TMQ on SUV safety issues

[graller]

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030120&s=easterbrook012003&c=1

TMQ has written a great article on the safety issues surrounding SUV's. I used to own one of these until my wife rolled her a few years ago. I am currently back in sedan class cars and happily enjoying the benefits in terms of safety and fuel economy...thoughts from others on the topic?

[Jason McCullough]

Summary: "Everything you know about SUVs is a lie."

[graller]

Some bizarre shit in there about stuff like focus groups designing the Durango to be as intimitading and anti-social as possible. Brian Koontz must have one :wink:

[Erik]

What does TMQ stand for?

[Bub, Andrew]

Tuesday Morning Quarterback.
They're talking about Gregg Easterbrook, Erik, but for some reason I can't fathom, Graller is calling him by his "once Slate now ESPN" football columnist monniker.

He's a TNR editor, that's his real job.

[Erik]

Ah.

[graller]

I know he writes for the National Review - I was introduced to him from an earlier thread here in the newsgroup as the writer of the TMQ Page 2 feature on ESPN. And its a heck of a lot easier to use in a subject tag.

[Bub, Andrew]

To my knowledge he doesn't write for the National Review. He writes for The New Republic, but that's an even easier mistake to make than to refer to him as TMQ. ;-)

[Kyle Wilson]

Some bizarre shit in there about stuff like focus groups designing the Durango to be as intimitading and anti-social as possible.

Where I come from, we call that looking "cool." I don't think I believe that driving a vehicle with lots of chrome and grillwork makes people worse drivers.

[graller]

I have seen supremely overconfident SUV drivers spin out in wet/snowy conditions more times then I can count. I do not agree with his assertions regarding how these cars are tied to Road Rage. Most of the people I know who have them are using them as replacements for the station wagon/minivan as a kiddie hauler. Not the type of person I associate with road rage. But the safety issues regarding brakes, rollovers, weight and mileage were interesting.

[Erik]

If you discount the half of the article where he's getting all hysterical about how owning or even liking SUVs is a symptom of mental illness, there's some pretty damning stuff in there. I don't understand his reasoning as to why 4WD isn't better than FWD for icy road conditions, though. Can anyone elaborate?

There's a pretty unpersuasive rebuttal (http://www.nationalreview.com/adler/adler012003.asp) at National Review Online. Among other things, the author accuses Easterbrook of failing to mention several facts that clearly *are* covered in Easterbrook's piece. Most notably, the NRO rebuttal says:


This is something Easterbrook simply does not do. If he had, he would have noted that while driving an SUV may marginally increase some risks, such as the risk of rollover, other risks, such as the risk from injury or death in a frontal collision, are greatly reduced.

But here's Easterbrook:


Buyers who choose enormous SUVs because the metal makes them feel safe are surely thinking that most car crashes are head-to-head collisions, in which metal does favor those in SUVs.

Maybe the NRO guy just skimmed the article he was attacking. I do that a lot.

[SpoofyChop]

The key issue here is that this guy wants to legislate away the right of companies to market and of consumers to buy the vehicle of their choice. But he's not content just to make the case based on the facts, he really isn't happy unless he paints SUV owners as being the biggest jerkoffs on the planet.

That's not journalism, it's hysteria. I agree that the rebuttal at NRO was slightly weak, but it's far more reasoned than the Easterbrook article. Hell, the NRO writer even admits that he doesn't like SUVs! But he is willing to accept that some people do without coming to the conclusion that they are all road nazis.

[graller]

I want my SUV but with proper brakes, a unibody design, better emissions and such. If it costs 3-5k more or the car companies have to live with the skinnier margins they are accustomed to on sedans that would be fine with me. I also dislike the lobbyist/exclusionary stuff that goes on in Congress...of course THAT is not limited to SUV's :?

[Anonymous]

For a serious percentage of SUV owners, it's not a matter of mental illness. Rather, it's a matter of:

1) Susceptibility to trends. All the neighbors have SUVs, so my wife has to drive one too. Wouldn't do to have her drop the kids from something smaller than a Ford Excursion. If you look at which kinds of cars sell, you'll see huge shifts every few years. Station wagons were dead, now they're getting trendy. Mid-sized hatchbacks used to be huge, now they're extinct. Etc. The unwashed masses buy what the neighbors are buying.

2) Safety misperceptions. If you polled 100 SUV-driving soccer moms, I'd bet 80% of them think that being up high in a big SUV makes them safer. And to a degree they're right, but it's also at the expense of the safety of those in more rational cars.

