SUVs and the Environment

[Greenstreet]

I apologise if this has been done before, but as there is a new wave of
Temp Debaters I see no problem with it being done again. Having said
that I searched the Grounds and there was no thread on the subject.​

Debate over this issue is quite common, so I thought it would an appropriate topic for PG.

The Topic: SUV's and the Environment​

Considering the Sports Utility Vehicle's damaging nature to the environment, is it ethical for a car company to have these vehicles in production?

Some points to consider:

• What are the proven effects these vehicles have on the environment? Is it exaggerated?
• Is there a distinction between regular SUVs and luxury SUVs? Are both as wasteful as each other?
• Does thier utility outweigh their wastage?
• Utility aside, if a person decides to purchase one of these vehicles with no intent of offroad use or carpooling in mind, should they have the right to do so?
• Is being wasteful an appropriate result of free will?

_______________

Personally I feel as if the social perception of these vehicles exaggerated. People often hail SUVs as the sole reason the environment is taking a turn for the worse. Or at very least throw hate toward the drivers of these vehicles when many other factors are playing a larger part in environmental decay.

I'll stop there. I hope this is a good starting block for discussion.

 

[Deleted member]

here (the Netherlands) the only people owning a SUV have it as a status symbol. That in itself isn't a bad thing, people buy expensive watches just to show off to their neighbours and co-workers.
Their main utility not really being a pro here (the Netherlands are flatter than a pancake and every road is in good state) and the fact that they do use more fuel, I do believe that their sales should at least be limited in some way.

In reply to your POV, do your consider SUVs have enough utility (over a normal, less wasteful car) to compensate for their greater damage to the environment?

 

[Greenstreet]

As I stated, I think that their contribution to environmental decay is exaggerated. I'm not quite sure it is greater.

I've done a little theory-crafting on the subject:

According to Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the US Census Bureaui n 2002, there where over 135 million passenger cars and 62 million light trucks (American language labels SUV’s as light trucks, however this statistic also includes vans and pickup trucks, this doesn't include larger SUV over 6 tonnes like Hummers).

Combining that statistic with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (22.5mpg for light trucks and 27.3mpg for passenger cars), we can gather a sense the effect of light trucks in comparison to passenger cars.

From these statistics we can gather that fuel consumption at the current rate (all vehicles included) is approximately 25.7mpg. Theorising that SUV’s were abolished and replaced with passenger cars (ignoring the fact that more passenger cars would be needed to carry the same amount of passengers as the SUV’s), the new fuel economy average would be obviously be 27.3. This marks a mere 7% difference in fuel consumption if all light trucks were taken out of use.

____________


I mentioned seat capacity briefly in there, and I'm of the belief that if SUV's were used to capacity every time they were used, they would be more fuel efficient then a 5 seater car, or at very least, this supposed gap in fuel efficiency would decrease further.

However, this is not the case realistically, but I don't think it is the ethical responsibility of the car company to ensure that their vehicles are being used in a fuel efficient manner.

This applies to utility as well, to answer your original question. Unless there existed a system where SUVs where only purchased after a successful 'work' application has been filled out, I see no way for these vehicles to be restricted in production. A car company can't be responsible for the misuse of its product.

Even if a 'work' application were the prerequisite for purchasing an SUV, does this limit the choice of the consumer too much? If there is demand, why not sell it? Some soccer mums do use their SUVs for car pooling for the majority of the time. Is it fair to remove this freedom of choice from all?

But to answer your question, yes, I think SUVs have enough utility, when used for the purpose in which they were created and when seated to capacity most of the time. This outweighs their affect on the environment, also due to the fact I am unconvinced as to their damaging nature.

_____________

Also, these stats didn't include large SUV's over 6 tonnes, which are classed differently and not subject to Fuel Economy Standards. The Hummer is the prime example of this type of vehicle. Purely luxury. Worse fuel economy than almost all other 'useful' SUVs and often driven by a single, affluent driver. And as you stated, these are primarily just status symbols.

