bmubyzal

SUV's - the death of all of us

An excerpt from Bayosphere

Weapons of mass destruction, finally found
Why aren’t these massive hunks of metal safer? Because they’re the auto equivalents of the neutron bomb: SUVs are essentially trucks, engineered for self-preservation rather than to coddle flesh. If your Chevrolet Impala womps into a tree it will attempt to protect its occupants like a politician protects its campaign donators: the Impala’s front end will collapse to cushion you and your loved ones from impact. If your SUV womps into a tree, it will invoke its me first credo: the sturdy frame will withstand collapse and you and your passengers will take the impact. Bonus points are rewarded in that, while SUVs don’t protect you better, they’re 80 percent more lethal when they smack into cars having the audacity to share the road with them. While one reason for this is that SUVs typically weigh more than the cars they crash into, a second reason is that because SUVs ride so much higher, the car and SUV bumpers are mismatched. One of the points the author of High and Mighty makes is that, when these expensive SUVs get old, they’ll be snapped up by the 16 to 25 year-old male crowd. Given that age-and-gender’s propensity to drive the way I did at that age, we will finally find those elusive weapons of mass destruction: young males driving SUVs. (On the otherhand.)
While their proclivity to roll over in a crash is being reduced in new models, the uncommonly wide, four-ton Hummers aside, they still don’t come close to passenger cars or even mini-vans in rollover resistance. The good news for new auto shoppers is the coming of age of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems, which reduce drivers’ chances of losing control of their vehicle. ESC systems do not prevent rollovers but they reduce the chances of losing control that result in rollovers. The bad news is that only six percent of car and SUV buyers are selecting autos with ECS systems.
On to more controversial themes.

Safety and gas mileage
If you believe there is no relationship between our dependence on Mideast oil and the two Gulf wars then you’ll want to skip the rest of this article in favor of more quality time between your head and that stuff found in large quantities at the beach (besides water and beer cans).
Whether in a war on foreign soil or from a terrorist incident in the U.S., our dependence on foreign oil results in the increased likelihood of a U.S. soldier or civilian dying or being injured N times. N could be five times or a 1000. No one knows and N is in flux. Unfortunately, if you buy a car that gets excellent gas mileage but is less safe in crash-worthiness and handling, you may reduce N (albeit, microscopically) — that is, the average danger for all Americans — but significantly increase the danger to yourself and family. On the other hand, if millions of Americans buy a car that gets excellent gas mileage but is less safe in crash-worthiness and handling, N may get reduced to the degree that you’re overall safety is hugely increased. This trajectory towards safety is reinforced in that fewer large cars will, in effect, make your small car more crash-worthy.
Setting aside the economic costs of a mass devaluing of millions of SUVs and of the collapse of the domestic auto industry (which was saved by the mini-van and SUV), why don’t we all buy Priuses tomorrow? Because of the effect known as the tragedy of the commons. When tens of millions of energy inefficient cars are replaced by smaller vehicles, those who hold on to their big iron will get the benefits of reduced N and of a more crash-worthy car. In other words, a lone individual’s decision to buy an energy efficient but less crash-worthy vehicle cannot be rationalized as a safer choice, at least in the short run. It can be viewed only as form of modeling that might catch on.

posted by Edward Young @ 1:01 PM