SUV Owners Shouldn't Read This

newspaper syndication ^ | March 22, 2003 | Donald "Lefty" Kaul

[newgeezer]

There are few things more misleadingly named than the Sports Utility Vehicle, which is neither sporty nor particularly utilitarian.

Oh, it's advertised as useful, I'll grant you that. And maybe it is, if you live in a remote mountain village where you occasionally have to drive over a rock-strewn field in bad weather to get where you're going. But most of the people who do things like that wouldn't be caught sober in one of the modern, fancy-schmansy SUVs, with the soft ride and the leather seats and cup-holders. (Real mountain people drive pickup trucks with a gun-rack in back of their heads.)

No, SUVs are bought, for the most part, by city folk, many of them suburban mothers who use them to cart kids around, with side trips to the supermarket. They claim that they buy them because they are:

1. Roomy (for the kids, you know)
2. Safe (don't want to be out there in a tin can)
3. Able to travel in inclement weather (because of the four-wheel drive so many of them have)

Which would be fine, except that none of those things is true. By the numbers:

1. Even the biggest SUVs (and there are some monsters) don't have any more passenger room than, say, a full-sized minivan, which costs thousands of dollars less and is easier to park.
2. SUVs have the distinction of being both more dangerous to themselves and more dangerous to other cars than other vehicles. Because of their high center of gravity, they have a distressing tendency to roll over and their fatality rates are higher than traditional vehicles (6 percent higher on the average; 8 percent in the bigger models). However, because of their huge size, in a collision with a normal-sized car, they are more apt to kill the occupants of the other vehicle. A Chevy Tahoe, for example, kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road, while a Honda Accord kills only 21. This what's known as a lose/lose situation.
3. Inclement weather? Don't make me laugh. People with SUVs think inclement weather is when you can't play golf. For the occasional snowy day in most areas there are better ways to get around. SUVs are not the only four-wheel drive vehicles around anymore, after all. There are cars with all- and four-wheel drive that are superior in every way to your average SUV.

Every way except one. You can't bully other vehicles with a car the way you can with an SUV. And that's what the extraordinary popularity of the SUV is about---bullying.

Keith Bradsher, a New York Times reporter who been waging a crusade against SUVs for years now, has just published a book, High and Mighty, which documents the case against the vehicle. In it he quotes market researchers who have found that the SUV craze is "about not letting anything get in your way and at the extreme, about intimidating others to get out of your way."

SUV buyers, the researchers say, tend to be "insecure and vain, often lack confidence in their driving skills [and] are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in neighbors and communities."

Does that sound familiar or what? Picture the typical SUV driver---the beady, close-set eyes of a serial killer set above a snarl that could curdle a latte. And that's just the women. The men are worse. Think of Hitler's Panzer divisions invading Poland.

On top of every else, these behemoths handle badly, get lousy gas mileage, are exempt from the safety standards that regular cars have to meet and don't have to pay the luxury tax that similarly priced cars have to pay. (It's called campaign contributions.)

Let's face it, they are an unmitigated disaster; assault rifles with power steering. If a terrorist country was trying to do to us what the SUV is doing, we'd be bombing it by now.

Yet the SUV has become the backbone of the American auto industry, and, as such, is with us forever or until the gasoline runs out, whichever comes first.

[newgeezer]

Well, I had no doubt that he directed that remark at the author, and not me, based on the simple observation that the quoted material was from the original article.

But, hey, thanks for checking. ;-)

[newgeezer]

Pouser? Can't find that word in the dictionary at dictionary.com. What does it mean?

I don't think he ever answered any of us, but I could only guess he meant "poseur."

[Dan from Michigan]

No, SUVs are bought, for the most part, by city folk,

I'm not cityfolk.

Roomy (for the kids, you know)
Always nice to have the room.

Safe (don't want to be out there in a tin can)

They are safe.
Able to travel in inclement weather (because of the four-wheel drive so many of them have)
My first car was an 85 Mercury Cougar. Since then I've had two Explorers. No comparison, especially in Michigan Winters.

Which would be fine, except that none of those things is true. By the numbers:

Horsecrap - Personal experience tells me otherwise.

Even the biggest SUVs (and there are some monsters) don't have any more passenger room than, say, a full-sized minivan, which costs thousands of dollars less and is easier to park.

Thousands less? Maybe if you compare a base line minivan vs a Ford Expedition, but there aren't much of a price difference between the two. Easier to park? I can park my Explorer just fine.

