Criticism of sport utility vehicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of sport utility vehicles is the expression of disapproval of sports utility vehicles (SUVs) made by various groups, organisations, and individuals. In America and Europe these expressions have been growing in recent years leading both to the general decline in SUV sales but a curious rise in so called cross-over utility vehicles^{[citation needed]}. The criticism is largely concerned with the risks posed by the vehicles to other road users and to the environment, and also suggests that some of the perceived benefits to the vehicle owner are illusory or exaggerated.

Contents 1 Popularity 2 Safety 2.1 Rollover 2.2 Risk to other drivers 2.3 Recent improvements 3 Marketing practices 4 Tax benefits 5 Fuel economy 6 Pollution 7 Weight 8 Size 9 Anti-SUV vandalism 10 References

[edit] Popularity

One reason for the SUV's popularity, particularly among female drivers, is the perception that they have significant safety advantages over smaller vehicles. Including that the higher profile allows for better visibility and anticipation of danger, that their weight and durability provides extra protection during a collision, and that their larger cabin size leaves more room between passengers and the body of the vehicle (known as survival space) after an impact. ^[1] This perception comes despite experiments having shown that the increased ride height - and thus higher center of gravity - of an SUV increases the risk of death or injury through vehicle rollovers, and that the solid chassis and separate body shell common to many models of SUV can lead to greater intrusions into the cabin. ^[1]

A crash test conducted by the British television "Fifth Gear" program demonstrated that a typical road 4x4 (Specifically, a Land Rover Discovery) offered less driver/passenger protection than a multi-purpose Renault Espace during a low/moderate speed impact similar to that which might be expected on a suburban road. This test has been criticized a lot for featuring a much newer MPV than the SUV. However, the program's presenters told that the vehicles are similarly priced, thus likely to be thought of the same group of buyers.^[1]

[edit] Safety

Safety is a common point of concern. The majority of modern automobiles are constructed by a method called unibody or monocoque construction, whereby a steel body shell absorbs the impacts of collisions in crumple zones. However, many SUVs are constructed in the body-on-frame style of light trucks. Their heavier weight, height, and stiffer construction (due to body-on-frame design) can hurt other drivers, and their higher center of gravity increases the risk of death for SUV passengers from rollover. Some SUVs, however, have designs based on unibody construction, including the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute, Saturn VUE, Chevrolet Equinox, Lexus RX's, Hyundai Santa Fe, Lada Niva, and Acura MDX. The Jeep Cherokee/Liberty (1984 on) and Grand Cherokee (1993 on) have even used unibody construction from their beginning.

[edit] Rollover

The high center of gravity of SUVs makes them more prone to rollover accidents (especially if the vehicle leaves the road or in emergency manoeuvres) than lower vehicles. In recent years, Consumer Reports has found a few SUVs unacceptable due to their rollover risk. This was also dramatically demonstrated in one Fifth Gear show using a Range Rover. Modern SUVs are usually designed to prevent rollovers on flat surfaces. Average heights for:

• Family sedans 1.46 m
• Minivans 1.78 m
• SUVs 1.80 m

In 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released results of a study that indicated that drivers of SUVs were 11% more likely to die in an accident than people in cars. [1] These figures may be confounded by variables other than the vehicles' inherent safety, for example the documented tendency for SUVs to be driven more recklessly (most sensationally perhaps, the 1996 finding that SUV drivers are more likely to drive drunk [2]). SUV drivers are also statistically less likely to wear their seatbelts. [3]

[edit] Risk to other drivers

Because of SUVs' greater height and weight, it is contended by a columnist writing in The New Yorker magazine^[2] that SUVs can affect traffic safety. This height and weight, while perhaps giving an advantage to occupants inside the vehicle, often poses a risk to drivers of smaller vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents.

SUV safety concerns are compounded by a perception among some consumers that SUVs are safer for their drivers than standard cars. According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers (as cited in Gladwell, 2004), many consumers feel safer in SUVs simply because their ride height makes "[their passengers] higher and dominate and look down (sic). That you can look down [on other people] is psychologically a very powerful notion." This and the height and weight of SUVs may lead to consumers' false perception of safety (Gladwell, 2004)^[2]. Unfortunately, Gladwell published in "The New Yorker" which is not a scientifically accredited publication (Gladwell, 2004)^[2]. This leads to doubt that any objective form of scientific method was used to make the above claims.

In parts of Europe, effective 2006, the fitting of metallic bull bars, also known as grill guards and push bars to vehicles such as 4x4s and SUVs is illegal (pedestrian safe rated plastic bars and grilles may be used). Conversely, grill guards are widely used in Australia and the United States to protect against property damage during wildlife crashes. In Brazil, grill guards became so successful among drivers that they are fitted to smaller cars (Chevrolet Corsa,VW Crossfox) or even minibuses^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Recent improvements

Manufacturers have added car-level bumpers to reduce the possibility of the other vehicle(s) sliding under the SUV in a collision. SUV's have therefore become somewhat safer for other road users in recent years but have not eliminated the threat of the SUV.