I'm currently unsure whether the free will to buy these things should be inhibited for environmental good. Although Australia, where I live, restricts gun purchases for the greater good, shouldn't SUVs be the same, especially where they serve little purpose other than to prove affluency?

 

[BSP]

My thoughts:

-Vehicle Effects

The proven effects of these vehicles are the emmision of harmful gases, including CO, CO2, Nitrous Oxides (NOx, where x is the # of oxygen), VOCs, particulate matter, and Sulfur Dioxide. All the gases cause negative effects to the enviornment, seen here, and although most vehicles emit these gases, SUVs are allowed by US law to emit more. They are also allowed to have less efficiency as well. SUVs also get less MPG, meaning that they will consume more fuel. Here are some MPGs for cars and here are some for SUVs, trucks, and vans. As you can see, it's a pretty big difference.

-Utility

So as you can see, they obviously have cons over regular cars, but let's observe their utility. SUVs can usually seat 7 people, while the standard car can only seat 5. But according to this article here, 40% of SUV owners are households of two, meaning their is a very low chance of the vehicle being used to its full capacity as far as seating goes. Even worse, only 13.4% of SUV drivers say they use their vehicle for off-roading purposes.

So, it's clear that the SUV produces more pollution and consumes more resources. I think it is acceptable if a family can utilize its capacity, or actually uses it for off-roading purposes. But what if a person does neither, and just owns the vehicle to "show off"? If the person is not utilizing the vehicle to its full capabilities, while at the same time causing increased pollution, they shouldn't be allowed to have the vehicle. It's basically causing more problems. I'm not saying the the SUV is causing all enviornmental problems, but said person that is not utilizing the vehicle well could remedy the situation by having a car instead.

However, if a person owns a SUV, and utilizes by using most of its space or offroading capabilities, I am fine with the enviornmental cons. As long as the person is not being wasteful, I'm ok with their usage of the SUV. Of course, reducing the extra pollution these vehicles cause would be great.

 

[Sieguest]

The Topic: SUV's and the Environment​

Considering the Sports Utility Vehicle's damaging nature to the environment, is it ethical for a car company to have these vehicles in production?

Some points to consider:


[*]What are the proven effects these vehicles have on the environment? Is it exaggerated?

I admit that the vehicle may have a profound effect on the environment, but, seeing how there are such things that do way worse, such as factory waste and the numerous chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that enter the atmosphere from many of the world's "small" things, I would have to say that it is greatly exaggerated.

[*]Is there a distinction between regular SUVs and luxury SUVs? Are both as wasteful as each other?

I don't think there is too much of a difference waste wise between the two.

[*]Does thier utility outweigh their wastage?

I'm not extremely knowledgeable on vehicles, but I think that any vehicle provides more utility compared to its waste output. I think the choice of an SUV really comes down to preference and perks.

[*]Utility aside, if a person decides to purchase one of these vehicles with no intent of offroad use or carpooling in mind, should they have the right to do so?

Of course they should, why would we infringe someone their choice. If we're truly worried about the environment, then shut down the huge factories expelling much more waste into the environment.

[*]Is being wasteful an appropriate result of free will?

Personally I don't believe anyone has free will, but every action has a result, if the waste is a result of the action of operating an SUV, then that's how it is and there's not much we can do to change it as far as I see.

My thoughts:

-Vehicle Effects

The proven effects of these vehicles are the emmision of harmful gases, including CO, CO2, Nitrous Oxides (NOx, where x is the # of oxygen), VOCs, particulate matter, and Sulfur Dioxide. All the gases cause negative effects to the enviornment, seen here, and although most vehicles emit these gases, SUVs are allowed by US law to emit more. They are also allowed to have less efficiency as well. SUVs also get less MPG, meaning that they will consume more fuel. Here are some MPGs for cars and here are some for SUVs, trucks, and vans. As you can see, it's a pretty big difference.

