Attack of the four-wheeled giants - Life in America

ATTACK of the four-wheeled giants: This almost sounds like the title of a bad 1950s horror film. However, the attack is not a series of images on celluloid from the past, or a figment of a science fiction writer's imagination. It is a very real threat to all Americans who venture out upon the nation's highways, posed by some of their fellow citizens. Moreover, those imposing the threat are themselves imperiled by it. The death of several thousand individuals annually is the price to be paid for continued production and proliferation of those battle cruisers for the road called Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs).

The public is cautioned by the media of the hazard SUVs embody with increasing regularity, particularly their inherent tendency to roll over. Many disregard graphic accident reports and dismal test results, instead choosing to look at this issue merely as one of freedom of choice for the consumer. Pat Buchanan of MSNBC summed up this view on "The McLaughlin Group" with a proposition that has become a slogan: "My life, my choice." On the face of it, this sounds compatible with thinking appropriate in a free nation, yet stops short of reality. If people wish to jeopardize themselves and their loved ones in a rollover, they are free to do so. However, SUVs are not operated in a void. What of the rights of people who must share the road with them, especially those in small cars who inevitably come out second best--if they come out at all--in crashes with larger, heavier SUVs? It is an established fact that people in automobiles, particularly those in smaller cars, are much more likely to be seriously injured or killed in aptly nicknamed "mismatch" collisions. The high, blunt front ends of mid-size and larger SUVs represent a formidable challenge to the structural integrity of any automobile. The government classifies all but the largest SUVs as light trucks. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collisions between light trucks and passenger cars account for the majority of traffic fatalities in the U.S. Automobile occupants constitute four out of five deaths in these occurrences.

The inevitable conflict between the ethical propositions "My life, my choice" and the equally valid "The good of the many comes before the good of the few" must be considered. At what point do individual rights violate those of the public? A short answer is: When actions unnecessarily expose a community to clear and present danger, public interest should prevail. Given this context, legislation based purely on fact and logic would recognize that some vehicles pose a deadly and therefore unacceptable hazard to others and their occupants due to their design. Accordingly, their use on public roads would be circumscribed. Naturally, any such measure would appear to be a political nonstarter since millions of citizens, and, more significantly, a number of powerful special-interest groups would cry discrimination and hardship. SUVs are cherished by the vehicle manufacturers since they generate more profit per unit than automobiles. They are favored by the petroleum industry because of their high fuel consumption. This notwithstanding, protective legislation against these dangerous vehicles is not an impossibility. Consider the retreat of the huge tobacco enterprises before research findings, insider disclosures, heightened public awareness, indignation, and lawsuits. Who would have thought even five years ago that major cities like New York and Boston would outlaw smoking in public places? This ban can serve as a paradigm for the good of the many put first--for the ultimate good of all.

There is a remedy for this dilemma that is not coercive and infinitely less controversial than legal measures that would be decried as undemocratic and draconian. It is a more receptive, responsible, nonelitist attitude toward the problem in the mind of SUV owners. SUVs are advertised as safer for their occupants in crashes than automobiles due to their greater size and strength. Therefore, many Americans are consciously or unwillingly taking a "survival of the fittest" approach to vehicle choice. This concept is fatally flawed. Many apparently remain unaware, unconvinced, or uncaring of the injury these "safe" rolling fortresses can inflict upon themselves and others. Whether informed buyers and owners can justify this is an ethical decision that must be made by each individual.

Seductive advertisements feature SUVs in scenes of panoramic natural grandeur where a hearty mountain goat would hesitate to tread. Some people assume that the vehicle actually could be driven there, often at high speed. (Serious off-roaders know better.) An inference drawn by many is that a vehicle with such extraordinary capabilities should be outstanding in everyday driving. These conclusions are both ingenuous and incongruous. The laws of physics dictate that SUVs must be significantly more prone to roll over than passenger cars due to their high center of gravity. Observe NASCAR stock cars--wide chassis, low to the ground. This configuration maximizes stability, handling, control, and aerodynamics. These are the weakest points of the SUV concept. They are marketed as off-road vehicles, although more than 90% of them never leave the pavement (unless they roll over). Perched atop long suspensions, they are designed with generous ground clearance to surmount irregularities and obstacles encountered in nature's realm. Their bodies are tall, ostensibly to carry cargo. Consequently, SUVs are markedly inferior to automobiles in all dynamics of movement meaning diminished ability to maneuver or avoid danger in transit. This negates the greater crash protection the larger models provide. Most have aerodynamic characteristics akin to a brick. More power is necessary to give these heavier, airflow-resisting boxes on wheels acceleration and speed capability approximating that of automobiles. To propel them at the same rate, a larger engine is required that consumes more and often excessive amounts of fuel. Small SUVs offer improved fuel economy, but share the inferior handling and proclivity toward rollover of their larger brethren.

A primal drive for power

The most immediately threatening aspect of the SUV situation is the aggression of some who drive them. A childish "I'm bigger than you are" mentality exists among these individuals, who sometimes drive in a manner suggesting a desire to overwhelm smaller vehicles. Large size and commanding height that enables the driver to look down on automobiles--literally and figuratively--can cause the primal drive for power and dominance to assert itself. When one glances at the rearview and side mirrors, they are filled by a behemoth only a few feet from one's bumper. This intimidating experience is heightened considerably at night when one's mirrors are turned into reflectors by SUV headlights. SUVs are difficult for drivers of lesser vehicles to see around. This is of no concern to those who must have their mode of transportation noticed and respected by others. Snobs are at home in SUVs, particularly large, upscale models. They regard such vehicles as excellent status trophies, since they are both imposing and expensive. A hulking, powerful, attention-getting machine can be used for symbolic redress of grievances by people prone to feelings of insignificance, inadequacy, frustration, resentment, and hostility.