The Volvo XC90 for instance, has been rated the Top Safety Pick by IIHS - the highest safety award by the (American) Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It is equipped with Roll Stability Control to help prevent a roll over. It is also equipped with a frontal structure designed to trigger the other vehicle's safety features in the event of a frontal impact. A special metal bar underneath the front bumper is low enough to be in line with a normal sedan's bumper and front impact protection beams.

[edit] Marketing practices

Under criticism are the marketing techniques used to sell SUVs. Advertisers and manufacturers alike have been assailed for greenwashing. Critics have cited SUV commercials that show the product being driven through a wilderness area, even as most SUVs are never driven off-road.^[3] Even the model names have been criticized for connoting exotic wilderness areas (Chevrolet Tahoe, Dodge Durango, GMC Denali) and ruggedness (Ford Explorer, Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Expedition, Jeep Commander) that have little to do with the typical daily use of an SUV (i.e., transportation on paved roads).

[edit] Tax benefits

In the United States, Section 179 depreciation deduction, sometimes known as the 'SUV subsidy' allows small-business owners to deduct up to $25,000 of the cost of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 6000 lb (2722 kg) from their income tax calculation. Small-business owners may deduct $10,610 of the cost of a passenger automobile. This provides a slight tax incentive for businesses to purchase an SUV. However, the cost of both SUVs and automobiles is fully deductible over future years using normal depreciation. In previous years, this deduction reached $120,000 and was the subject of much criticism. When the vehicle is eventually sold, however, the depreciation taken must be recaptured as income, subject to taxation. These SUV's include the Cadillac Escalade, GMC Yukon Denali and other high end SUV's on the market today.

[edit] Fuel economy

The recent popularity of SUVs is generally thought of as one reason the U.S. population has begun consume more gasoline than in previous years. SUVs are as a class much less fuel efficient than comparable passenger vehicles. The main reason is that SUVs are classified by the U.S. government as light trucks, and thus are subject to the less strict light truck standard under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. The CAFE requirement for light trucks is an average of 20.7 mpg (US), versus 27.5 mpg (US) for passenger cars (11.4L/100km and 8.6L/100km, respectively).

By design SUVs have numerous fuel-inefficient features. Their high profile increases wind resistance and their mass requires heavier suspensions and larger engines, which both contribute to increased vehicle weight. Many SUVs come with tires designed for off-road traction rather than low rolling resistance.

The low fuel economy is caused by following:

• High parasitic masses (compared to the average load) causing high energy demand in transitional operation (in the cities) where stands for power, for the vehicle mass, for acceleration and for the vehicle velocity.
• High cross-sectional area causing very high drag losses especially when driven at high speed where stands for the power, for the cross-sectional area of the vehicle, for the density of the air and for the relative velocity of the air (incl. wind).
• High rolling resistance due to all-terrain tires (even worse if low pressure is needed offroad) and high vehicle mass driving the rolling resistance where stands for the rolling resistance factor and for the vehicle mass.

Average data for vehicle types sold in the U.S.A. ^[4]:

Type	Width	Height	Curb weight	Combined fuel economy
SUVs	70.5in 187cm	69.7in 180cm	4442 lb 1924 kg	19.19 mpg 12.25 l/100 km
Minivans	75.9in 193cm	67.2in 178cm	4075 lb 1939 kg	20.36 mpg 11.55 l/100 km
Family sedans	70.3in 179cm	57.3in 146	3144 lb 1426 kg	26.94 mpg 8.73 l/100 km
Honda Insight	66.7in 169cm	53.3in 135cm	1850 lb 839 kg	63 mpg 3.73 l/100 km

Drag resistance for SUVs is at least (same drag coefficient) 30% higher and the acceleration force has to be 35% larger than family sedans if we use the figures from the above table. This gives a 40% higher fuel consumption (even for parallel hybrid electric SUVs) using the given formula for the power demand.

Addressing fuel efficiency, several manufacturers now offer hybrid gas/electric models of SUVs, offering improved fuel economy over conventionally powered SUVs. With some hybrid SUV models, the added power generated from the hybrid systems is used some times to give vehicles added performance (increased power).