SUVs have the distinction of being both more dangerous to themselves and more dangerous to other cars than other vehicles. Because of their high center of gravity, they have a distressing tendency to roll over and their fatality rates are higher than traditional vehicles (6 percent higher on the average; 8 percent in the bigger models).

I never rolled my SUV.

However, because of their huge size, in a collision with a normal-sized car, they are more apt to kill the occupants of the other vehicle. A Chevy Tahoe, for example, kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road, while a Honda Accord kills only 21. This what's known as a lose/lose situation.

So what? What was the situation in each crash? If some jerk rearends me and dies, whose fault is that? Not mine, unless your cop happens to be Officer Martin of the East Lansing PD and the judge happens to be Judge David Jordon.(No one died in this case)

SUVs are not the only four-wheel drive vehicles around anymore, after all. There are cars with all- and four-wheel drive that are superior in every way to your average SUV.

That's your opinion. I happen to prefer the Explorer.

Keith Bradsher, a New York Times reporter
I should stop reading right here. The paper of jerks like Kristof and Dowd....

SUV buyers, the researchers say, tend to be "insecure and vain, often lack confidence in their driving skills [and] are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in neighbors and communities."

What? I guess all those that say I'm a cocky SOB need to see this here. LOL. I'm also active in the community. This guy is FOS. Hey! I know what I can do. Take public speaking classes. Give myself the title of Phd. Write a bunch of BS that sounds good and make it a book, and strike it rich!! This guy obviously did it!

On top of every else, these behemoths handle badly, get lousy gas mileage

My 85 Cougar had worse gas mileage than either Explorer. My Explorer handles very well too.

don't have to pay the luxury tax that similarly priced cars have to pay.

Ok. That's not right....it's not right that there's an extra luxury tax......

Time for an opinion from a REAL expert on SUV owners. Me. Here's why I bought my Explorer.

1. Good deal. My parents are the original owner. They sold it to me used for the trade in price and in excellent condition.

2. 4 Wheel Drive. In winters and spring on dirt roads and side streets, it's a Godsend. I never spun out in an Explorer. I have in a Cougar. I don't get stuck in the mud in an Explorer either. Great on hunting trips.

3. Room

4. Higher Up. I can see over other cars.

5. Safer in accidents. Geo Metro or Explorer? No comparison.

[kaktuskid]

Enemies like Canada, Mexico and Venenzuela ?(where most imported oil comes from)

[kaktuskid]

He drives a crew cab, dumb@ss!

[Dan from Michigan]

Rush is Right there. Problem with your arguement. That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A .50 Caliber is more likely to kill people in which it is involved in an shooting than a smaller .22 Caliber. Pressumably, in a large population the shooters of .22's and .50's are of equal ability (although the .50 caliber shooter is likely to have a higher testosterone level). Therefore, it must be the size and nature of the gun that accounts for the kill rate discrepancy. Thus, the nature of the .50 caliber itself is dangerous.

[henderson field]

Should read "Gute Fahrt!"

[Dan from Michigan]

some sort of a Hotel California version of an SUV dealership into which which the potential buyers simply disappeared and never returned to pollute the world with their progeny.

I love Concealed Carry...........

[Roughneck]

#146

There is also California, short on energy as they are, with millions of bbls off of the Santa Barbara Coast, they disallow drilling! Better to suck off of all the other States you know, let someone else ruin their environment to provide california with ugly ole electricity and all.

Now, even in States that allow drilling, enviros are making hard on drillers they even have a fee out here in Permian Basin that you pay "IN CASE" an accident happens (pay before it happens, if it ever does!

I say get rid of enviroNUTS and we'll all be happier!

[ExSoldier]

This article is written by another lifestyle nazi whose real agenda is another form of people control. This is actually a form of back door GUN CONTROL. Think about it...if hunters have no way to get to the hunting area and no way to get the big game out of the area...then there is really NO "sporting need" for owning one of those ultra long range SNIPER uhhh err I mean HUNTING rifles! Yeah that's it! It's not about the environment...it's not about conservation...it's about CONTROL.

Forget the gun owners. If you have a vehicle that is capable of moving cross country and you have a government that is interested in controlling the movement of the population..that's an initial conflict to be overcome. They're setting us up for totalitarian rule. I kid you not!