Pursuing this logic a step further, it is better yet to acquire a huge specimen like the Ford Excursion--the largest SUV of all. During the latter half of the 1950s, a measure of vehicular power and prestige to some was the height and length of tailfins, which gave cars an aggressive, jet fighter profile. The sport utility vehicle has been called the modern muscle car. What SUVs lack in acceleration, tire-burning ability, handling, and gracefulness, they compensate for in size, weight, and machismo.

Depending on how it is equipped, the aforementioned Excursion can weigh nearly four tons, and has a 44-gallon fuel tank. This mastodon is an ideal transport if one is an oil sheik, as are similar machines built by other manufacturers. SUVs in this class have been known to return single-digit mileage figures in city driving. Owners apparently are ignorant of or indifferent to the environmental impact, which is considerably weightier than that of automobiles. Vehicles that consume more fuel generate greater volumes of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]), thus are conspicuous contributors to global warming. Every gallon of gasoline burned releases 20 pounds of C[O.sub.2] into the atmosphere. SUVs spew significant quantities of noxious gases as well. Knowing their clientele, Detroit assumes that Sport Utility guzzlers will remain the vehicle of choice for many American consumers provided fuel costs remain around $2 a gallon. Foreign manufacturers active in the U.S. market obviously use the same rationale. As long as people can afford fuel, they may grumble, but will pay to keep their beloved metal monuments rolling. The automotive industry possesses the technical capability to make these conveyances more fuel efficient at a reasonable cost to themselves and buyers. Regrettably, there is little incentive for such action given a lucrative market and government indifference.

Current Federal regulations maintain a double standard regarding fuel mileage for passenger cars and light trucks (pickups, minivans, and SUVs) instituted in the 1970s, when these larger vehicles constituted a niche market. The most massive SUVs are too heavy to qualify as light trucks, since their gross (maximum loaded) weight exceeds 6,000 pounds. Therefore they are exempt from passenger vehicle fuel economy regulations. Significant change has been circumvented and blocked repeatedly by Congress. Pres. George W. Bush will not countenance meaningful trespass against his kindred souls in oil and manufacturers of vehicles that consume it.

Those who need to carry large, bulky objects and heavy cargo and do not wish to drive a pickup truck would be better served and considerably safer if they bought minivans. These vehicles possess equivalent or greater interior volume than SUVs and a comparably higher driver's vantage point. Larger models approach full-size vans in size. Yet, many Americans regard them as unglamorous boxes on wheels, suitable only for soccer moms and as grocery transporters. The word "minivan" is akin to an expletive to more stalwart SUV devotees. One television advertisement went so far as to portray the absolute horror of a man sentenced by the devil to drive one in Hell. Only a very small handful are designed to travel off-road, so they seldom are equipped with four-wheel drive, and lack the heavy towing capacity of larger SUVs. They possess less-than-supple handling characteristics and tall bodies. The critical distinction between SUVs and minivans is that the latter ride much closer to the ground, thus mitigating the rollover hazard. This attribute also enables easier entrance, egress, and loading. They afford their occupants collision protection superior to that of automobiles, Minivans weigh a bit less than SUVs. Benefiting also from the more aerodynamic form of recent models, their gas mileage is not outstanding, but averages approximately five miles per gallon better than a typical mid-size SUV. Rounded styling renders these vehicles more attractive than their predecessors; indeed, some handsome models have emerged. Nonetheless, minivans still suffer from an image problem, and their comparatively low stance deprives them of much machismo, except in the eyes of those who like any large vehicle. It follows that they are not as conducive to domineering driving as SUVs, offsetting the hazard their size and weight present to smaller vehicles in a collision. Advertising and peer pressure apparently have persuaded the American public that the chunky, ungainly SUV possesses ragged good looks. More adroit advertising could advance the practical and aesthetic case for minivans.

There is a type of vehicle extant that truly points to the future, representing the logical replacement for the SUV. It is called the station wagon. A growing number of discerning individuals are discovering (or rediscovering) this truly useful conveyance. Manufacturers and advertisers have learned never to use the word "station" as part of a generic appellation--it carries a dowdy, utilitarian connotation in the public mind. Contemporary wagons are thoroughly modern, versatile, and quite stylish. They dispense with the tall bodies of SUVs, which enclose space unneeded by most owners. Models configured for light off-road use eliminate some of the ground clearance that is de rigueur for SUVs, resulting in a center of gravity slightly higher than that of automobiles. They thus are considerably less susceptible to rollover. Wagons also pose no greater crash threat to other vehicles than automobiles of comparable size and weight. All wagons "drive like a car," for they are modified automobiles. Potential buyers first must be persuaded of the wisdom and pleasure of transition from SUVs to minimize any macho image withdrawal trauma. To this end, a new term, "Sport Utility Wagon," might be useful to denote machines possessing off-road capability. Analogously, "Sport Wagon" could be applied to those intended for use only on the road.

The Sport Utility Vehicle is a porcine, menacing anachronism in the 21st century. Diminution in their number on public thoroughfares correspondingly would improve an important aspect of the American quality of life.

Peter J. Cooper is a freelance writer residing in Nashua, N.H.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group