How SUVs are the problem

Phlegmak said:

I find this hard to type, but it's true. First of all, I'm not going to argue with you about your SUV. If you want your SUV, that's fine. However, your post really makes me think, "how American of you." Ug, there, I said it. Maybe it would be more accurate if I said, "how Republican of you." You're saying that the fact that it's legal for you to do something is more important to you than the morality of it.

Click to expand...

It's O.K., I am American and this is one of my personal hot-button issues. I won't take offense to insults issued for the sake of constructive dialog.

The morality issue is simple, I'm acting in a highly moral way. It's a big part of my job as the head of my family to see that they are safe. The best way to do that in this case is to provide the safest form of transportation that I reasonably can. Driving is dangerous business, I suspect you personally know of people badly hurt or killed on the road. Am I wrong to put my family first?

I am against pollution and waste too, but my families added safety during a life-threatening activity is more important to me than the added gas savings or pollution reduction.

Just for laughs I thought I'd mention I'm not a Republican.

El_Machinae said:

aka: why wasting fuel is not what you should be doing

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with luiz.

Here's the thing - an SUV has a function. Usually that function is to drive person to from A to B. An SUV offers very little utility over a sedan or an economy car. It has the same number of seats, it's just a little more roomy. I know there are people who make 'proper' use of the SUV, but they are being discounted for the discussion, because we all know of SUVs and minivans that are not being used with utility.

Click to expand...

Well you obviously haven't been to my part of Wisconsin. Around here SUV's are used for many things. I work at a baitshop, and 7 out of 10 vehicles pulling a boat is an SUV. They offer little utility over a sedan or economy car? Can an economy car or a sedan pull a 15ft, fiberglass hulled, boat, with generally a 75+ horsepower outboard (most cases), fully laden with either fishing or other recreational gear? Or perhaps can they pull a 20ft pontoon boat? I am led to believe that they can't. The smaller engines in those cars is not sufficient to pull a boat out of a launch, which is generally soaked. I have seen my fair share of people try, and fail doing so.

I will have to answer the other two paragraphs in a little while, my next class starts in about 5 minutes.

sanabas said:

Crash test data?

What sort of wreck? Collision with another car, collision with a wall, side impact, etc? There's plenty more to determining safety than just the size & mass of the vehicle you're in.

I used to have a 4WD ute, aka an SUV for americans. I'd happily say it would suffer less damage in a low speed crash, carpark demolition derbies, etc. No way it would have been safer in a crash on the highway when compared to a normal car.

Click to expand...

Name any test you want but all things being equal the bigger object is going to win 9 times out of 10. That's just physics.

That said most SUVs are underengineered simply because automakers are not required by law to meet the same safety standards with SUVs & trucks as they are with cars. That needs to stop and they need to be included in the corporate average fuel economy numbers as well as forced to comply with the same pollution laws.

Around here SUV's are used for many things.

Click to expand...

I find that renting a truck for the weekend has much more utility than idling my SUV in rush hour traffic. I used to rent a truck, but I've moved to renting a friend's truck, because the market price is a lot lower. But, even before, the money I saved with regards to owning an economy car easily compensated the markup when renting a commerical truck. You'll recall that I was comparing utility of SUVs in a general sense.

Sahk: I see your point about one-up-manship with regards to safety and visibility. Sadly, the only solution I could see would be to legislate against SUVs and trucks (thus making you even with your accident competitors). I'm loathe to even recommend doing that.

The problem with acting with group benefits in mind (for me, owning a small car) is that I subsidize the SUV. I help keep fuel cheaper by limiting demand and I provide weaker competition if I get into an accident. I see no way around it. I'd imagine that you pay quite a bit more for insurance than I do though, since your vehicle is likely to do more damage.

newfangle said:

Why not just ban all automobiles? And all polluting consumer products for that matter. I mean...we only have one earth. What right do we have to ruin it for our children?

I say we return to the days of horse drawn carriages and candlelight. Woops, horses produce methane and candles release CO2. Well, let's just go back to the era of caves and hunt with spears. No fire for warmth or cooking thought- too much pollution.

But then overpopulation may still be a problem. Pro-active genocide may be the answer. I mean, if we are all dead, how can we possibly pollute the earth? There. I think that's the solution.

Click to expand...

All of this is technically true.

But it's still an argument along the lines:
"Since we can't make an operating theater 100% sterile, we might as well operate in a sewer!"

It's about the relative preassure we put upon the environment. We may not know quite where its breaking point is, but it seems reasonable to infer there is one.