This may be true, but consider how many SUV owners there are compared to the owners of all the other vehicles in existence, strictly focusing on SUVs is like looking at the tree instead of the forest. This shows the top fifteen vehicles selling in America. Notice how the SUV is not on this list. This shows market numbers of automobiles from this past may. Compare SUV numbers to that of cars. Even though SUVs are allowed 1.1 grams of waste per mile compared to the cars .2 grams of waste per mile. If you do the math, cars still output more waste. The point I'm getting at is that going after the SUV is being narrow on the market aspect.

-Utility

So as you can see, they obviously have cons over regular cars, but let's observe their utility. SUVs can usually seat 7 people, while the standard car can only seat 5. But according to this article here, 40% of SUV owners are households of two, meaning their is a very low chance of the vehicle being used to its full capacity as far as seating goes. Even worse, only 13.4% of SUV drivers say they use their vehicle for off-roading purposes.

So, it's clear that the SUV produces more pollution and consumes more resources. I think it is acceptable if a family can utilize its capacity, or actually uses it for off-roading purposes. But what if a person does neither, and just owns the vehicle to "show off"? If the person is not utilizing the vehicle to its full capabilities, while at the same time causing increased pollution, they shouldn't be allowed to have the vehicle. It's basically causing more problems. I'm not saying the the SUV is causing all enviornmental problems, but said person that is not utilizing the vehicle well could remedy the situation by having a car instead.

So you're saying that we can infringe on someone's choice of vehicle due to its effects on the environment. If that's the case, then how come we don't shut down factories that are doing much more damage than the SUVs. The whole criteria of scrapping the SUV for that reason in contorted because then it's left exceptions of a far worse calibur. As the numbers above will show you, SUVs are not as big a problem as you make it seem to be. Prohibiting someone from buying one then, would seem arbitrary.

However, if a person owns a SUV, and utilizes by using most of its space or offroading capabilities, I am fine with the enviornmental cons. As long as the person is not being wasteful, I'm ok with their usage of the SUV. Of course, reducing the extra pollution these vehicles cause would be great.

There's also the hybrid which is a bit easier on the environment if I've read correctly.

 

[BSP]

Of course they should, why would we infringe someone their choice.

If we know their choice has been proven to cause more harm to the enviornment, and the person is not going to utilize their vehicle to full extent (A.K.A. just showing off) to counter the extra harm, why shouldn't we restrict their purchase? Should we just let them cause more harm to the enviornment, knowing that they could have a vehicle that causes less harm, and still gets the same job done?

[If we're truly worried about the environment, then shut down the huge factories expelling much more waste into the environment.

Some of these factories that produce more waste actually make products that we use in our everyday lives, like DOW, Exxon, etc. I don't think it's fair to compare companies like these that make usefull products that we use everyday to a person using an SUV, when they could use a car and save resources and cause less pollution. Restricting SUV usage is a small, but definite way of helping the enviornment, that won't make everyday living harder.

[Personally I don't believe anyone has free will, but every action has a result, if the waste is a result of the action of operating an SUV, then that's how it is and there's not much we can do to change it as far as I see.

Well, we could keep researching and try to reduce the harmful emmisions caused by these vehicles. Or, we could restrict who should be able to buy these vehicles. There could be a minimum # of people in your immediate family requirement to be eligible to buy the vehicle.

And good job on getting in. I kinda just got ignored lol. It's cause I use Luigi, I'm sure of it.

 

[Sieguest]

If we know their choice has been proven to cause more harm to the enviornment, and the person is not going to utilize their vehicle to full extent (A.K.A. just showing off) to counter the extra harm, why shouldn't we restrict their purchase? Should we just let them cause more harm to the enviornment, knowing that they could have a vehicle that causes less harm, and still gets the same job done?

Consider this: Playing video games is shown to be detrimental to young children. (e.g. saps time away from study, instills bad psychological habits etc.) and not everyone can use the game to its full extent because not everyone buys every game, should they therefore not be allowed to purchase a gaming console?

