Attack of the four-wheeled giants - Life in America

ATTACK of the four-wheeled giants: This almost sounds like the title of a bad 1950s horror film. However, the attack is not a series of images on celluloid from the past, or a figment of a science fiction writer's imagination. It is a very real threat to all Americans who venture out upon the nation's highways, posed by some of their fellow citizens. Moreover, those imposing the threat are themselves imperiled by it. The death of several thousand individuals annually is the price to be paid for continued production and proliferation of those battle cruisers for the road called Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs).

The public is cautioned by the media of the hazard SUVs embody with increasing regularity, particularly their inherent tendency to roll over. Many disregard graphic accident reports and dismal test results, instead choosing to look at this issue merely as one of freedom of choice for the consumer. Pat Buchanan of MSNBC summed up this view on "The McLaughlin Group" with a proposition that has become a slogan: "My life, my choice." On the face of it, this sounds compatible with thinking appropriate in a free nation, yet stops short of reality. If people wish to jeopardize themselves and their loved ones in a rollover, they are free to do so. However, SUVs are not operated in a void. What of the rights of people who must share the road with them, especially those in small cars who inevitably come out second best--if they come out at all--in crashes with larger, heavier SUVs? It is an established fact that people in automobiles, particularly those in smaller cars, are much more likely to be seriously injured or killed in aptly nicknamed "mismatch" collisions. The high, blunt front ends of mid-size and larger SUVs represent a formidable challenge to the structural integrity of any automobile. The government classifies all but the largest SUVs as light trucks. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collisions between light trucks and passenger cars account for the majority of traffic fatalities in the U.S. Automobile occupants constitute four out of five deaths in these occurrences.

The inevitable conflict between the ethical propositions "My life, my choice" and the equally valid "The good of the many comes before the good of the few" must be considered. At what point do individual rights violate those of the public? A short answer is: When actions unnecessarily expose a community to clear and present danger, public interest should prevail. Given this context, legislation based purely on fact and logic would recognize that some vehicles pose a deadly and therefore unacceptable hazard to others and their occupants due to their design. Accordingly, their use on public roads would be circumscribed. Naturally, any such measure would appear to be a political nonstarter since millions of citizens, and, more significantly, a number of powerful special-interest groups would cry discrimination and hardship. SUVs are cherished by the vehicle manufacturers since they generate more profit per unit than automobiles. They are favored by the petroleum industry because of their high fuel consumption. This notwithstanding, protective legislation against these dangerous vehicles is not an impossibility. Consider the retreat of the huge tobacco enterprises before research findings, insider disclosures, heightened public awareness, indignation, and lawsuits. Who would have thought even five years ago that major cities like New York and Boston would outlaw smoking in public places? This ban can serve as a paradigm for the good of the many put first--for the ultimate good of all.

There is a remedy for this dilemma that is not coercive and infinitely less controversial than legal measures that would be decried as undemocratic and draconian. It is a more receptive, responsible, nonelitist attitude toward the problem in the mind of SUV owners. SUVs are advertised as safer for their occupants in crashes than automobiles due to their greater size and strength. Therefore, many Americans are consciously or unwillingly taking a "survival of the fittest" approach to vehicle choice. This concept is fatally flawed. Many apparently remain unaware, unconvinced, or uncaring of the injury these "safe" rolling fortresses can inflict upon themselves and others. Whether informed buyers and owners can justify this is an ethical decision that must be made by each individual.

Seductive advertisements feature SUVs in scenes of panoramic natural grandeur where a hearty mountain goat would hesitate to tread. Some people assume that the vehicle actually could be driven there, often at high speed. (Serious off-roaders know better.) An inference drawn by many is that a vehicle with such extraordinary capabilities should be outstanding in everyday driving. These conclusions are both ingenuous and incongruous. The laws of physics dictate that SUVs must be significantly more prone to roll over than passenger cars due to their high center of gravity. Observe NASCAR stock cars--wide chassis, low to the ground. This configuration maximizes stability, handling, control, and aerodynamics. These are the weakest points of the SUV concept. They are marketed as off-road vehicles, although more than 90% of them never leave the pavement (unless they roll over). Perched atop long suspensions, they are designed with generous ground clearance to surmount irregularities and obstacles encountered in nature's realm. Their bodies are tall, ostensibly to carry cargo. Consequently, SUVs are markedly inferior to automobiles in all dynamics of movement meaning diminished ability to maneuver or avoid danger in transit. This negates the greater crash protection the larger models provide. Most have aerodynamic characteristics akin to a brick. More power is necessary to give these heavier, airflow-resisting boxes on wheels acceleration and speed capability approximating that of automobiles. To propel them at the same rate, a larger engine is required that consumes more and often excessive amounts of fuel. Small SUVs offer improved fuel economy, but share the inferior handling and proclivity toward rollover of their larger brethren.