The term "road rage" has entered the vernacular in the last few years, as have phrases like "drive by" and the insidious but no less sinister "SUV," for sports utility vehicle, an odd term since SUVs aren't sporty and offer utilities that most owners will never use.
As the federal government attempts to start a discussion of safety and SUVs, some interesting points have emerged. Some members of the auto industry are so intent on not disturbing the subtle mix of variables that keep this golden goose laying that they are even suggesting that passenger sedans be made heavier to better defend themselves against SUV attack. Apart from the retrograde, ostentatious stupidity of such a comment and the wrong-headed values it implies, this diminishes one of the two main advantages of SUVs: their weight and their ability to export mayhem.
Have we not been down this road before? I recall the mess Detroit found itself in when the energy crisis hit in the 1970s. See if this seems familiar. America is enjoying a long period of arrogant property and cars are getting "lower, longer and wider" every year. Damn the gas pumps, full speed ahead. (The only difference 25 years later is that you have to replace "lower" with "higher"). And then, one day, everything changed so much that all that we had done and held dear looked so stupid and shortsighted that we spent the better part of two decades smacking ourselves in the forehead. What were, or are, we thinking?
If we want to repeat the mistakes of history or waste money on new frivolities that will soon become "necessities" and "rights," that's our business and we have one of the few economies capable of repeatediy recovering from such folly. There are more serious matters though, matters of right and wrong - ethics to be considered. I contend that casually participating in the SUV fad is wrong.
The two reasons I hear for buying an SUV seem to be that: 1) being high, they provide a better view; and 2) they are safe.
They are surely high. Until recently they provided a better view. That is, until the roads became littered with them. Once the road is truly full of SUVs, will any of the drivers have a better view? Of course not. We're right back where we started. There is an ethical principle that one should not make something harder for the next person who comes along. Simply elevating your seat level makes it harder for the next guy to see as well as you say you need to. This makes you part of the problem. By the time everyone can see as well as you, no one can see well any more because all the vehicles are tall. What's next? Still higher vehicles? Periscopes?
The safety issue with SUVs is very troublesome. It's well known that SUVs roll over more easily, but owners and potential owners are thick to this, so there's no point in working it too hard. Let's also only touch on the fact that these big, heavy vehicles will be hitting each other more often as their numbers increase, resulting in high-energy collisions where everybody loses. The real problem, though, is much more serious than this.
The whole idea of "safe" SUVs requires dedicating oneself to viciousness or deception. SUVs may be the first product ever engineered to kill more people which has been successfully marketed chiefly because e' its safety. In my use of the English Iangu age, safer things do not in sum cause less safety. You can't have the safety of an SUv without the danger it manifests to ethers. It's a package.
SUVs are a pain machine because they were designed to make formerly fair competition between colliding cars decisively unfair. To be that consistent and decisive means employing so much mass and height that minor injuries become major injuries and hospital bills become funeral bills. Selling nearly half of the drivers in the country an SUV is like giving one boxer a baseball bat and promoting the idea that this makes boxing safer.
SUV drivers are not entitled to privileged treatment if that privilege comes at someone else's expense. Yes, today cars are safer, too. When the car companies make safer cars, though, they do not make them safer by ensuring that the other guy gets mangled more. This kind of safe/safe engineering is complicated, challenging and expensive. Anyone can make a vehicle safe/dangerous by making it big and heavy and elevating the occupants out of the plane of impact. It's a dumb way to make things "safer" because it takes no engineering. It's the wrong way to make things "safer" because it ignores that there are other people on the road who deserve safety, too.
Let's say for now that it is the not-toodistant future and fully 40 percent of all kinds of accidents will involve SUVs. Most people (about 80 percent, according to one survey) think they are better-than-average drivers. If we give SUV drivers truly average status, then among their accidents, half the time they will be victimized and half the time they will victimize others. Let's make this simpler. There is a 50/50 chance that you, Mr. or Ms. Average SUV Driver, if you get into an accident, will cause that accident. You will maim, cripple and kill more people than if you were driving a car. Soon, one in five accidents will involve an SUV smashing the daylights out of some innocent, hurting him, her or them dreadfully and it will be the SUV's fault. Knowing that SUVs hurt more than they need to, and knowing that you could be at fault, on what ethical basis can you buy an SUV?
Oh, OK, you say you'll never get into a accident. If this is the case, though, why pay extra for a vehicle that protects you so well?
Someone once asked me if I would rather be hurt or killed instead of someone else. Well, you know what? If I caused the accident, I would want to take the brunt of the consequences even if that means I get my arm ripped off or my legs crushed. Better that than knowing I did it to someone else. That's neither saintly nor stupid. It's the way our justice system works, too. The guy who caused the accident pays.
There is a very simple principle in ethics called externalization. It's like the golden rule. The idea is that you shouldh't hand your problems over to other people. The factory that illegally spews gunk into the air or rivers is making people sick and otherwise causing trouble. The factory owner doesn't pay for medical bills or other damages even though these costs are attributable to the factory. They "externalize" these costs. Companies that make dangerous things externalize when you have to pay for the disease or injury you get from using their product.
SUV owners externalize injury by forcing the energy of the accident to be inflicted upon what they hit. In fact, they do worse. Since driving an SUV is using excessive capability (it's needlessly bigger and heavier) it's like a factory that makes the pollution worse for no economic or practical reason; they just do it for the sake of polluting.
Sure, you have right to pay $30,000 for a discount vehicle sold at a premium price. Sure, this is America and no one is going to tell you what to do. The ethical implications, however, push driving an SUV into a category different from harmless eccentricity or personal freedom. SUVs are the pit bulls of our highways. Rather than thinking they're cool; I find them and the values that make them popular shocking.
This is an excerpt from an email I received in response to this article. I appreciated hearing an argument from a different viewpoint, and included this text with his permission.
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 1999 6:13:36 PM
From: cjmark@wam.umd.edu
I have to disagree with you on SUV's. Safety and visibility are only minor advantages to getting one. Someone who spends $30,000 on an SUV for that alone is a fool. Get an RV for christ's sake! They're even higher and heavier. I got an SUV because I enjoyed duning in the desert when I lived in the middle east, and plan to go off-road again in the future. I am also a skier, and it sometimes takes 4WD to get to the slopes when the weather is perfect for skiing, but not so good for driving.
last updated: February 10, 1999