Some of these factories that produce more waste actually make products that we use in our everyday lives, like DOW, Exxon, etc. I don't think it's fair to compare companies like these that make usefull products that we use everyday to a person using an SUV, when they could use a car and save resources and cause less pollution. Restricting SUV usage is a small, but definite way of helping the enviornment, that won't make everyday living harder.

But do we use them to their full extent as you say. I wager that we don't, since a good many people don't utilize motor transportation. This pie chart shows the use of transportation for the common act of grocery shopping. Even though this chart shows 2002 data. A more convincing chart may be found here Considering a worldwide scale, 5% is a nice chunk of people who do not use fuel. Even though in the vast minority, it proves the point that we do not use fuel to its fullest extent. So by the logic you use, we shouldn't allow these corporations to exist.

Well, we could keep researching and try to reduce the harmful emmisions caused by these vehicles. Or, we could restrict who should be able to buy these vehicles. There could be a minimum # of people in your immediate family requirement to be eligible to buy the vehicle. And good job on getting in. I kinda just got ignored lol. It's cause I use Luigi, I'm sure of it.

Refer above. And many thanks.

 

[BSP]

Consider this: Playing video games is shown to be detrimental to young children. (e.g. saps time away from study, instills bad psychological habits etc.) and not everyone can use the game to its full extent because not everyone buys every game, should they therefore not be allowed to purchase a gaming console?

I think you meant: "not everyone can use the gaming console to its full extent because not everyone buys every game." I say anyone should be allowed to buy the console even if they won't play every game and here's why: I see your analogy with each not being used to their full extent, However, who is the gamer hurting by not using the console to its full extent? The company? No, they bought the console, there's a victory. Other people? No, it's their console, and they're the one that is using it. Themselves? Yes, but by buying the console, they were obviously o.k. with the negative side effects of videogames. With the SUV on the other hand, the person that uses it is in fact hurting themselves and others with the use of their vehicle, and is not getting anything in return if they don't use the vehicle's capabilities. Basically, the non-100% utilizaton of the gaming console doesn't hurt anyone who hasn't consented to it, but the non-100% utilization of the SUV does, which makes it a different case.

But do we use them to their full extent as you say. I wager that we don't, since a good many people don't utilize motor transportation. This pie chart shows the use of transportation for the common act of grocery shopping. Even though this chart shows 2002 data. A more convincing chart may be found here Considering a worldwide scale, 5% is a nice chunk of people who do not use fuel. Even though in the vast minority, it proves the point that we do not use fuel to its fullest extent. So by the logic you use, we shouldn't allow these corporations to exist.

Unless the products made by these companies are being wasted, I don't see the problem. The amount of fuel not being used by the 5% of people can be stored, and will definitely be used in the future. Since the fuel is used for operating a variety of things, and with this amount of fuel consumed in the U.S.A. alone, it's safe to say that the fuel we make will not go to waste.

 

[Sieguest]

I think you meant: "not everyone can use the gaming console to its full extent because not everyone buys every game." I say anyone should be allowed to buy the console even if they won't play every game and here's why: I see your analogy with each not being used to their full extent, However, who is the gamer hurting by not using the console to its full extent? The company? No, they bought the console, there's a victory. Other people? No, it's their console, and they're the one that is using it. Themselves? Yes, but by buying the console, they were obviously o.k. with the negative side effects of videogames. With the SUV on the other hand, the person that uses it is in fact hurting themselves and others with the use of their vehicle, and is not getting anything in return if they don't use the vehicle's capabilities. Basically, the non-100% utilizaton of the gaming console doesn't hurt anyone who hasn't consented to it, but the non-100% utilization of the SUV does, which makes it a different case.

Actually they would be hurting the company if you look at from a different perspective. By not buying all the games the company(ies) that would get money for them do not get that sale. So from the perspective of a full extent of use, the company is hurt.

It can hurt other people, the psychological ramifications while affecting the person directly, indirectly affect those around them. I know this example is extreme but, if a person thinks of the world as Halo from playing too much Halo, knocks his girl friend down and tea bags her. Is that her being put in an undesirable situation?

