Why some people drive pickups and SUVs

[flynfrog]

Some of us also don't believe we have the right or the moral imperative to tell others what they should do. ..

.. like the people of Vietnam or Iraq how they were supposed to run their countries?
... or the inhabitants of the Fukushima province that they have to accept nuclear accidents?

I'm afraid law making and politics always have an element of curbing the individual freedom for some given purpose. To me it is more the purpose and the appropriateness of the curbing measures that needs scrutiny sometimes. Unlimited freedom can produce some very bad results. Unfortunately not all people are good people and do good things if you leave them to their total freedom. The responsible person will strike the right balance by reasoning over his choices.

I certainly do not consider to have a moral superiority when I chat over an issue such as frivolous choices of vehicles that are wasteful and an inconvenience to other drivers. I'm just making a point of personal opinion that may be shared by others or not. You are absolutely free to agree with my proposed taxation ideas or dismiss them. Every country in the world will set these things according to the priorities of the law makers. And btw. an open debate cannot hurt in order to learn what other people think of a question.

All taxes are collected under the threat of violence. All laws are enforced under threat of violence. I ask my self is (xx) worth killing for. If the answer is yes then by all means pass the tax/ law.

[dwaldron]

I live in upstate NY, USA and drive a 4wd Ford pick up truck for the winter. Also needed to tow the boat twice a year.
In the summer I drive a Lotus Esprit Turbo. I have always had two vehicles, one for the winter and a sports car for the summer. Most people around here have a 4wd SUV. In traffic with the truck I fit right in, but with the Lotus I really need to watch out for the other guy as their SUVs tower over me and they have a problem seeing me, if they are even looking.

Dennis

[hollus]

I'll add the perspective of a dedicated pedestrian who doesn't even have a driver's license. SUVs could (should?) be forbidden in cities, as they are taller than even relatively tall pedestrians. This means that if one has to cross the street and an SUV is parked there, one has to do it blindly, stop at the edge of the SUV, pop an eye out like 5 cm, get a view, and only then cross. Even when crossing in a zebra pass, I like to check than cars and bikes are able to stop before I put myself in there (in Spain, years ago, cars used to accelerate of you used a zebra pass in front of them). Safer for you often means less safe for the others.
But then, if it was up to me, I would ban all cars from cities. A scooter with a trailer is good enough for transporting goods, and for the cost of your car, one could buy 3-6 Segways. Imagine, tiny scooter and Segway roundabouts in every crossing and no need for any traffic lights, I reckon it would be faster than the current situation, at least in European high density city centers.
Good that I am not in the government!

[CBeck113]

I'll add the perspective of a dedicated pedestrian who doesn't even have a driver's license. SUVs could (should?) be forbidden in cities, as they are taller than even relatively tall pedestrians.

Then all trucks and busses must also be banned - sorry, makes no sense.

And generally speaking you cannot ban a vehicle that meets the road standards in a (every) country. That would be the same as saying that cars like the original Mini or Fiat 500, Lotus Elise, MGs etc. should be forbidden because they are too small and would not survive an accident against a mid-range sedan, and are easily overseen in traffic. That would be a travesty, we don't want to go there.

Force thinking in vehicle operators and cure stupidity, and then everyone would be safer

[Kiril Varbanov]

Two types of people in Bulgaria drive SUVs:

1. Those who need more space for their family and the added safety. We need safety - the locals are quite irresponsible when driving. They also need SUVs because, believe it or not, in Bulgaria there are some off-roads. These people would usually drive mid-size SUVs, especially popular are Hyundai SantaFe, old Honda CR-Vs, Nissan Q, etc. The AWD abilities are also much needed - the local authorities cannot handle snow, that's the case every winter.
2. Those who think they are more supreme, in one way or another, than others. The expression of having larger car is presumably the reflection of your social status - bigger car, higher in the ladder. These people would usually drive excessively large SUVs like Merc GL, Audi Q, Land Cruiser, but they don't actually need them. Still, it's their choice, can't blame them, they pay the respective taxes.

Pickups are rarely seen here, except for the Toyota Hilux, which has emerged couple of years ago, when the construction business was at its best. Very rarely I see US imported Toyota Tundra, some GMC Denali and similar exotics.

