion of SUV's in response to a typically hysterical "expose":

https://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03618.cfm

Gurgus

The whole SUV argument really bothers me. My first car was a 1985 Suzuki Samurai. It had a 1.1 litre 4 cylinder engine. Four wheel drive, it was registered as an SUV. That thing used less gas than a lawnmower.

LittleBigMan

I'm not suprised this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper which is more concerned with money and it's aquisition than safety or environmental concerns.

Size and weight alone do not protect you in a crash. Rollover is a major cause of death, primarily due to head injury, and SUV's score very poorly in rollover incidents.

Also, we must realize that the larger, heavier and faster-driving vehicles on the road pose a risk to all other road users. When automobile companies use the "size does matter" argument to justify their huge profits from expensive, gas-guzzling single-occupancy trucks, they are simply lining their pocketbooks at the expense of the lives of other people. Small cars are not a safety problem, big cars are.

If a heavier car hits you, it will transfer more force of impact to you than a lighter car. But if a faster car hits you, the force of impact is also increased tremendously. So if we are all going to buy heavy trucks to protect us in a collision (at the expense of the other guy,) let's also remember to drive faster and hit the gas instead of the brake when we are about to have a wreck.

Anyway, with the cheapest gas in Atlanta reaching almost $2.00 a gallon, I wonder how much longer car companies will be able to rake in the dough on their overpriced pickups and SUV's.

Dchiefransom

When an article in my paper last year dwelt on the safety of small autos, they used the Insurance Institute's statistics, and interviewed insurance agents. The largest demographic group of deaths in small vehicles was in single vehicle crashes. That means no other vehicle was involved. Most of these little boxes are very unsafe. Maybe if we actually tested drivers instead of just giving them cursory exams, there wouldn't be so many crashes in the first place. Of course, we all know that there's less cahnce of death when more people ride bikes, walk, or take public transportation to work.

Dutchy

Petrol is now at $1.08AUD per litre (~$3US per gallon). It doesn't bother me, but it will give many companies an excuse to hike up their prices on other goods. The airlines have already started raising their prices.

CHEERS.

Mark

LittleBigMan

My parents were hit broadside in a small Toyota Corolla by a very large car, travelling fairly fast (according to my parents.) They had turned left in front of it.

The car that hit them impacted the passenger side door squarely (my mother was sitting there.) The impact was great enough to knock my mom's glasses off her face and out the window (after the glass shattered, all in a split-second.)

Neither of my parents were hurt.

It is possible to build safe cars without building them larger. It is also possible to build large cars that are unsafe. The reason safer cars are not built is the extra cost. Isn't it interesting that extra cost is what car companies whine about when it comes to stricter fuel standards in their vehicles? Since when did stricter fuel standards make it necessary to build unsafe vehicles? It's all in the technology. Profits are the bottom line.

And let's not forget the speed factor. Any car develops a high potential for deadly force-of-impact at higher speeds.

What about visibility? How many times have you been stuck behind an SUV while trying to turn left, unable to see around the monster? SUV's block visibility so I can't see what's up ahead. I can't even see how close they are following the person in front of them. I'm totally at the mercy of their judgement. I have to fall further back to protect myself from sudden stops.

Chris L

Only if the general public are stupid enough to pay the inflated prices. If not, the prices will come back down again just as quickly.

Pat

The thing I find odd about SUVs is it seems the majority of them are just over sized, gas guzzling ego boosters. Sheesh, we had a guy nearby who had a hummer and it was the slightly modified civilian version not the cut down version that has come out after that. As far as I can tell, this guy never ever drove it off road.

Of course, I was on my bike behind a lady in an SUV as she approached a speed bump, she slowed down to a crawl and creeped over the "daunting" obstacle. I guess if she had been in a normal sedan, she never would have gotten through the barrier.

bluejack

There are an enourmous number of variables in any of these equations,
and just about any "study" is undertaken with some ulterior motive.
By shifting the domain of the discussion, emphasizing different factors,
or exposing legitimate holes in the original study, just about any such
study can also be "refuted."

An example from the opinion article: "The Competitive Enterprise Institute
has used the methodology of a study by Mr. Crandall and John Graham of
Harvard to conclude that in 1997 lower car weights linked to the CAFE
standard accounted for between 2,600 and 4,500 additional traffic fatalities.
Of course, the overall rate of traffic deaths continues to fall--as it has for
the past 100 years--but it would have fallen more in the absence of CAFE."

Well, maybe. If we were all still driving around enormous Chevy sedans,
we would have more mass around us to take the impact of an SUV,
but alternatively, if *all* vehicles were smaller, small cars would be
much less at risk. Obviously, impacts with trucks and busses are
generally worse, but as someone has pointed out -- and as this study
also notes -- mass is not the whole story. Better seat belt technologies,
air bags, highway speeds, road conditions... the list of variables goes
on and on.

My take is: some people need to drive trucks and SUV's. I have no
problem with it. But possessing truck-sized vehicles as a matter of
luxury, prestige, image, or even under the illusion of safety, is simply
unconscionable. I don't pretend to know what public policy should be
on this matter, but I have nothing but contempt for people who have
oversized cars they don't need.