3) Size. People with kids need room. SUVs don't have the stigma that mini-vans do, and station wagons don't yet fit in with category #1.

I have no objection to people who actually use the capabilities of SUVs owning them. People who haul stuff in their jobs, people who actually do go off road, live on snowy hills, etc. It's the fact that probably 75% of the SUVs on the road now are there because they're the "in" vehicle in suburbia. Which wouldn't bug me if those SUVs weren't so environmentally damaging and dangerous to those of us in smaller cars.

[Bub, Andrew]

If you bought your Jeep Cherokee in 1990, as I did, does that make you a trend setter (even if it's a bad trend)?

[Brad Grenz]

I have seen supremely overconfident SUV drivers spin out in wet/snowy conditions more times then I can count. I do not agree with his assertions regarding how these cars are tied to Road Rage.

Yeah, that's pretty absurd, and I doubt there's anything resemblin data to support such a claim. From where I sit road rage seems directly related to the stupidity of many drivers on the road. People who never look in their rearview mirrors, who ignore the "Slow Traffic Keep Right" signs posted every 2 miles. People who don't use on-ramps as an opprotunity to get up to freeway speeds. Yeah, that's right. The on-ramp doesn't have a 40 mph speed limit, despite what many seem to think. I'm not one to ever physically harm someone over something like that, but it's certainly frustrating sharing the road with people who are completely oblivious to the other cars and basic driving courtesy.

[Guestacy]

If you discount the half of the article where he's getting all hysterical about how owning or even liking SUVs is a symptom of mental illness, there's some pretty damning stuff in there. I don't understand his reasoning as to why 4WD isn't better than FWD for icy road conditions, though. Can anyone elaborate?
I'm just guessing, but unless you have studded tires, you're pretty much screwed with 4WD or FWD on ice. You could make an argument, I suppose, that 4WD adds weight, which adds to interia, which means you'll travel further as you spin out on the ice.

It'a also possible that not having wheels offering any propulsion means they do not slip and therefore allow more driver control, though most 4WD cars have limited slip differentials to avoid wheelspin (actually, a lot of cars with ABS have this as well, since it's a similar system only in reverse).

Unless you live on a mountain, 4WD is pretty useless even in snowy climates. FWD cars typically have up to 60% of the weight over the front wheels, which aids traction in slippery weather. Rear-wheel drive cars, of course, are evil in bad weather, unless the car is mid- or rear-engined (giving it the same advantage as an FWD car, but with the thrilling increase in on- and off-throttle oversteer).

[Guestacy]

The key issue here is that this guy wants to legislate away the right of companies to market and of consumers to buy the vehicle of their choice.
His argument is that they cause harm to others and have long term implications that are political and environmental.

Should we not have pulled, say, hairspray with CFCs off the market because, you know, people liked aerosol cans and people had the right to make and consume them? (And I have no idea if I have my science right, so feel free to mock me.)

[Guestacy]

I want my SUV but with proper brakes, a unibody design, better emissions and such. If it costs 3-5k more or the car companies have to live with the skinnier margins they are accustomed to on sedans that would be fine with me. I also dislike the lobbyist/exclusionary stuff that goes on in Congress...of course THAT is not limited to SUV's :?
Isn't that true of most of the imports, the RAV4s, the CRVs, that Mercedes? How about a Porsche Cayenne? I don't think most of those are based on truck platforms.

[Jason McCullough]

The key issue here is that this guy wants to legislate away the right of companies to market and of consumers to buy the vehicle of their choice. But he's not content just to make the case based on the facts, he really isn't happy unless he paints SUV owners as being the biggest jerkoffs on the planet.

That's not journalism, it's hysteria. I agree that the rebuttal at NRO was slightly weak, but it's far more reasoned than the Easterbrook article. Hell, the NRO writer even admits that he doesn't like SUVs! But he is willing to accept that some people do without coming to the conclusion that they are all road nazis.

Right, how dare he advocate legislating away the right of companies to make whatever they want, *especially* in the market for automobiles. Sure, letting the federal government mandate fleet mileage for new cars, mandate crash tests, mandate non-explosive fuel tanks, and mandate redesigns that'll kill less people was ok, but letting them apply those same established legal properties to SUVS is *too far*!

If you drive an SUV, you're risking not only your own life, but those of everyone else on the road.

[SpoofyChop]

If you drive an SUV, you're risking not only your own life, but those of everyone else on the road.

That claim is far from proven. Look, obviously the government should mandate certain things once there is sufficient evidence to show there is a public safety issue.