[SectorOne]

In my country 99.9% of all SUV owners live in City and only uses the SUV because it´s a status thing.
Manufacturers do not even build the cars for going off-road. They are built solely for driving on tarmac.

If you need a car to do proper off-roading, not just muddy roads which can be driven on even with supercars then buy a proper off-road vehicle.
Those will actually cover ground unlike the X5/6, Cayenne, Q7, etc.

[zonk]

Because of greater height and weight and rigid frames, it is contended by Malcolm Gladwell writing in The New Yorker magazine[5] that SUVs can affect traffic safety. This height and weight, while potentially giving an advantage to occupants inside the vehicle, may pose a risk to drivers of smaller vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents, particularly side impacts.[6] In 2003 and 2004 in the U.S., 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).[citation needed] In 2004, light trucks were involved in fatal two-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). In the same year, light trucks were involved in fatal two-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 two-vehicle crashes with large trucks at a 3.9% greater rate than passenger cars. Fatal crashes between two light trucks occurred at nearly the same (but greater) rate as fatal crashes between two passenger cars.[citation needed]

The initial tests of the Ford Excursion were "horrifying" in its ability to vault over the hood of a Ford Taurus. The big SUV was modified to include a type of blocker bar suggested by the French transportation ministry in 1971, a kind of under-vehicle roll bar designed to keep the large Ford Excursion from rolling over cars that were hit by it.[7] The problem is 'impact incompatibility' where the 'hard points' of the end of chassis rails of SUVs are higher than the 'hard points' of cars, causing the SUV to 'override' the engine compartment and crumple zone of the car.[8] There have been few regulations covering designs of SUVs to address the safety issue.[9] The problem of heavy weight is a risk factor present for very large passenger cars, not only with SUVs.[9] The typically higher SUV bumper heights and those built using stiff truck-based frames, also increases risks in crashes with passenger cars.[9] The Mercedes ML320 was designed with bumpers at the same height as required for passenger cars.[10]

In parts of Europe, effective 2006, the fitting of metal bull bars, also known as grille guards, brush guards and push bars to vehicles such as 4x4s and SUVs is only legal if pedestrian safe rated plastic bars and grilles are used. Bullbars are often used in Australia and parts of the United States to protect the vehicle from being disabled should it collide with wildlife.
Visibility and backover deaths

Larger vehicles 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. Depending on design, drivers of some larger vehicles may themselves suffer from poor visibility to the side and the rear. Poor rearward vision has led to many "backover deaths" where vehicles have run over small children when backing out of driveways. The problem of backover deaths has become so widespread that reversing cameras are being installed on some vehicles to improve rearward vision.[11]

While SUVs are often perceived as having inferior rearward vision compared with regular passenger cars, this is not supported by controlled testing which found poor rearward visibility was not limited to any single vehicle class.[12] Australia's NRMA motoring organisation found that regular passenger cars commonly provided inferior rearward vision compared to SUVs, both because of the prevalence of reversing cameras on modern SUVs and the shape of many popular passenger cars, with their high rear window lines and boots (trunks) obstructing rearward vision.[13] In NRMA testing, 2 out of 42 SUVs (5%) and 29 out of 163 (18%) regular cars had the worst rating (>15-metre blind spot). Of the vehicles that received a perfect 0-metre blind spot rating, 11 out of 42 (26%) were SUVs and 8 out of 163 (5%) were regular passenger cars. All of the 'perfect score' vehicles had OEM reversing cameras.[14]
Wide bodies in narrow lanes

The wider bodies of larger vehicles means they occupy a greater percentage of road lanes, leaving less room for error and for other road users. This is particularly noticeable on the narrow roads sometimes found in dense urban areas or rural areas in Europe. Wider vehicles may also have difficulty fitting in some parking spaces and encroach further into traffic lanes when parked alongside the road.
Psychology

SUV safety concerns are affected by a perception among some consumers that SUVs are safer for their drivers than standard cars, and that they need not take basic precautions. According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers, 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' perception of safety.[5]

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 in the U.S. potential SUV buyers will give up an extra 30 ft (9.1 m) of braking distance because they believe they are helpless to avoid a tractor-trailer hit on any vehicle. The four-wheel drive option available to SUVs reinforced the passive safety notion. 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.[5] 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.[5]

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.[5] 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.[citation needed]
Sense of security

Study into the safety of SUVs conclusions have been mixed.[15][16] 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.[17] 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.[18] 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).[18]

Actual driver death rates are monitored by the IIHS and vary between models.[19] These statistics do show average driver death rates in the U.S. were lower in larger vehicles from 2002 to 2005, and that there was significant overlap between vehicle categories.