[eleni121]

Donald "Lefty" Kaul may abhor the SUV and those who drive them, but as an owner of a number of SUV’s since the 1980’s, I can say in all honesty that the SUV has not only saved my life and others’ but has made my life easier and less stressful.

I guess I am another one of those “high and mighty” fascists who enjoy blitzkrieging around the countryside thumbing my high and mighty nose at the peasants in smaller sized cars, but then again, why not – it’s fun! I enjoy the extra height the SUV gives me allowing me to actually see what is coming up ahead on the roadways. The roominess allows me and others in my family to stretch our long beautiful American legs while we gaze (from a height) at the fascinating scenery going by. Finally and most important, I can get to work on time without having to shovel 4 feet of snow off the driveway at 6 in the morning. All good reasons to own one.

As for Mr. Kaul and Mr. Bradsher, their right not to purchase an SUV is guaranteed by the democratic capitalist system in our nation, however limited it may be. I reserve my right to own, enjoy, stretch out in, give rides to the envious, and forge my way through the weather in the almighty SUV.

Mr. Kaul, if I see you standing by the side of a road somewhere, I will temporarily suspend my self centeredness and self absorption to give you a ride. You need not fear me: SUV drivers have the cleanest criminal records around. It’s those sedan and mini van car drivers that hitchhikers have to worry about.

[cardinal4]

I say get rid of enviroNUTS and we'll all be happier!

9 out 10 Alaskans are for drilling. But yes I agree. PETA, ELF, Pukers for Peace (that just kills me)and all the others who put trees and birds before America, oh, and dont forget the snail darter, need to be rounded up and sent to Tristan De Cuhna where they can all commune with nature and puke for peace.

[plusone]

'poseur'....is that where our word 'impostor' comes from?

[itsahoot]

That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A Large SUV is more likely to kill passengers of a car in which it is involved in an accident than a smaller passenger car like a Honda accord

I bet there are more 16 wheelers on the road than SUVs and I can assure you if they run over you, you are dead meat.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I think most SUVs, at least stock, are pretty silly. They're all pretty impractical for off-road use, and look like the owner wants to "look" like they could go 'froadin, without actually doing it. But what do I care if they drive 'em? Personally I'd never drive one -- I'm more than happy in my Jeep. (complete w/ a bumper sticker that says "Don't follow me...You won't make it.")

[Proud2BAmerican]

I saw a great bumper sticker once (which Ii've tried numerous times to find for sale online, unsuccessfully) on a big ol' badass Jeep with mud splattered all over it:

"I EAT RICE BURNERS"

[irish_links]

"....Rush is Right there. Problem with your arguement. That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A .50 Caliber is more likely to kill people in which it is involved in an shooting than a smaller .22 Caliber. Pressumably, in a large population the shooters of .22's and .50's are of equal ability (although the .50 caliber shooter is likely to have a higher testosterone level). Therefore, it must be the size and nature of the gun that accounts for the kill rate discrepancy. Thus, the nature of the .50 caliber itself is dangerous....."

And your point is what?

The question at hand is whether people should choose to drive vehicles that are inherently more dangerous (i.e. are many times more likely to kill a third party in an auto accident)and wasteful (get significantly poorer gas mileage) than perfectly serviceable and safe alternatives with similar utility to the owner without compelling reason to do so. If there is any relevance to your analogy, it would be this: if a .22 caliber weapon serves its purpose (shooting rats or whatever) as well as another weapon, a .50 caliber weapon for example, that is fundamentally more dangerous to humans, why would one choose to use the more dangerous weapon? A reasonable man would only choose the potentially more dangerous weapon to shoot rats if he had some other compelling reason to do so.

With respect to SUVs, I grant that people who live in climates with frequent snow or who are outdoor enthusiasts or who pull heavy objects have compelling reasons to own SUVs. But what of the other 80% of SUV owners? What's their compelling reason to endanger other drivers and waste valuable resources?

Oh, I know. El Rushbo will tell me that if I don't want to be slaughtered by some SUV driver who imagines his two ton sledge handles like Ferrari, I should buy one myself. Then only a hapless third party will be turned into hamburger when the SUV Nikki Lauda t-bones me. Or, if I don't want to be killed by some rat hunter blasting away with a .50 caliber machine gun I should buy a RPG for self defense.

I'm not sure I follow any of this logic.

Regards

[anncoulteriscool]

I thinks its a good model: A persons intelligence is usually inversely related to the size of their vehicle....I think that applies to SUV drives BIGTIME!