Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Park Your SUV(long but interesting)

This doesn't pertain to those out there that actually get their SUV's dirty.

Bumper Mentality

By Stephanie Mencimer, Washington Monthly
December 20, 2002

Have you ever wondered why sport utility vehicle drivers seem like such [bleep]? Surely it's no coincidence that Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tours Washington in one of the biggest SUVs on the market, the Cadillac Escalade, or that Jesse Ventura loves the Lincoln Navigator.


Well, according to New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher's new book, "High and Mighty," the connection between the two isn't a coincidence. Unlike any other vehicle before it, the SUV is the car of choice for the nation's most self-centered people; and the bigger the SUV, the more of a jerk its driver is likely to be.


According to market research conducted by the country's leading automakers, Bradsher reports, SUV buyers tend to be "insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors and communities. They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most Americans are. They tend to like fine restaurants a lot more than off-road driving, seldom go to church and have limited interest in doing volunteer work to help others."


He says, too, that SUV drivers generally don't care about anyone else's kids but their own, are very concerned with how other people see them rather than with what's practical, and they tend to want to control or have control over the people around them. David Bostwick, Chrysler's market research director, tells Bradsher, "If you have a sport utility, you can have the smoked windows, put the children in the back and pretend you're still single."


Armed with such research, automakers have, over the past decade, ramped up their SUV designs to appeal even more to the "reptilian" instincts of the many Americans who are attracted to SUVs not because of their perceived safety, but for their obvious aggressiveness. Automakers have intentionally designed the latest models to resemble ferocious animals. The Dodge Durango, for instance, was built to resemble a savage jungle cat, with vertical bars across the grille to represent teeth and big jaw-like fenders. Bradsher quotes a former Ford market researcher who says 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."


Not surprisingly, most SUV customers over the past decade hail from a group that is the embodiment of American narcissism: baby boomers. Affluent and often socially liberal, baby boomers have embraced the four-wheel-drive SUV as a symbol of their ability to defy the conventions of old age, of their independence and "outdoorsiness," making the off-road vehicle a force to be reckoned with on the American blacktop.


But as Bradsher declares in his title, this baby boomer fetish is considerably more harmful than the mere annoyance of yet another Rolling Stones tour or the endless commercials for Propecia. In their attempt to appear youthful and hip, SUV owners have filled the American highways with vehicles that exact a distinctly human cost, frequently killing innocent drivers who would have survived a collision with a lesser vehicle. Bradsher quotes auto execs who concede that the self-centered lifestyle of SUV buyers is apparent in "their willingness to endanger other motorists so as to achieve small improvements in their personal safety."


After covering the auto industry for six years, Bradsher is an unabashed critic of sport-utility vehicles and the automakers that continue to churn them out knowing full well the dangers they pose. He doesn't equivocate in his feeling that driving an SUV is a deeply immoral act that places the driver's own ego above the health and safety of those around him, not to mention the health of the environment. Ironically, and though most supposedly safety-conscious owners don't realize it, SUVs even imperil those who drive them.


Road Rodeo


Ask a typical SUV driver why he drives such a formidable vehicle, and he'll invariably insist that it's for safety reasons � the kids, you know � not because he's too vain to get behind the wheel of a sissy Ford Windstar. Automakers themselves know otherwise � their own market research tells them so.


But Bradsher makes painfully clear that the belief in SUV safety is a delusion. For decades, automakers seeking to avoid tougher fuel economy standards have invoked the fiction that the bigger the car, the safer the passenger. As a result, most Americans take it on faith that the only way to be safe on the highway is to be driving a tank (or the next best thing, a Hummer). Bradsher shatters this myth and highlights the strange disconnect between the perception and the reality of SUVs.


The occupant death rate in SUVs is 6 percent higher than it is for cars � 8 percent higher in the largest SUVs. The main reason is that SUVs carry a high risk of rollover; 62 percent of SUV deaths in 2000 occurred in rollover accidents. SUVs don't handle well, so drivers can't respond quickly when the car hits a stretch of uneven pavement or "trips" by scraping a guardrail. Even a small bump in the road is enough to flip an SUV traveling at high speed. On top of that, SUV roofs are not reinforced to protect the occupants against rollover; nor does the government require them to be.