CartesianFart said:

I find it funny that a fundie like Odin2006 is complaining about messing with people's lives.Yep,let's legistlate morality but don't pollute my earth.

Click to expand...

If you think all, or even most, enviromentalists are nutty eco-mystic Mother Earth-worshipers you've been listening to too much Rush.

I'm still not convinced that preventing damage to others (or limiting inflation) is a law based on morality. Or at least, not in the same way as laws towards on sexual activity or religious beliefs.

What really boggles my mind is city people with pick-up trucks who don't need the hauling capacity. back in the day most people with pick-ups were people in rural areas, usually farmers, or had them for business purposes. Now we have city people buying them because they give a "rugged outdoorsman" image for the NASCAR dads who drive them.

Oerdin said:

Name any test you want but all things being equal the bigger object is going to win 9 times out of 10. That's just physics.

Click to expand...

When they're both hitting large, stationary objects, the larger vehicle is going to hit with more force. When moving things hit, ten yeah, the bigger object is likely to win. Which would be a good argument if we were worried about damage to the car. But safety is based on how much of the force is transmitted to the passengers, which is not dependent on vehicle mass.

Sahkuhnder, one of your main reasons for driving a car like this seems to be that you see it as safer. What evidence do you base that on? Simply because it has more mass than a smaller car?

What about the fact that an increased mass and increased wheelbase makes them less manoeuvrable? If it's harder to avoid an accident, wouldn't that make it less safe?

The solution is simple. If the long-term cost of using fossil fuels is not accurately reflected in their price, then raise the tax on gasoline consumption. That way you don't have all this ridiculous legislation picking on arbitrarily drawn classes of vehicles.

And the true cost probably isn't reflected in the price of gasoline, so ya, they should raise the tax on gas. Then after that, if someone still wants to dish out money on an SUV/luxury vehicle/flight ticket, so be it. They will be paying the full cost of their decision.

sanabas said:

Sahkuhnder, one of your main reasons for driving a car like this seems to be that you see it as safer. What evidence do you base that on? Simply because it has more mass than a smaller car?

Click to expand...

Actually two factors:

1) More mass as mentioned in previous posts.

2) More actual space for additional steel and crumple zones. Imagine how far a Chevy Suburban type vehicle would have to crumpled in a rear-end collision in order for the damage to impact the second seat row passengers. Now compare that to a small economy hatchback. The full-size SUV literally has 5-6 feet of space between the seats and the rear bumper for example. The same applies to other outer dimensions as well, only to a lesser extent.

Digging up data was difficult due to the large volume available, but here are some referenced quotes all from different sources. I tried to find data that factored out variables such as driver age, speed, etc. and focused on occupant injury issues, but did include a table of raw statistics. If you can provide any data that smaller mass = improved occupant survivability I would like to see it.

a) "The effect of vehicle weight or mass on safety seems self-evident. As has been shown in a large number of studies, all else being equal, vehicle occupants in a crash are better off in a heavier than in a lighter vehicle."

b) "Larger, heavier vehicles generally afford more protection than smaller, lighter ones."

c) "The extra weight of the heavier vehicle reduces the risks for its occupants but also inflicts extra risks on the people in the lighter vehicle."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:1I4AFh5zC4YJ:www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr3903.pdf Driver deaths per billion miles by vehicle size 1996-99 models during 1996-2000:

People who say it is immoral to drive an SUV have too much time on their hands. Get a life and stop worrying about other people.

SUVs are more safe. Period.

Is it immoral to provide your family with the safest transportation possible? No.

Plus, if I rideshare three other people in my SUV are we not saving more gas than if we all drove small vehicles? Yes.

People need to focus on their own small little lives instead of worry about what the Jones' are doing next door.

MobBoss said:

People who say it is immoral to drive an SUV have too much time on their hands. Get a life and stop worrying about other people.

Click to expand...

I would say the same about people who say it is immoral to be homosexual, or have abortions, etc. But I think something along those lines is already being discussed in this thread. (?)

The truth is, that if someone else's choices effect you, it is your business. And in this case, a person's choice to own an SUV effects others via pollution.

But I personaly have no problem with people who buy SUVs, I'm more of a "don't hate the playa, hate the game" type of guy, if you will. So we need to change the rules of the game, as is being discussed (though I tend to be against taxing gas, unless you want to give exemption to poorer people, not sure how that would work though)

sahkuhnder said:

If a person with a small car that gets 30 miles per gallon lives 10 miles from work and a person with an SUV that gets 15 mpg lives 5 miles from work, who is burning more gas in their daily commute? Who is actually on the road for a longer period of time?