But first of all, there isn't enough evidence, and second of all, what I was trying to point out was that he based his arguments partially on his own PERSONAL OPINIONS of the PSYCHOLOGY of SUV drivers!

That's not science! It's hysteria! Just like I said before! But now with more exclamation points so you don't miss my point again!

I'm more than willing to debate the merits of the vehicles and the possibility for legislation, but I categorically refuse to do it based on emotion and speculation.

[Jason McCullough]

If you drive an SUV, you're risking not only your own life, but those of everyone else on the road.

That claim is far from proven. Look, obviously the government should mandate certain things once there is sufficient evidence to show there is a public safety issue.

But first of all, there isn't enough evidence, and second of all, what I was trying to point out was that he based his arguments partially on his own PERSONAL OPINIONS of the PSYCHOLOGY of SUV drivers!

That's not science! It's hysteria! Just like I said before! But now with more exclamation points so you don't miss my point again!

I'm more than willing to debate the merits of the vehicles and the possibility for legislation, but I categorically refuse to do it based on emotion and speculation.

Who's the one using caps-lock?

First of all, he isn't just making accusations about the psychology of people who drive SUVs: he's citing auto industry research about the psychology of people who drive SUVs. I think the legal principle is "character of the defendant." Do you think the people who market SUVs don't understand their market?

For example:

Bradsher cites an SUV marketing specialist explaining that part of the sell line is, "If there is a crash, I want the other guy to die."

"They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self- centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors." This is Bradsher's summary of the auto industry's own marketing research about SUV buyers, and he adduces numerous on-the-record comments from auto-marketing gurus to back this up. One such wise man, named Clotaire Rapaille, tells the Big Three that people buy SUVs "because they want to look as menacing as possible." It is perhaps not startling that rather than trying to alter these buyer proclivities, the manufacturers of SUVs have tried to encourage them. There are lots of self-centered and self-absorbed people with little interest in their neighbors. Somebody finally made a class of vehicles designed to bring out the worst in them.

Many SUVs, such as the Durango, have been consciously engineered to look as threatening as possible, with auto companies using focus groups and other techniques documented in High and Mighty to determine which features and styling cues suggest an anti-social message and then zeroing in on them. The styling goal for the oversized Dodge Ram mega-pickup was "a vehicle that would make other motorists want to get out of your way." Cadillac markets the Escalade with photography staged to make it appear to be an armored combat vehicle, over the huge-type sell line Yield.

In other words, if these statements are wrong, take it up with the market execs in Detriot, then Bradshaw, the author of the book, and finally Easterbrook, the author of the article. The author's conclusions are pretty tame compared to that of the people on the inside, aren't they?

Of course, character of the defendant only matters in sentencing, so if you think the conclusion from data that "SUVs are more dangerous both to themselves and everyone else on the road" is wrong, it's irrelevant. I haven't seen a serious refutation of the numbers, however; everything's unsupported character assassination and statistical crimes, like that NRO article.

Edit: And it's not like "SUVs are safe for the driver, but not for everyone else" is true, either. They're a net loss for everyone.

[Guestacy]

But first of all, there isn't enough evidence, and second of all, what I was trying to point out was that he based his arguments partially on his own PERSONAL OPINIONS of the PSYCHOLOGY of SUV drivers!
It's a fact that SUVs are classified as trucks and thereby exempt from the same laws as regular vehicles, particularly when it comes to safty. It's also a fact that the reason trucks had separate laws was because they were, at the time, primarily used for business purposes. It's also a fact they're selling zillions of them to people for personal as opposed to business use.

Okay, I let emotion get to me and used "zillions" in place of "millions."

[Sparky]

So is a poor guy who drives an '85 Chevy Caprice wagon that gets 15 mpg as "evil" as a "yuppie" who drives a new Ford Explorer that gets 15 mpg? The anti-SUV folks really aren't clear on where the "evil" lines are drawn.

[Jason McCullough]

The guy driving the '85 caprice doesn't have a choice.

[Lunch of Kong]

Do you want to use 25% less gas? I normally get 300 miles per tank, but I can get 400 miles per tank simply by coasting in neutral when I'm not accelerating, and turning off my engine at long red lights.


Isn't that true of most of the imports, the RAV4s, the CRVs, that Mercedes? How about a Porsche Cayenne? I don't think most of those are based on truck platforms.

Yes, you're right. They are based on car chassis. The Toyota Rav-4, for example, looks like an SUV, but remove the outer unibody and you're left with parts from Toyota passenger vehicles such as the Camry and Celica.