Because of their vehicles' size and four-wheel drive, SUV drivers tend to overestimate their own security, which prompts many to drive like maniacs, particularly in inclement weather. And SUV drivers � ever image-conscious and overconfident � seem to hate seat belts as much as they love talking on their cell phones while driving. Bradsher reports that four-fifths of those killed in roll-overs were not belted in, even though 75 percent of the general driving population now buckles up regularly.


While failing to protect their occupants, SUVs have also made the roads more dangerous for others. The "kill rate," as Bradsher calls it, for SUVs is simply jaw-dropping. For every one life saved by driving an SUV, five others will be taken. Government researchers have found that a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda Accord only kills 21. Injuries in SUV-related accidents are likewise more severe.


Part of the reason for the high kill rate is that cars offer very little protection against an SUV hitting them from the side � not because of the weight, but because of the design. When a car is hit from the side by another car, the victim is 6.6 times as likely to die as the aggressor. But if the aggressor is an SUV, the car driver's relative chance of dying rises to 30 to 1, because the hood of an SUV is so high off the ground. Rather than hitting the reinforced doors of a car with its bumper, an SUV will slam into more vulnerable areas and strike a car driver in the head or chest, where injuries are more life-threatening.


But before you get an SUV just for defensive purposes, think again. Any safety gains that might accrue are cancelled out by the high risk of rollover deaths, which usually don't involve other cars.


Ironically, SUVs are particularly dangerous for children, whose safety is often the rationale for buying them in the first place. Because these beasts are so big and hard to see around (and often equipped with dark-tinted glass that's illegal in cars), SUV drivers have a troubling tendency to run over their own kids. Just recently, in October, a wealthy Long Island doctor made headlines after he ran over and killed his 2-year-old in the driveway with his BMW X5. He told police he thought he'd hit the curb.


To illustrate the kind of selfishness that marks some SUV drivers, Bradsher finds people who rave about how they've survived accidents with barely a scratch, yet neglected to mention that the people in the other car were all killed. (One such woman confesses rather chillingly to Bradsher that her first response after killing another driver was to go out and get an even bigger SUV.)


The tragedy of SUVs is that highway fatalities were actually in decline before SUVs came into vogue, even though Americans were driving farther. This is true largely for one simple reason: the seatbelt. Seatbelt usage rose from 14 percent in 1984 to 73 percent in 2001. But seatbelts aren't much help if you're sideswiped by an Escalade, a prospect that looms yet more ominously as SUVs enter the used-car market. Not surprisingly, last year, for the first time in a decade, the number of highway deaths actually rose.


No Roads Scholars Here


Bradsher blames government for failing to adequately regulate SUVs, but doesn't fully acknowledge the degree to which it has encouraged SUV production by becoming a major consumer of them. Law enforcement and public safety agencies in particular seem enamored of the menacing vehicles, a fact on proud display when officers finally apprehended the alleged snipers in the Washington, D.C., area and transported them to the federal courthouse in a parade of black Ford Explorers and Expeditions.


Judging from the number of official SUVs on the road today, law enforcement officials � those most likely to know firsthand the grisly effects of a rollover � are enthusiastic customers. Like the rest of America, police departments seem to believe that replacing safe, sturdy cars with SUVs is a good idea, though it's hard to imagine a more dangerous vehicle for an officer conducting a high-speed chase.


Government's taste for SUVs isn't limited to cops and firemen. There's hardly a city in America where the mayor's chauffeured Lincoln Town Car hasn't been replaced by an SUV. In Virginia, where state officials recently discovered that SUVs were wrecking their efforts to meet clean-air regulations, a few noted sheepishly that perhaps local governments should sell their own fleets, which had ballooned to 250 in Fairfax County alone. (A Fairfax County official told The Washington Post that public safety officials needed four-wheel drive and large cargo spaces to transport extra people and emergency equipment through snow or heavy rain � proof that even law enforcement officials misunderstand SUV safety records.)