[edit] Pollution

Because SUVs typically use more fuel than some cars, they generate much higher volumes of pollutants (particularly carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere during their working lives.^{[citation needed]} In the U.S., light trucks and SUVs are held to a less-strict pollution control standard than are passenger cars.^{[citation needed]}

The British national newspaper The Independent reported on a study carried out by CNW Marketing Research which suggested that CO2 emissions alone do not reflect the true environmental costs of a car. The newspaper reported that:

CNW moves beyond the usual C02 emissions figures and uses a "dust-to-dust" calculation of a car's environmental impact, from its creation to its ultimate destruction

The newspaper also reported that the CNW research put the Jeep Wrangler above the Toyota Prius and other hybrid cars as the greenest car that could be bought in the UK. The report also stated that Toyota disputed the proportion of energy used to make a car compared with how much the vehicle uses during its life - CNW said 80% of the energy a car uses is accounted for by manufacture and 20% in use - Toyota claimed the reverse. ^[5][6]

Compact SUVs like the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V are offered with diesel engines in Europe, and with these fitted, it can be argued that they have lower emissions than some cars.^{[original research?]} An example would be the Toyota RAV4 2.2D that has carbon dioxide emissions of 173 g/km, compared to a Mercedes-Benz A-Class 2.0T, with carbon dioxide emissions of 192 g/km. However, when making a fair comparison between two diesels, the A-Class 2.0 CDI has CO2 emissions of 141 g/km, with the 1.6 CDI model achieving 128 g/km and the RAV4 with a 2.0 L gasoline engine achieving 211 g/km.^{[original research?]}

Suggestions that SUVs are always worse for the environment than normal cars must be taken with caution, as there are many cars with considerably worse emissions than SUVs (i.e. large sedans, minivans and sports cars).^{[original research?]} If the emissions-per-person are taken into account, larger, multi-passenger SUVs (for example the Hyundai Santa Fe with a 7-seat option) fair better in terms of environmental impact.^{[citation needed]} But in general, across a spectrum of engine sizes, SUVs fare worse simply due to their larger frontal area and higher weight than conventional cars.^{[citation needed]} Squared-off styling does not help as it increases drag and thus increases fuel consumption.^{[citation needed]}

However, modern styling preferences and engines have been actively reducing emissions in the past 15 years, as SUVs have become lower, sleeker and more fuel efficient, since the demand for serious off-road capability has diminished; heavy drive trains and dual-ratio transmissions have been dropped in favor of lightweight suspensions and lighter overall weight to aid car-like handling.^{[citation needed]}

In addition the explosion of hybrid SUVs has improved fuel economy to the point that some SUVs are more efficient then smaller size cars. Compare the fuel economy of the Toyota Highlander V6 hybrid 33 mpg (city) / 28 mpg (highway) to the Toyota Camry V6 22 mpg (city) / 31 mpg (highway) ^{[7][original research?]}

[edit] Weight

The high gross vehicle weight rating of some full-size SUVs (like the Ford Excursion and Hummer H2) technically limits their use on certain roads. Rural bridges often have a 6000 lb (2700 kg) weight limit^{[citation needed]}, which means that some full-size SUVs surpass this limit when loaded - and the largest SUVs already pass the limit just with their curb weight.^{[citation needed]} These laws are rarely enforced for SUVs as they are classified as passenger vehicles instead of commercial trucks. Fortunately these small rural roads are a rare occurrence for most drivers. In addition many of these rural byways are giving way to more efficient and larger two lanes which support vehicles up to medium weight trucks.

[edit] Size

The length and width of large SUVs have caused problems in urban areas.

In urban areas with limited parking spaces, SUVs have been highly criticized for parking in stalls marked for compact cars or that are too narrow for the width of certain larger SUV. Critics have stated that this causes problems such as the loss of use of the adjacent space, reduced accessibility into the entry of a adjacent vehicle, blockage of driveway space, and damage inflicted by the door of the SUV to adjacent vehicles.

^[8]

[edit] Anti-SUV vandalism

In April 2005, William Cottrell, a 24-year-old American postgraduate student at Caltech was sentenced to more than eight years in federal prison and $3.5 million in fines for firebombing or vandalizing 125 SUVs at dealerships and a few homes in 2003. Two of his associates fled the country to avoid prosecution. ^[9]

Paris has been considering placing a ban on SUVs because of most of the above discussed issues - including a wave of incidents in Paris in which protesters attacked numerous vehicles by deflating tires and smearing mud on the vehicles. In addition, officials in London are considering raising the London congestion charge for SUV drivers because of the environmental and congestion impact made by large single occupancy vehicles.

[edit] References

1. ^ ^{a b c} [Fifth Gear http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=601&featureid=301 Smashing, great, super!], Fifth Gear
2. ^ ^{a b c} Gladwell (2004-01-12). Big and Bad. The New Yorker.
3. ^ http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/Analysis_of_Impact_of_SUVs_in_US.pdf Analysis of the Impact of_SUVs in the US]
4. ^ Source The Auto Channel
5. ^ "Jeep Wrangler: Is this the greenest car on sale?", The Independent, 2006-11-07.
6. ^ CNW Marketing Research, Inc (2006). "Dust to Dust - The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal".
7. ^ Toyota: Official website
8. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2002826921_parking26.html
9. ^ MSNBC