We own a Subaru Forester, which is in the "mini-suv" class. In fact,
it's an update on the station wagon concept: it's got great, flexible
storage/cargo capacity that is perfectly adequate for 99% of ordinary
home needs. But it's still a car: no truck frame, no truck engine,
fenders (such as fenders are these days) are at the height of other
fenders -- rather than at the eye level of small car drivers like many
SUV's tend to be. And reasonably good gas mileage. It's a great
vehicle -- especially with a bike rack.

So, if you need a truck or a real off-road vehicle, by all means. You
should have the right to purchase and drive what you need. But if
you don't... please get a clue.

bluejack

LOL! So true.

Desk Rider

The fact is that SUV chassis and suspensions are nowhere nearly advanced as are in current passenger cars. For a vast amout of hard-earned money, all you get quite often under a nice bodiwork is a flatbed truck chassis and the good old live axle. Sounds a lot like the Ford T with tons of marketing slapped on it.

Ok, that's a bit of an exageration but passenger cars are light years ahead of this desing nowadays.

DanFromDetroit

The best way to reduce automobile related deaths is to reduce the amount of miles driven in them and reduce the number of autos on the road. Large, small, green, or polluting they are more alike than they are different.

Dan

bac

Nice propaganda, Merriwether.

AndrewP

It bugs me to hear poeple complain about high gas prices and all the politicians can do is ask for more production. Why cant the do something to reduce consumption. Since 1973 the Europeans have greatly increased the fuel taxes and reduced taxation in other areas, the Europeans still love their cars but they are much more economical ones.

bac

Obviously we could; however, as you know, big-oil and government are one in the same today. Politics, and money dictate policy - not the health and welfare of the people. It's a damn shame that we the people are too apathethic (or blinded by the left/right) to call anyone on it though.

Dahon.Steve

The best way to reduce automobile related deaths is to take mass transit. Better yet... Take a commuter train.

The argument is if we go back to regular sedans and give up our SUV's, we'll have more deaths because the smaller car is unsafe. GIVE ME A BREAK! I doubt all those SUV owners are going back to the Mini any time soon. With all the SUV accidents that result in fatalities, a change to sedans will decrease overall deaths. The whole thing is a wash in my opinion

oscaregg

What about USER ERROR? Modern small cars have the following safety promoting attributes--air bags, crumple zones, better seatbelts. They have what not a lot of people recognize as safety features--better braking, handling, and steering than either the SUV/pickup type of vehicle or older, heavier passenger cars. Notice that in many areas, the average Civic driver is a teenager who has hopped that car up to within a milimeter of its' life, whereas the average, say, Explorer driver is twenty years older and posessed of a lower hormone level. Any type of car with a younger average driver base will probably have a worse safety record just because younger people on the whole, and younger men in particular, are demonstrably less safe drivers! This study goes around every few years pushed by right-wingers who are politicizing engineering (both mechanical and traffic) issues.

oscaregg

PS, got stopped at a light while out kicking the Ciocc in the ribs the other day. Was next to a little Mitsubishi (I think) whose stereo was causing three or four separate, audible body rattles! Sounds like Driver Under Influence of Metallica!

John E

Increasing vehicle mass in the interest of safety is a zero-sum game. Driver #2 buys a Ford Expedition to protect himself against Driver #1's Explorer, then Driver #3 buys an Excursion to protect himself against the Expedition. Where the hell does it all end?

Improved education and stricter accountability for motorists would save far more lives than wasting more resources by making vehicles more massive.

Disclosure: I own a 4-cylinder VW Passat wagon, which offers a realistic compromise among the conflicting ideals of utility, maneuverability, safety, and fuel economy. (It's also alot more fun to drive than an SUV.)

ChezJfrey

The ongoing "debate" amongst these "studies" is ludicrous - full of illogic and useless rhetoric. One of the articles criticizes the opposing view stating, "If CAFE were a chemical that cost even a few dozen lives a year, it would have been banned as an unacceptable risk long ago." Of course, they forget to extend this logic to the production of the automobile itself, which kills tens of thousands in the U.S. (and countless over the entire globe) every year. Somehow, the author fails to see that their argument would require the ban of the automobile altogether. Brilliant, dumbass minds I tell you

LittleBigMan

SUV = "Sports Utility Vehicle."

That definition would fit my bicycle.

BeTheChange

I hate to admit it, but I have an X-terra. But the thing is, in the mountains around boone in the winter you kinda need 4-wheel drive to get anywhere. So I pretty much have a car now for the 15-30 days the roads are iced over a year. If I could do it all over I'd get a subaru.

I think the main problem in this country concerning auto-related fatalities is the extremely lax driving standards. Does anyone else remember their driving test? Man, I drove probably a total of 400 yards. It's not a driving test, it's a parking test. American's feel it is their right to drive so they would get pissed if they actually had to take a real driving test or spend some money on a driver's license.

It was amazing when me and my girlfriend drove up to quebec from virginia. Right after you cross the border into canada everyone is on the right side of the road and just use the left lane for passing. Both of our jaws dropped at this sight. So, at least we know that the driving rules could work. Hell, I just can't wait to move to canada

John E

It's much the same in much of northern Europe. I have also heard about some shoulderless Canadian roads being restriped from two 12-foot lanes to a 10-foot inner lane and a 14-foot outer lane, to facilitate car-bike sharing.

dskunk

I have to post just a little disclaimer about the post above. It ain't THAT good up here in Canada. My wife is constantly telling me that the drivers down in the States are so much better than here. (And Europeans are god-like)
I haven't checked the links in the first post so can't comment on anything else.