As Bradsher details, because of their weight, shoddy brakes, and off-road tires, SUVs handle poorly in bad weather and have trouble stopping on slick roads. What's more, they're generally so poorly designed as not to be capable of carrying much cargo, despite the space. A contributing factor in the Ford Explorer-Firestone tire debacle was that drivers weren't told that their Explorers shouldn't carry any more weight than a Ford Taurus. The extra weight routinely piled in these big cars stressed the tires in a way that made them fall apart faster and contributed to the spate of rollover deaths.


I have a hunch that government officials' justification for buying SUVs is mostly a ruse for their real motivation, which is the same as any other SUV owner's: image. Officials can safely load up their fleets with leather-seated SUVs, whereas using taxpayer dollars to buy themselves, say, a fleet of BMW coupes would get them crucified (even though Detroit considers SUVs luxury vehicles and designs them accordingly). Police departments may claim that they need an SUV to accommodate SWAT teams or canine units, but there is no reason that Sparky the drug dog wouldn't be just as comfortable in the back of a nice safe Chevy Astrovan.


The same is true for nearly everyone who drives an SUV today. Of course, not every SUV owner is gripped by insecurity and a death wish � plenty of otherwise reasonable people seem to get seduced by power and size (see sidebar).


But if soccer moms and office-park dads really need to ferry a lot of people around, they could simply get a large car or a minivan, which Bradsher hails as a great innovation for its fuel efficiency, safety, and lower pollution. (And minivans don't have a disproportionately high kill rate for motorists or pedestrians when they get into accidents.) According to industry market research, minivan drivers also tend to be very nice people. Minivans are favored by senior citizens and others (male and female, equally) who volunteer for their churches and carpool with other people's kids. But that's the problem. SUV owners buy them precisely because they don't want the "soccer mom" stigma associated with minivans.


While Bradsher does a magnificent job of shattering the myths about SUVs, he has a difficult time proposing a solution. Sport utility vehicles have become like guns: Everyone knows they're dangerous, but you can't exactly force millions of Americans to give them up overnight. And because the SUV is single-handedly responsible for revitalizing the once-depressed American auto industry, the economy is now so dependent on their production that it would be nearly impossible to get them off the road.


Bradsher suggests regulating SUVs like cars rather than as light trucks, so that they would be forced to comply with fuel-efficiency standards and safety regulations. He also proposes that the insurance industry stop shifting the high costs of the SUV dangers onto car owners by raising premium prices for SUVs to reflect the amount of damage they cause. But these ideas, commendable though they are, fall short of a perfect answer.


Clearly, the best solution would be for Americans to realize the danger of SUVs and simply stop buying them. Social pressure can be a powerful determinant on car choices, as seen in Japan, the one country where SUVs have not caught on because of cultural checks that emphasize the good of the community over that of the individual. There are signs that perhaps public sentiment is beginning to shift against SUV drivers here, too, as activists have begun to leave nasty flyers on SUV windshields berating drivers for fouling the environment and other offenses.


But for a true reckoning to take place, image-obsessed Americans will need to fully understand the SUV's true dangers � including to themselves � before they will willingly abandon it to the junkyard. Spreading that message against the nation's biggest advertiser � the auto industry � will be tough work. Drivers can only hope that Bradsher's book will cut through the chatter.

ZM

So lets all drive "Bumper" cars and be safe! I have been driving "SUV's" since before they were SUV's, you know, S-10 Blazers and Jeep Cherokee Sports and CJ's, throw in a few 4X4 1/2 & 3/4 ton 4WD pickups along the way too boot. I will continue to do so as long as I can get them, two wheel drine don't cut it on sugar sand or a water logged pasture in rainy season.

Don't get me wrong, I wonder why some drive them and never go anywhere they need 4WD or better yet buy the imitation 2WD drive ones. Slaves of fashion maybe?