Is my Rav-4 an SUV? I bought one in '98. It has a modest 113 HP, inline 4 engine. I normally get about 20 MPG driving around town. I think it's because the shape isn't very aerodynamic, not because the engine sucks. As a comparison, my dad's car has a whopping 290HP V-8 engine, but it gets over 30 MPG on the highway because the car has one of the lowest drag coefficients available in a consumer auto.

edit: I changed "design" to "car"

[Guestacy]

Do you want to use 25% less gas? I normally get 300 miles per tank, but I can get 400 miles per tank simply by coasting in neutral when I'm not accelerating, and turning off my engine at long red lights.
I'm not sure the latter is actually a good thing. Your car generates more pollution at startup than any other time, I believe, and it's certainly not doing the engine much good in terms of wear and tear (though it's obviously not cooling off in that time).


Is my Rav-4 an SUV?
Probably for marketing purposes, but people are really talking about your Explorers, Excursions, Escalades, etc. Yeesh, what's with the "E's?"


I bought one in '98. It has a modest 113 HP, inline 4 engine. I normally get about 20 MPG driving around town. I think it's because the shape isn't very aerodynamic, not because the engine sucks.
It's probably more because it's too heavy for its size, so it's causing the low mileage on that small engine. Aerodynamics don't come into play until you're past, say, 50 MPH.


As a comparison, my dad's car has a whopping 290HP V-8 engine, but it gets over 30 MPG on the highway because the car has one of the lowest drag coefficients available in a consumer auto.
But that's highway, not around town. That low drag only helps at speed. That V8 probably sucks up gas like crazy in various stoplight grand prix.

[Guestacy]

So is a poor guy who drives an '85 Chevy Caprice wagon that gets 15 mpg as "evil" as a "yuppie" who drives a new Ford Explorer that gets 15 mpg? The anti-SUV folks really aren't clear on where the "evil" lines are drawn.
Depends on the issue. If you're solely talking about mileage, they're equally bad. If you're talking about environment, that Caprice is probably a bigger polluter. If you're talking about safety, the SUV is problematic.

Of course there's the issue of choice; as Jason noted, the person driving the old clunker probably has less of a choice than someone that just plunked down $40K for an Explorer. The owner of the clunker could still make a "better" choice, though.

[Jason McCullough]

Guestacy's right: cars produce a ton of pollution & suck a ton of gas at startup. Hybrids don't have this problem (they spin up to speed using just the battery), but they're the exception.

[Lunch of Kong]

Guestacy's right: cars produce a ton of pollution & suck a ton of gas at startup. Hybrids don't have this problem (they spin up to speed using just the battery), but they're the exception.

Hmmm. Well, poo. I thought I read an EPA report that said engine start-up used the same amount of fuel as 30 seconds of idling. I gotta get me one of them Honda Civic hybrids, then.

So, most of my gains come from conserving momentum, then. For instance, I brake early when coming up to red lights so that I'm still going at at least 20mph by the time it turns green again.

Hmmm. But come to think of it, now I remember reading somewhere that an idling engine wears 2x faster than an engine at speed (because the fluids aren't pumping as fast?). So I guess coasting in neutral is a wash. You gain 25% fuel efficiency, and wear out your engine faster.

Edit:

I take that back. I just googled, and found out that all the damage is due to the low temperature of an idling engine. Well, if you're coasting for 30 seconds, that's not gonna lower your temperature too much. I also read that 175 degrees F is hot enough for efficient engine operation. I always thought it was much higher than that.

Edit: Hmm. I think they were talking about diesel engines in long haul trucks. I don't know how much of thiis applies to gasoline engines.

"I read it on the Internet. It must be true."

[Jack]

Isn't the problem with SUVs and indictment of the driver's skill more than a problem with the vehicle? If you're driving something with a high center of gravity, a good driver would know not to screech around corners.

BTW, I can't stand SUVs for the fact that most of the folks I know who drive them fit into the psychological stereotype listed above. They appear to be designed somewhat for intimidation, as stated -- which is probably why they've been under such attack lately. It's our natural instinct to beat the shit out of the bully.

[Guestacy]

Isn't the problem with SUVs and indictment of the driver's skill more than a problem with the vehicle? If you're driving something with a high center of gravity, a good driver would know not to screech around corners.
Sure, and 99% of drivers aren't any good. Or some other arbitrary percentage. We wouldn't need most safety devices in our cars if everyone was a better driver.