Criticism of sport utility vehicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of sport utility vehicles is the expression of disapproval of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) made by various groups, organizations, and individuals. 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 Safety 1.1 Rollover 1.2 Construction 1.3 Risk to other drivers 1.4 Visibility and backover deaths 1.5 Wide bodies in narrow lanes 1.6 Recent improvements 1.7 Psychology 1.8 False sense of security 2 Marketing practices 3 Tax benefits 4 Fuel economy 5 Pollution 6 Weight 7 Size 8 High Road Taxes (UK) 9 Slang 10 See also 11 References

[edit] Safety

One reason for the SUV's popularity is the perception that they have significant safety advantages over smaller vehicles,^[1] but SUVs are more likely to roll over^[2], more likely to be in a single-car accident and more likely to cause harm to other road users.

[edit] Rollover

The high center of gravity of SUVs makes them more prone to rollover accidents than lower vehicles, especially if the vehicle leaves the road or in emergency maneuvers. Figures from the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that most passenger cars have about a 10% chance of rollover while most SUVs have between 14% to 20% (varying from a low of 14% for the AWD Ford Edge to a high of 23% for the FWD Ford Escape). Many modern SUVs are equipped with stability control to prevent rollovers on flat surfaces, but 95% of rollovers are "tripped" - meaning the vehicle strikes something low, such as a curb or shallow ditch, causing it to tip over^[3].

[edit] Construction

SUVs are typically built with a truck-style chassis with separate body, whereas cars are typically built with a monocoque unitary construction (where the body actually forms the structure of the car). Separate chassis style designs are typically much less safe for the occupants than unitary construction.

The British television Fifth Gear program staged a 40 mph (64 km/h) crash between a previous generation Land Rover Discovery, which features a separate chassis and body, and a modern Renault Espace IV, which features unitary construction. Due to a technical fault, readings from the on-board instrumentation was unavailable, so the program had to speculate, based on the appearance of the vehicles after the impact, that the structural design of the Discovery offered less driver/passenger protection than that in the 2003 multi-purpose vehicle with unitary construction from Renault.^[1]

It must be noted that the Land Rover tested was the previous generation, which was based on the 1960s design of the original Range Rover. The new Discovery III features unitary construction. The Renault Espace IV achieved the highest score of any car ever when Euro NCAP tested it shortly after its introduction in 2003.

[edit] Risk to other drivers

Because of SUVs' greater height and weight and rigid frames, it is contended by a columnist writing in The New Yorker magazine^[4] 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, particularly side impacts^[5]. In 2003 and 2004 in the US, passenger cars were involved in 1.65 and 1.58 fatal crashes per 100M miles respectively compared to 2.14 and 2.05, nearly 30% more, for light trucks (SUVs pick-ups and vans)^[6][7]. In 2004, light trucks were involved in fatal, 2 vehicle crashes with passenger cars (4,765 total, 0.435 per 100M miles) at nearly 3 times the rate as passenger cars (2,422 total, 0.149 per 100M miles)^[8]. In the same year, light trucks were involved in fatal, 2 vehicle crashes with motorcycles (869 total, 0.079 per 100M miles) at a nearly 75% greater rate than passenger cars (738 total, 0.045 per 100M miles). The same year, light trucks were involved in fatal, 2 vehicle crashes with large trucks at a 3.9% greater rate than passenger cars. Fatal crashes between 2 light trucks occurred at nearly the same (but greater) rate as fatal crashed between 2 passenger cars.

In parts of Europe, effective 2006, the fitting of metallic bull bars, also known as grille guards, brush guards and push bars to vehicles such as 4x4s and SUVs is illegal (pedestrian safe rated plastic bars and grilles may be used). Grille guards are often used in Australia and parts of the United States to protect against property damage during wildlife crashes.