Let the liberals decide, and they will be the only ones to have them and guns as well. Us "masses" don't deserve the "perks" and fruits of our labor!

This is so much BS, I don't know where to start. How about the "rollover" myth. While there are a few (no longer in production) models that suffer poor or obsolete suspension, the "rollover prone" claim has a major problem as it is generally applied.

Take, for instancee, the Ford Explorer. Much has been said in the media about the Explorer's tendency to roll. But what is an Explorer? Nothing more or less than a Ford ranger mini truck with a permanent rear canopy (and embellishments). So why do we not also see the same complaints for these mini trucks?

The "higher center of gravity" is mostly imagined, except in relation to the difference between 2 and 4 wheel drive chassis. Most, if not all, SUVs are built on small (or mini) truck chassis. There is clearly something else at work here (perhaps imagination).

While it is true that SUVs (and light trucks) do require different driving technique from cars, I question the claim (based on wreckage witnesed in daily commutes) that they are over-represented in one-vehicle accidents. Even if it is statistically true(which I doubt), it is error to assume that it is the fault of the vehicle or that the involved drivers would fare better in any other type of vehicle.

As time permits, I will address some of the other assumptions and false claims in this article...

-FreeMe

Just got my wife (and kids) a new Suburban 4x4 and don't really give a flying rat's patoot whether he or anybody else likes it.

Stephanie sounds just like a Sophomore Psych. Major I dated for a short time during college. Listening to her spout off was not worth the trouble, even if she did have great hOOters.

CAT, you could not GIVE my wife a car, she has been driving Blazers since about 1970 or so and won't even ride in others cars. Me I like to see down the road farther. The rollover thing is so much Bovin escreta, people need to learn how to drive, not expect a truck to handle like a sports car. SHEESH!

BTW, I like your new sig line, need to find one for me.

SUV's giving a perception of safety?

Well, I guess it's all a matter of perspective. Even a Hummer looks like a middling speed-bump from the seat of a Peterbilt! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

What a load of meadow muffins! If this idiot doesnt like SUV's, fine. He doesnt have to drive one. I drive a 79 Dodge Power Wagon with a 360 that gets ten mpg on a good day. I dont think I could roll that truck if I wanted too. Why?, cause it has a solid suspension under it. It rides like a truck, not a car with a hormone problem. I like driving something that is made out of steel instead of fiberglass and plastic. If I get in an accident, I plan on living. If a person is stupid enough to drive a pregnant rollerskate for a car, well then they can deal with the consequences of it. Dont expect me to feel sorry for them because their car disintegrated when they hit me.
Keeb

So Zeke,

On a more serious note. Do you actually buy into this reasoning? If you follow this reasoning, I would think you may soon be posting threads telling everyone they should give up their firearms "For the good of the community". Yes, there are some real jerks driving SUV's. AND minivans, AND compacts, AND pickups, AND fine, safe German sedans, AND tractor trailers, AND... Well, I think you get my point. It really doesn't matter how big, or small the vehicle, if the driver is a jerk, they can kill a LOT of people. I've had fools even on motorcycles do things in front of my 18 wheeler that could have caused MAJOR carnage. Not because of the size of the vehicle, but because of the skill (or lack thereof) of the driver, and the outcome of having to avoid their mistakes.

The pozers will get tired of the big, truck-based SUV's, and demand better handling, milage, comfort, etc. This is already showing up in the marketplace. The great majority of new production & concept SUV's showing up at the auto shows are CAR-BASED. They offer the levels of ride, handling & comfort that people gave up to have SUV's while retaining the everyday usefullness of REAL cargo capacity & utility that apeals to many buyers. The bad thing is that MANY of us actually USE the 4wd & off-road capabilities that may very well become a thing of the past.