A more plausible example is a violent streak from playing things like mortal combat and the like, the player becomes more desensitized to violence, engages in more physical means of expressing themself. This can lead to a friend of the player to getting hurt by making the player mad one day. In that sense, other people can be hurt as well.

The reasoning you used for justifying a person getting the game at the cost of themself can be reciprocated to a person buying an SUV.

Unless the products made by these companies are being wasted, I don't see the problem. The amount of fuel not being used by the 5% of people can be stored, and will definitely be used in the future. Since the fuel is used for operating a variety of things, and with this amount of fuel consumed in the U.S.A. alone, it's safe to say that the fuel we make will not go to waste.

Now does everyone make use of those things? No. Someone will be using it at some point later, but not right now. the varying influx of that combination shows use to a lesser extent than full. Just as people use SUVs for transportation, but some don't use it to its full extent. Both have environmental ramifications, both are not used to their full extent. tHe sheer amount of cars on the roads contributes more waste compared to the SUV numbers. So I don't see where you can make that exemption.

 

[BSP]

Actually they would be hurting the company if you look at from a different perspective. By not buying all the games the company(ies) that would get money for them do not get that sale. So from the perspective of a full extent of use, the company is hurt.

OK, I see your point. But you have to admit that by buying some of the games or at least using the console for other purposes, the person helps counteract the hurt. With an SUV user that doesn't use its capacity, do they help to counteract their extra harm at all?

It can hurt other people, the psychological ramifications while affecting the person directly, indirectly affect those around them. I know this example is extreme but, if a person thinks of the world as Halo from playing too much Halo, knocks his girl friend down and tea bags her. Is that her being put in an undesirable situation?

OK. And yes. But remember that the SUV's extra harm hurts a lot more than just one person.

A more plausible example is a violent streak from playing things like mortal combat and the like, the player becomes more desensitized to violence, engages in more physical means of expressing themself. This can lead to a friend of the player to getting hurt by making the player mad one day. In that sense, other people can be hurt as well.

See above. But the SUV pollution can lead to cancer, lung disease, etc., but I see your point. I will see if I can think of a less flawed criteria.

The reasoning you used for justifying a person getting the game at the cost of themself can be reciprocated to a person buying an SUV.

See above.

Now does everyone make use of those things? No. Someone will be using it at some point later, but not right now. the varying influx of that combination shows use to a lesser extent than full. Just as people use SUVs for transportation, but some don't use it to its full extent. Both have environmental ramifications, both are not used to their full extent. tHe sheer amount of cars on the roads contributes more waste compared to the SUV numbers. So I don't see where you can make that exemption.

But my point was that the fuel is not being wasted, as long as we don't let it just sit. By some SUV owners, you mean 40% of SUV owners don't use its full capacity. That is still a big chunk of people. And yes, the sheer amount of cars will make more pollution than SUVs alone, but if you look at the total pollution, you'll see that reducing SUV numbers would help to lower this number. But still, my reasoning has some flaws, so I'll see if I can fix it.

 

[Greenstreet]

Some of these factories that produce more waste actually make products that we use in our everyday lives, like DOW, Exxon, etc. I don't think it's fair to compare companies like these that make usefull products that we use everyday to a person using an SUV, when they could use a car and save resources and cause less pollution. Restricting SUV usage is a small, but definite way of helping the enviornment, that won't make everyday living harder.

But is it worth reducing the choice of others for such a small improvement.

Only 36% of all anthropogenic (man-produced) greenhouse gases are produced by liquid fuels such as gasoline (Raupach 2007), and of this 36%, 66% of it is used for air carriers, trains, marine vessels, and airports etc etc.

And water vapour, a natural component to the greenhouse effect, is thought to produce up to 85% of all greenhouse gases (RealClimate 2005).

Going by this, cars could produce as little as 1.8% of greenhouses gases, of which SUVS are less than half of the vehicle population.

Sauce:

Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007). "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (24), pp93.