US Driver Death Rates from 2002 to 2005 in recent models (per million registered vehicles)[19]

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."[19] 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 (all other vehicles)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... y_vehicles

[Just_a_fan]

I have to add that it constantly annoys me to see over sized and grossly over weight vehicles on the roads.

Most large estate cars are now a similar mass to 4x4 being in the order of 2000kg. They're also of similar dimensions (except for height). Indeed, many large estates e.g. A6 are bigger than most 4x4.

The owners waste petrol,

It could be quite reasonably argued that most car travel, in 4x4 or otherwise, is a waste of petrol. May I ask if you always drive your vehicle of choice (what do you drive?) with all of the seats occupied? A 4/5 seat vehicle driven with only 1 seat occupied is a terrible waste...

endanger other participants by inappropriately large kinetic energy in an accident

Velocity has a much bigger effect on kinetic energy. A 1500kg car blasting along at 70mph is more energetic than a 2000kg 4x4 pottering along at 60mph for example. The driver is the cause of the accident and aribter of the outcome. That's why young men kill themselves so frequently in little cars - they drive way too fast and hit solid things like trees on the side of the corner they were travelling too fast to get round.

and block the forward view for drivers of standard cars.

So do vans, minibuses, buses, lorries, tractors... should they all be banned too so that you can see ahead?

I think they should raise the tax three or five fold

I already pay more than 3 times the road tax for my 4x4 that I did for my Golf TDi. Does that extra help the environment or is it just wasted by Government on some stupid project (or overseas war. The Afghanistan conflict is costing the UK £billions and creating huge amounts of pollution too. Way more than the 4x4 they are taxing on our roads).

to punish such vanity and foolishness.

Ah, the ad hom approach to debate. Very mature. You don't like / want / need a 4x4 so anyone who does is vane or a fool. I think that says more about you than it does them to be honest. Oh, and "punish"? Really? You're sounding like a German version of the Taliban...

At the time when people drove Porsches for penis size compensation you actually had a nice vehicle to look at and the added satisfaction that most of them would spin the thing at the next corner.

What I'm picking up from your post is just plain old fashioned envy.

Some of us drive 4x4 for a variety of reasons. Me? Well, for one we have a horse trailer with a MGW of 2600kg. Not many vehicles will pull that safely. My Range Rover Sport (rated to tow up to 3500kg) does so safely and with less risk to other road users than a smaller vehicle would do. My Sport is also very comfortable for long distance driving. Something I hadn't expected to be honest. Also, I venture off road in it too - I use it when we go shooting and also for some simple off roading fun at dedicated sites. The vehicle isn't cheap to run as it gives me about 20mpg driven locally or upto 28mpg on a long steady run. Now I'm prepared to put up with that because I can afford to. It means that I'm giving yet more money to the Government (UK fuel taxation is very high compared to many countries).

[Steven]

I think part of WB's grief has to do with how West-Europeans look at gas guzzling cars and countries who encourage it. Countries like Belgium, Germany, France and basically the entirety of the European Union are pushing to reduce CO2 output by all possible means. Here there have been numerous incentives to put solar panels on your own roof, to add insulation in your house, and now also to buy less emissive cars. The EU has forced carmakers to reduce their fleet emissions gradually, and this is the ONLY reason why carmakers are now pushing these limits. Citroen for instance have a 150hp engine putting out 118g of CO2/100km. Good luck in finding that on the market 5 years ago.