Buying into the rantings of someone like this author inevitably puts one on the slippery slope of social engeneering, "to save the children", etc. After all, you really don't NEED a 7STW to hunt that little dear, and oh, my that bullet will just go too far & might hurt someone. You certainly shouldn't ever think of hunting an elk with a 375 H&H, as that would just be irresponsible, as it would have far to much penatration. Socialism, is socialism, and if you are going to ban SUV's, you certainly have to ban guns. After all, some people who use them MIGHT be irresponsable!

Help me to understand how you can come on a firearms board, and espouse the very same actions as the people who want nothing more than to infringe on you gun rights. And before you even say it, in my book, YES IT IS THE SAME! The same bleeding heart, bunny-hugging, tree-sitting, lemmings that can't stand you having guns, are spewing this nonsense. This is just there latest volley in the never ending battle to get us to coform to THEIR WILL! They will not stop until they have brain-washed the masses into buying their bill-of-goods. They do not give a flip about the safety issue, the fuel issue, the pollution issue. What they care about is CONTROLLING everybody, and every facet of society. Obviously they must be getting through to some!

Do I defend every jerk driving an SUV? Well, no & yes. I don't defend anyone being a jerk in general, but this is still (for now) a (mostly) free nation. Putting up with jerks is part of the price we pay for that freedom. Putting up with people buying SUV's they don't need is part of that freedom. Even putting up with, and defending the rights of, someone spewing forth hatred toword "evil" SUV's is part of that freedom. SUV's are a fad. They, too will go the way of the vans of the 70's, etc. If you let the market follow the natural course that it is already on, the "problem" will take care of itself. Trying to regulate one more part of our already WAY over-regulated lives does not solve the problem, and the back-lash may even add to it.

Just another side of the issue for you to ponder.

Here's what I'm getting!
Wonder what that says about me? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
7mm

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

T LEE,

I guess I'm a slave to fashion, since my Ford Explorer is 2WD. Actually it's my wife's vehicle. I wanted a 4WD, but not a damn one was to be had at the time. We went with an Explorer, due to a growing family, extra room to haul luggage in when traveling etc. A car would just not work for what we needed. Being military and moving every 2-3 years, we haul household items to tie us over until the moving trucks arrive! Also, yes it is a safety concern. After my wife totalled our car, and seeing the extensive damamge from a 25mph impact, screw that. Granted the Explorer doesn't offer much more, but every little extra helps. Also, it's my money, and I will spend as I see fit. Also, the next one will be 4WD. Can't get far in the woods in 2WD.

Hudge

I think I'll go fpr this one:
"Peterbuilt Crusader All-Sport Denali Outback Eddie Bauer 5.9 Limited" If it comes in all wheel drive! I also want the four and a quarter mechanical Cat motor with the EA 18 speed.

Hudge, not being a smart aleck, why not buy a mini-van then if all you need is room? They are as heavy and actually handle and ride better. Just a thought, I would have one if all my driving was on pavement, they will actuallt haul more in better comfort.

Like I said earlier, I have to deal with sugar sand and muddy flooded pastures, thus a 4X4, my wife chases cattle and hauls feed out there as well so hers is also.

Zeke
The basic math here is also seriously flawed... 6-8% more likely to die in an accident in a SUV, yet they point out that only 20% belt up as opposed to the 75% average.

Everyone knows seatbelts save lives, so if you are 3.5 times more likely to be belted in a car one would assume you would be far less likely to die.. certainly a greater difference than the 6-8%.

But what would I know? I'm a leather upholstered Ford Excursion driving assshole! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />
art

T LEE,

My wife would file for a divorce if forced to drive a van <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I don't blame her either. The Explorer was actually meant to be a replacement for my truck I sold. After our car was totalled, I got a truck and the wife took the Explorer. Besides some of the roads we have to go down, a minvan would bottom out in no time. Also the many vans I've ridden in, I think my Explorer actually has a smoother ride.


Hudge

Cool, I know the feeling. I talked to my wife about a van or bigger style car for road travel. Her amswer "FORGETABOUTIT!"

blr358

I post here cause I can. If I was bashing Saddam or Hillary no one would question that at all.