Real Climate 2005 "Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate viewed at <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/>

 

[GoldShadow]

Only 36% of all anthropogenic (man-produced) greenhouse gases are produced by liquid fuels such as gasoline (Raupach 2007), and of this 36%, 66% of it is used for air carriers, trains, marine vessels, and airports etc etc.

And water vapour, a natural component to the greenhouse effect, is thought to produce up to 85% of all greenhouse gases (RealClimate 2005).

Simply addressing your citations rather than the actual content of your post:

Could you provide links to the websites/papers (or abstracts) in question, or a full citation so we can look it up ourselves? This is because saying Raupach 2007 is fine, if you have a list of references or a bibliography we can look at to determine which 2007 paper by Raupach you're referring to. If you don't have a list of references, or you don't provide a link, it's very hard for others to cross-reference or verify what you say. In other words, if I google "Raupach 2007" I come up with a whole mess of related and unrelated results, and I'm not quite sure which one you may be referencing. Similarly, "RealClimate 2005" comes up with a ton of results from every month in the year 2005, if those monthly reports are even what you were citing at all.

In the future, try to include a link or at the least, a more complete citation (eg, title of the article or paper and perhaps the journal it appeared in) that others can use if they want to look it up.

Anyway, continue debating!

 

[BSP]

Yeah, Greenstreet, links would help with calculating and verifying.

I'll see if I can figure out how much difference it would be.

P.S. Congrats on being upgraded to mod. GS.

And while I work on that, what if we expanded the debate a little (concerning the people a little more)? We are aware that SUVs are larger than their passenger car counterparts, and as such, can have higher chances of causing on the road fatalities. Compare the death rates for SUVs and passenger cars. You will notice that the death rates dropped for cars, but rose for the SUVs. And looking here, we see that not only are SUVs more prone to rolling over, but out of 1 in 4 vehicles purchased in the US, it is one of them. If you're not using the SUV's capabilities to full extent, why should you be allowed to increase the safety risks of all the other passengers on the highways? They have no say in your action, and you've increased their risk of having a fatal accident. Do you guys think it's ok for people to waste as well as increase the risk for other drivers? (And let's not forget, the SUV is larger than the car, meaning that you are still infact increasing the chances of injuring another person)

I don't think you should have the right to put others at higher risk of injury, especially if you're going to use your vehicle for show. Take a look at this quote too:

Since 1992, there have been more fatalities in collisions involving SUVs and cars than in car-to- car crashes, largely as a result of the disparity in vehicle weight (mass), height, and front-end aggressivity between SUVs and passenger cars. Of those persons fatally injured in SUV-car collisions, the vast majority, eighty per cent, were car occupants (see NHTSA report, 'Relationships Between Vehicle Size and Fatality Risk')."

It is not fair that inefficient SUV owners can make the roads more dangerous for mostly other drivers and not use their vehicles wisely. If you really do not need an SUV, you should not have one, especially since you will make the roads safer.

 

[SuperBowser]

That brings up an interesting point.

People who drive at the legal drinking limit double their risk of crashing. But this is still legal because that increase in risk is judged adequately small. If deaths from SUVs have only increased by ~7%, is that really enough to claim they are too dangerous for the roads? Where do we draw the line for this increase in risk before we ban something?

2%? 10%? 50%? 100%? When it affects a certain number of people? I'd imagine that SUVs quite comfortably meet current regulations and requirements, even if they are more dangerous.

 

[BSP]

SuperBowser, I'm not saying that SUVs deserve an outright ban. I'm totally ok with thier use as long as they are used for their capacity or off roading capacity. I'm not ok with people purchasing them just for show. However, since SUVs have increased risk of rolling over, causing fatalities, etc., just using them for show increases the safety risk for other drivers. Why should, for example, a two person family be able to become a greater risk with no planned utilization of the vehicle's unique capabilities? If they aren't going to use the unique capabilities, they should just get a car.