I think what bothers Europeans, and I have to admit it annoys me too, is that so many other countries (although I understand why) are not willing to do the same efforts. It has of course to do with the economic state, and with countries trying to preserve whatever competitive advantage they can get out of it, but it's hardly going to help if Europe cuts 20% of emissions while USA and China increase theirs by 50%.

This all leads to an entirely different view on cars that use a lot of fuel and are a hindrance perhaps to people driving normal cars lower to the ground. It must be said of course that the relative success of the Toyota Prius in the USA is a good sign, and that more people in the US simply NEED a truck for what they're doing. However, towing a boat around the highway in Europe is done with a powerful Audi, rather than a truck

Just out of interest, did Ford introduce any new engines to their trucks recently? Was that for lower emissions or more power?

[Just_a_fan]

In my country 99.9% of all SUV owners live in City and only uses the SUV because it´s a status thing.
Manufacturers do not even build the cars for going off-road. They are built solely for driving on tarmac.

If you need a car to do proper off-roading, not just muddy roads which can be driven on even with supercars then buy a proper off-road vehicle.
Those will actually cover ground unlike the X5/6, Cayenne, Q7, etc.

Some SUVs are actually pretty capable off road. Land Rover's products, obviously, also the Cayenne / Touareg if specified correctly. The BMW X-series do struggle but were never really designed to go off road. Not all of the "off road truck" 4x4 are good off roaders either, strangely.

Much comes down to having the correct tyres on any vehicle.

[Belatti]

I drive my hummer naked so that people see that I the reason I drive a hummer in the city is not for compensating cock size. The only reason is traffic jams: I can pass over compact cars like monster trucks do!

Now, seriously, I own a small lightweight compact car that moves in traffic and small trips like fish in the water. I use that in the week for visiting clients or go to the local track (100km away having to cross BsAs from side to side) to do testing. Then, every weekend I have to travel to racing tracks and thats where the problems begins. The country I live in is big, I have to move an average of 1200km per weekend. For more than 2000km trips the only way is plane. For nearby races I use my Clio. For all thats in the middle I prefer going with a client that has a Touareg V10: a good choice for cruising the unmaintained country roads at a VERY decent speed and travel comfortably with all the lugagge.

There are some times you need a SUV...

[Jersey Tom]

Some people drive pickups because they want to be able to actual haul stuff around, especially if say they're a homeowner or do fabrication work at home (both true in my case). Putting say a new TV or a big bottle of Argon welding gas doesn't work too well in my 350z, and is why I've been thinking of getting a pickup. Though, I'll concede, upgrading to a 370z is also tempting Some people drive SUV's because they have a family to haul around, or like going to sports games and tailgating, or going to the beach, etc etc.

[MOWOG]

Well. there are really two threads going on here. One is poking light hearted fun at dolts who buy big, heavy vehicles with off road rated suspensions because they are dumb enough to think doing so improves their social status. It is a sad commentary on the human condition that so many actually believe that "you are what you drive".

The other thread is quite serious in nature and there has been excellent input here regarding safety in crashes and so forth. There is little doubt that many females feel safer on the road being in a vehicle that allows them to ride high enough to see over most of the other cars.

I have been a fan of MG automobiles most of my life, having owned a dozen or more of them. I became a stalwart believer in the advertising slogan of the MG car company - "Safety fast". The implication was that a car with nimble handling, accurate steering and good brakes would be able to actually AVOID a collision, where lesser vehicles would just lumber straight ahead to their doom, being incapable of taking any evasive action. I feel the same way today about my Miata. But realistically, in a collision with a Ford Expedition, I would be in major danger.

I was browsing a car lot one day and overheard a man telling a salesman that he wanted to buy a BMW for his snot nosed, dorky 16 year old son because he wanted the kid to be "safe". Being the contrarian that I am, I had the urge to tell the guy to make sure his son learned to drive at a real driving school, one that would teach car control and vehicle dynamics, instead of the proper use of turn signals. And while he's at it, level with the kid about the dangers of alcohol, driving around with other hormonally hyperactive teenage boys in the car and texting. The guy obviously thought sticking the kid in a BMW fulfilled all his fatherly duty when it came to putting him behind the wheel. Jerk!