Here is what I buy into.
SUV's are dangerous in a way most folks don't even think about. The rollover issue has been beaten to death, but the OIL issue barely gets glossed over. Do you remember 1973? That oil crunch is what happens when OPEC get pissed off. Lines at gas stations, big gas guzzing cars parked because no one could get gas? I remember that very well.
SUV's are not subject to the same fuel economy laws as cars. SUV's can suck all the gas they want with no recourse. The issue is the US imports over 50 percent of its oil and most of that oil comes from the Persian Gulf. The same place that we fought a war 12 years ago and we are going to fight another war. The US wants Saddam out, which is a valid issue. The US also wants the oil from that region to keep its delicate economy going. Without all that middle east oil, your SUV will be parked and the US economy will take a dive not seen since the depression. The US economy is a giant house of cards just waiting for OPEC to blow it down. Think about that the next time you gas up your Explorer.


ZM

If I am not mistaken, and maybe CAT or one of the others can tell, we now get about 70% of our oil from Venezuala and they are on strike. That has more to do with rising oil (gas) prices than the impending war. BTW, my particular SUV's are small and fairly conservative in the gas department (normally 20 or so mile to the gallon) and have practical application in my every day life. Unlike soccer mom's and denizens of the city.

I too remember the 70's gas crunch and all the promises of alternative fuels that have not appeared. Hell we even had some propane powered patrol vehicle on my Department for about a year.

Zeke,
I don't think you're thinking about this enough. The Gov. regulation do cover all cars and trucks in the U.S. The Car mfg. have to meet a certain MPG average for all their vehicles made, so some will be made with a lower MPG while the bigger ones will be made with a higher MPG. They all together will average out to meet the Goverment Regs. I drive a Chev. Tahoe mainly because of the room and towing ability. If I go on a fishing trip, I need the room for tackle, clothes and etc. with boat in tow. I cannot do this with a chevy S10 or a Chevy Shovette. I will say some and very few at that are driving SUV's to keep up with the Jones's. These are the one you should be attacking not the ones that bought them with their hard earned money because they need them. I am looking for a second vehicle to drive, to try and save the milage on my SUV as a main concern and MPG as a secondary concern. I think the customers of the mfgs. of SUV's will do a better job of keeping them in line for meeting a lower MPG than what the Goverment would anyway, by not buying them if they are hard on gas, unless they absoultly need them! Another thing...I spent two years in the military to make a place for Me and you along with all the others, so they could have a choice to do this. I have humped a many of mile out of the jungle because of a lack of fuel so you could drive to work and play, and I'll be damned if I will change due to some misguided thoughts of somebody trying to make a place in society for themselves. I will do everything within my legal powers to stop these Yoyo's also, if they want to do something for this great Nation maybe they should get on the stick and join the military, they always need more bullet stopers.

Zeke
Get real buddy! The "gas crunch" of '73 was fiction. There was no shortage af fuel, no pissed off Arabs cutting off our oil. It all revolved around the value of the US dollar, which the world markets used as the benchmark, because it was backed by gold.

When the backing was dropped, the value of the US dollar plummeted on world markets. The Arabs could get less for their US dollars, so they demanded more US dollars for their oil... hardly their fault.

Note what the prices of precious metals did at the same time.

Now if you have heartburn about folks driving SUVs and want to argue safety statistics, then you better check with the insurance companies about what they actually charge for insuring big rigs, and why. I suppose you think they look the other way if SUVs cost them more to insure. What your little lady here is advocating is the way it is already done...
best to you
art

There is a conspiracy between the environ wackos to demonize the SUV. They have decided that we should all drive econo cars and are trying to force it upon us.

The comments about SUV drivers are insulting and make no sense at all. It reminds me of the comments about blacks being inferior that we use to hear from racists. The only reason the author can get away with this crap is because most SUV drivers and owners are white men.

There are lots of other areas that are open to this kind of pseudo thinkng. Next it will be aimed at the single family home. The home owners will be attacked as hurting the environment, wasting resources etc. ... and the wakos will try to move everyone into small apartments.