[edit] Visibility and backover deaths

Because of their unconventional body proportions, SUVs can create visibility problems for other drivers by obscuring their view of traffic lights, signs, and other vehicles on the road, plus the road itself. SUV drivers also suffer from poor visibility to the side and especially to the rear; similarly, driving a low-built vehicle alongside an SUV blocks the driver of the low vehicle's view in the direction of the SUV. This has led to many "backover deaths" where SUVs run over small children when backing out of driveways. The problem of backover deaths became so wide spread that rear facing backup cameras were installed on some SUVs so that the driver could see behind the vehicle.^[9]

[edit] Wide bodies in narrow lanes

The wider bodies of SUVs means they occupy a greater percentage of road lanes, leaving less room for error. This is particularly noticeable on the narrow roads sometimes found in dense urban areas. SUVs also have difficulty fitting in some parking spaces and encroach further into traffic lanes when parked along side the road.

[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.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Psychology

This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available. (December 2007)

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).^[4]

In a study in Wellington, New Zealand, it was found that SUV drivers were 55% more likely to drive with only one hand on the top of the steering wheel than drivers of standard vehicles. This was considered indicative of a false sense of security compared to the drivers of smaller cars.^[10]

Gladwell also noted that the SUV popularity is also a sign that people began to shift automobile safety focus from active to passive, to the point that potential SUV buyers will give up extra 30 ft (9.1 m) of braking distance because they believe they are helpless to avoid a tractor-trailer hit on any vehicle. Such notion of safety was confined to North America. The four-wheel drive option available to SUVs reinforced the passive safety notion. In the case of 4WD, it does not improve braking. To support Gladwell's argument, he mentioned that automotive engineer David Champion noted that in his previous driving experience with Range Rover, his vehicle slid across a four-lane road because he did not perceive the slipping that others had experienced.^[4] Gladwell concluded that when a driver feels unsafe when driving a vehicle, it makes the vehicle safer. When a driver feels safe when driving, the vehicle becomes less safe. Gladwell's findings were published in The New Yorker which is not a scientifically accredited publication (Gladwell, 2004).^[4]

Stephen Popiel, a vice-president of Millward Brown Goldfarb automotive market-research company, noted that for most automotive consumers safety has to do with the notion that they are not in complete control.^[4] Gladwell argued that many of the 'accidents' are not outside driver's control, such as drunk driving, wearing seat belts, driver's age and experience, so a vehicle's safety also depends on the driver itself. Gladwell also noted learned helplessness plays a role in choosing SUV.

[edit] False sense of security

Despite some evidence to the contrary, many SUV owners believe that they themselves and their passengers are much safer in an SUV than in a car. However, some studies indicate that SUVs occupants are not dramatically safer and may even be less safe than car occupants.^[11][12] 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.^[13] These figures may be compounded 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).^[14] SUV drivers are also less likely to wear their seatbelts.^[15] Actual driver death rates are monitored by the IIHS and vary between models.^[16] These statistics do show average driver death rates in the US were lower in larger vehicles from 2002-2005, but there was significant overlap between vehicle categories.
US Driver Death Rates from 2002-2005 in recent models (per million registered vehicles)^[17]

• small 4 door cars (14 models): 45-191
• mid-size 4 door cars (17 models): 14-130
• large 4 door cars (11 models): 57-118
• mid-size luxury (8 models): 11-54
• large luxury (11 models): 14-85
• large mini-vans (5 models): 36-97
• very large mini-vans (6 models): 7-54
• small SUVs (13 models): 44-132
• mid-size SUVs (34 models): 13-232
• large SUVs (16 models): 21-188
• very large SUVs (6 models) 53-122

The IIHS report states, "Pound for pound across vehicle types, cars almost always have lower death rates than pickups or SUVs."^[18] It should be noted that these rates are per million registered vehicles and do not account for driver profiles and thus do not include such factors as age, gender, miles driven per year, and traffic conditions. The NHTSA recorded occupant (driver or passenger) fatalities per 100M vehicle miles traveled at 1.16 in 2004 and 1.20 in 2003 for light trucks (SUVs, pick-ups and minivans) compared to 1.18 in 2004 and 1.21 in 2003 for passenger cars. These numbers are very close despite the much larger average weight of light trucks.^[19].

[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.^[20] 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.