When I travel to Australia or Europe, I am amazed at how different the vehicles I find there are from what I am used to back home in the good ol' US of A. A European caravan is about 1/3 the size of a typical RV in America. Pickups in OZ tend to be more the size of a Toyota Tacoma than an F 350 Super Duty.

I recognize that many people have horse trailers or boats or building materials or a gang of workers that need to be hauled. My Miata would be hard pressed to handle such loads. At the same time, MOST of the giant trucks I see are driven by one person, used for hauling nothing more than groceries, and only go "off road" when they turn into the driveway at home. I take great delight seeing drivers at the mall needing 5 or 6 tries to wrestle their behemoth into a parking space or swing wide at an intersection in the city like they were driving a tractor trailer.

The last time I visited Nantucket, a quaint and charming old whaling community off the coast of Massachusetts, I had to laugh at all the swells who clogged the narrow roads with their giant SUV's to the point that roads were impassable by anything larger than a bicycle. But they were being SEEN in their giganta-mobiles, and that was what was important to them.

Capitalism would be dealt a serious blow if we all were limited to purchasing decisions that were rational and excluded any component of ego gratification!

[WhiteBlue]

I have acknowledged that there are legitimate uses for pickups and SUVs but it is equally obvious from reading this thread that some people do it simply for the wrong reasons because they can and don't care for the environmental impact or the inconvenience they cause other people.

Personally I'm using a street worthy touring bicycle for the neighbourhood shopping, a twenty year old BMW K75S motor bike for leisure trips and a BMW 118 turbodiesel hatch for long haul and luggage transportation. It has an amazingly low consumption if you drive at the recommended speed on German Autobahns. If you put the pedal to the metal it goes well in excess of 200 kph but I don't do this very often. I also use public transport a lot when I enter the inner city of Munich and leave my vehicles at home.

I have not opened this thread to generally criticise people who have a good conscience about their personal choice of transport. Everyone who has good reasons to use these vehicles has my personal blessings to carry on- as they would anyway. I mainly wanted to create a bit of awareness with people who never thought about their choices and how they are perceived by other participants on the roads. As usual Tomba gave us a very nice and comprehensive comment how the continental European countries view this issue and deal with it on a fiscal basis. =D> Kudos for that. I could not have put it any better.

I'm actually a bit surprised how many people down vote my musings and I believe that there is a big dose of bad conscience involved if people cannot deal with the realities and have a proper discussion where they can make their points in writing. Down voting opposing opinion because you don't agree with the writer is poor style in my view. I can accept down votes if I'm factually wrong or getting away from the topic but I'm a bit pushed to accept it for just having an opinion that isn't shared by some users. I was impressed by some contributions that attacked my original post and took opposing views, in particular I took some criticism from Pup to heart. And I have up voted a number of opposed posts. For me this is a nice test environment for the voting system. I'm quite keen to see how many people eventually vote with their brain and not with their guts.

[CBeck113]

There is a prejudice in Germany at least: people tend not to wish another success. It is very obvious here in Bavaria, but can also be found elsewhere in the country. They also don't spend too much time trying to view things from someone else's view. A person who is hell-bent on saving the environment doesn't consider that the Landrover Defender may be necessary to carry bulk materials, supplies etc. They are usually too disgrunted by the fact that they are "suffering" with a small car in order to live up to their principles, and therefore believe that everyone else should too.

>Disclaimer: I currently drive a 2004 Opel Corsa 1.3 CDTI, because I can't (don't want to) afford something nicer. My wife drives a 2007 Citroen Berlingo 1.6 HDi, because she wanted an SUV to sit higher. Problem solved <

The US is a bit of a different beast: the distances are simply much larger than in Europe, especially when you want to visit family (mine spans from Massachusetts down to Miami, FL, and then out to Washington State). The roads are also, umm....cr*p when compared to most European countries. Nevertheless, everyone must accept the fact that there is a need for these vehicles, and in order to produce them for a profit, the car companies has to sell them to a much larger croud than to those who really need them. @MOWOG: Capitalism is the excuse for doing what I said in the previous sentence, but also the reason why we have a choice. I have my opinion about it, but it doesn't belong here.