Click to expand...

VRWCAgent said:

Just to add another element into the mix, who would be worse? Someone with a big SUV who drives it 10-15 miles a day, or someone with a very economical car who drives it 60-70 miles per day?

Click to expand...

Odin2006 said:

What really boggles my mind is city people with pick-up trucks who don't need the hauling capacity. back in the day most people with pick-ups were people in rural areas, usually farmers, or had them for business purposes...

Click to expand...

MobBoss said:

Plus, if I rideshare three other people in my SUV are we not saving more gas than if we all drove small vehicles? Yes.

Click to expand...

Is the problem with the vehicle, or with how the vehicle is used? Fuel-inefficient vehicles can be used in a very efficiently manner.

Extreme example (but fun):



Very efficient use of fuel per cargo unit carried, but at the expense of safety.


The HOV lanes seem a good idea until you see them almost empty, even during rush-hour, while the regular traffic lanes are jammed-up with vehicles just idling and wasting gas and generating pollution, which was supposed to be exactly what the lanes were intended to prevent.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a solution (besides firebombing the SUVs )?

Odin2006 said:

If you think all, or even most, enviromentalists are nutty eco-mystic Mother Earth-worshipers you've been listening to too much Rush.

Click to expand...

I don't listen to Rush.Also,i am not a republican.I was just demostrating hypocricy.

El_Machinae said:

I think that an additional issue is that the SUVs are not under any pressure to increase fuel efficiency. So, while sedans are getting cleaner and cleaner, SUVs are not.

Someone said that high gas prices are a good thing. Maybe, from an environmental perspective, they help reduce CO2. But from an economic perspective (the one I presented in this thread), it's not good, because it hinders the economy. Cheap energy is what the economy needs.

Click to expand...

You'll need to explain that. What's the difference between energy and any other commodity or production factor? Doesn't the economy need cheap labour or food just as much?

Although I don't want to give energy any special role in the economy, transportation certainly have one. The price of transportation limits the extent and size of the market for a certain commodity or service. One example is how far from home ppl can take a new job. With higher transportation costs, the pay need to be higher to make it economical. Fewer buyers and sellers can meet each other.

Still, I think gas taxes are the best way to deal with this. It wont address SUVS specifically but that's not really what we want is it? SUVs don't pollute, it's the burning of fuel that does. With raised gas prises there won't be any need to watch you neighbours consumption, if he uses a SUV or any other gas guzzler he pays for it.

Gas taxes won't damage the economy more than any other tax, and when it's raised, some other tax can be lowered instead.

The question that needs to be answered first is if you want to decrease gas consumption or not.

Precisely. The purpose of the gas tax is to more accurately price gasoline which will lead to more efficient decisions regarding its use.

Re: HOV lanes - are these carpooling lanes? If so, I make excellent use of them because I take the bus into downtown. I zip by in my luxurious bus while people in other lanes are stuck in start-n-stop traffic. What's funny is that they could park along the busroute too and easily save time.

Re: cheap energy. Ever since we started using steam instead of muscle, we've substituted energy for manpower. And it's only gotten more and more common. Look around you right now - how many products were made using electricity? Is your room lit? Was your breakfast from a grocery store?

Delivering and producing every single product we have is subsidized by energy (other than muscle power). If energy is more expensive, every single product would have to be marked up to reflect the price of producing the good. With your income, you could afford less stuff - and in an economy, some stuff is good. It's a trickle-down effect, the cost of energy, and it impacts everything.

That's one reason why we want cheap energy. But we don't want the price of energy to not capture the externatilities of diminishing supply and pollution.

El Machinae. There is a difference between "cheap" energy, and the illusion of "cheap" energy.

luiz said:

What's the point of having a Ferrari or a Porsche, or even a Mercedes or a BMW?

Let's all drive small VW cars.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. Sports cars have bigger engines so that they have better performance capabilities, and they burn more fuel because of this.

Most of the people I see driving SUV's at where I work are from Illinois. And most come in to either rent one of our boats or buy some shiners or fatheads or something, and upon opening their wallet, it is a common sight to see a lot of greenbacks. I've asked a few of them about why they drive an SUV (kind of a dumb question to ask some of them) as they are usually pulling a boat upwards of $25,000+. What, you ask, does that have to do with the topic at hand? Simple. These $25k+ boats are loaded with extra features, gizmos (what have you), and this does one thing: Increase the overall weight of the boat, which means you need more power to pull it out of the launch. Power provided more easily by the bigger engines in SUV's and trucks.