[edit] Fuel economy

The recent popularity of SUVs is generally thought of as one reason the U.S. population has begun to 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:^[21]

This list may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this list. It may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. (February 2007)

Type	Width		Height		Curb weight		Combined fuel economy
	in	cm	in	cm	lb	kg	mpg (US)	km/l	mpg (imp)
SUVs	70.5	187	69.7	180	4442	1924	19.19	8.16	23.05
Minivans	75.9	193	67.2	178	4075	1939	20.36	8.66	24.45
Family sedans	70.3	179	57.3	146	3144	1426	26.94	11.45	32.35
Honda Insight	66.7	169	53.3	135	1850	839	63	27	76

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). However, SUVs with hybrid engines still only experience gas mileage similar to that of gas powered family sedans, usually a smaller increase in fuel economy than sedans get when fitted with a hybrid engine.

[edit] Pollution

Because SUVs typically use more fuel than cars, they generate higher volumes of pollutants (particularly carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere during their working lives. In the U.S., light trucks and SUVs are held to a less-strict pollution control standard than are passenger cars. In response to the trend that a growing share of fuel consumption and emissions are attributable to these vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that by model year 2009, emissions from all light trucks and passenger cars will be regulated equally.^[22]

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 CO₂ 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.^{[23][24] [25]}

Top Gear Magazine also, in an article to find the "greenest car", placed the Land Rover Defender alongside the Honda Insight because of the claim that "75% of Defenders ever built are still on the road".^{[citation needed]}

A study done by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that even after making assumptions that would lower the environmental impact of the Hummer H3 relative to the Prius; "the Prius still has a lower impact on the environment. This indicates that the unpublished assumptions and inputs used by CNW must continue the trend of favoring the Hummer, or disfavoring the Prius. Since the researchers at Argonne Labs performed a careful survey of all recent life cycle analyses of cars, especially hybrids, our research underlines the deep divide between CNW’s study and all scientifically reviewed and accepted work on the same topic."^[26] A report done by the Pacific Institute reveals "serious biases and flaws" with the study published by CNW, claiming that "the report’s conclusions rely on faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review."^[27]

Concerns over the fuel consumption and subsequent increased pollution from SUVs have led various eco-sabotage groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front or Les Dégonflés to target SUV dealerships and privately-owned SUVs for ecotage. Such acts can range from destruction (such as arson) to more passive attacks (such as deflating the vehicle's tires).

[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. 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 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 SUVs. Critics have stated that this causes problems such as the loss of use of the adjacent space, reduced accessibility into the entry of an adjacent vehicle, blockage of driveway space, and damage inflicted by the door of the SUV to adjacent vehicles.^[28] As a backlash against the alleged space consumption of SUVs, cities across the world, such as London and Florence, have restricted access of SUVs to their city centers, and Paris and Vienna have debated banning them altogether. ^{[29] [30]}

[edit] High Road Taxes (UK)

In the United Kingdom where most road vehicles (except very low polluters) are subject to yearly road tax (VED) payments, the government is actively attempting to deter people from using SUVs using high taxation. The average family sized car would cost around £115 GBP ($226 USD) to tax yearly, wheras the average SUV may cost anything between £270 GBP ($532 USD) to £455 GBP ($896 USD) in road tax based on the CO2 mg/k emissions.^[31]

[edit] Slang

• In the United Kingdom, SUVs are often referred to in derogatory terms as "soft roaders", "Gas Guzzlers" or "Chelsea tractors,"^[32] due to their popularity among affluent people living in central London areas such as Chelsea. Owners of "Chelsea tractors" sometimes spray mud on their vehicles to evade this criticism.^[33].
• In Sweden, a country where SUVs are not considered a status symbol, they are often spoken of as "Stadsjeepar", meaning "City Jeeps". In official communication from Swedish insurance companies, governmental organizations, and environmental movements, SUVs have been endowed with this epithet.^[34] However, a BIL Sweden survey also shows that SUVs in Sweden are predominantly not bought by people in the city, so the term "City Jeep" makes little sense.^[35]
• In Australia they are sometimes referred to as "Toorak Tractors".^[36]

[edit] See also

• Automobile safety

[edit] References