I'm not saying that SUVs are too dangerous for the road, but they still pose a greater risk of causing injury. Because of the fact they have more chance of harming other drivers that had no say in this wasteful purchase, it is not acceptable to let these purchases occur. If we continue to allow these purchases, we might as well allow smoking in public facilities again since we are OK with increasing safety hazards for other people when there is no justification whatsoever for this increased risk. And driving while under the influence could meet this criteria as well.

 

[SuperBowser]

Sorry, my choice of words were poor. I should have read the whole topic. Didn't mean to imply you wanted a total ban.

However, since SUVs have increased risk of rolling over, causing fatalities, etc., just using them for show increases the safety risk for other drivers. Why should, for example, a two person family be able to become a greater risk with no planned utilization of the vehicle's unique capabilities?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But my point is that unless this increase in risk is significant (which we have yet to define), it is an invalid argument to use against purchasing a SUV. Would we ban people from carrying a dog in their passenger seat if risk of accidents increased by 0.5%? Of course not. But if that risk increased by 300% the discussion might take a very different turn.

Again, smoking was banned because of the proportion of increase in risk. If it increased incidence of lung cancer by 0.1% through second hand smoking and nothing else, there would be no legislations.

People purchase SUVs for other reasons. They look nice. They are larger. They enable you to bring large animals with you. They are convenient if you have guests or large families (even if the car is only filled up 4% of the time it is used, it is a huge convenience). You might not agree these are important reasons to purchase a SUV, but calling it wasteful is subjective. We shouldn't have to justify what we do with our money to other people; it's ours to spend.

 

[BSP]

Ok, looking here, the average weight for vehicles was about 4,079 pounds. Now, looking here, we see a chart that compares the death rates by vehicle size for occupants and for other people involved in the crash. As you can see, the SUV "other" fatality rate is higher than the car's in every weight category, and its total death rate is higher in every category too. Next, let's look at total deaths for each vehicle. The car deaths add up to 595, and the SUV deaths add up to 945, almost double the deaths from cars. Obviously, a difference of 350 deaths is a big deal. I would think that removing any unnecesary SUVs would be worth it, since it would reduce the amount of total deaths and decrease risk factors for other drivers. And just from comparing the 4000-4499 lbs. range, SUVs had 1.12% more deaths. By comparing all the ranges and adding the percents, in total, the SUVs have 5.62% more deaths. This doesn't seem like much, but that isn't including the other 276 deaths caused by SUVs that weigh 4500lbs and up.

And remember, 40% of SUV drivers are households of 2 (not really using its size), and 13.4% won't use its offroading capabilities.

For the reasons you listed why people purchase SUVs, I agree with most of what you said. Like I said, I'm ok with anyone using an SUV for its size or offroading, making large animals and large families acceptable reasons to purchase the vehicle. But I disagree with the "look nice" clause, since as I've demonstrated above, you are doing nothing but increasing the total amounts of deaths on the road. I agree that everyone has a right to spend their money the way they want, but not at the expense of someone else if they are only going to drive the SUV since it looks nice.

 

[Greenstreet]

debating advice.

Thanks. Noted.

 

[rvkevin]

There needs to be a distinction between the vehicle and how the vehicle is used.

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.[15] These figures were not driven by vehicle inherent safety alone but indicated perceived increased security on the part of drivers. For example, US SUV drivers were found to be less likely to wear their seatbelts.[16] and showed a documented tendency to drive more recklessly (most sensationally perhaps, in a 1996 finding that SUV drivers were more likely to drive drunk). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_sport_utility_vehicles#Sense_of_security

There is a phenomenon that the safer the driver feels, the more risks they will take, the more unsafe they feel, the safer they drive (which is the basis of http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html). Drivers of SUVs perceive themselves to be safer and it effects their driving. The increase of deaths is not surprising when seeing that SUV drivers are more likely to not wear a seat-belt (which are more effective in roll-overs), and driving while intoxicated (especially when it takes more precaution to drive a heavier vehicle due to an increased stopping distance). I object to the abuse of SUVs, not their use.