# Oil Hits $55/Barrel: Time To Trade In That SUV? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2005, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067 "2005-03-05T09:26:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/81 "2005-03-08T14:34:54Z")
Not all SUVs have rollover problems. But some are really bad. I think the Jeep Liberty almost rolled on a test driver just doing a highspeed ‘emergency lane change’ test. He was saved by an outrigger wheel. ---
**Author:** ![Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/46a35a/32.png) [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walker_in_Eternity)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/82 "2005-03-08T15:01:11Z")
> [@](#): > > I expect people to change their buying habits when gas goes over $3 a gallon Nice idea in principle, although in practice I doubt it would work unless the American market is vastly different to ours. Here in the UK we have had high petrol (gas) prices for years, people still drive big cars even though there are financial benefits to driving smaller cars i.e. cheaper road tax. Do you have road tax or its equivalent in the US? In the UK there seems to be a massive surge in people buying SUV equivalents or big 4WD vehicles. Even though the fuel costs must be crippling. LPG has been available for some time, but I only know one person that actually uses it. At present hybrids and other fueled cars are too expensive for the average person to afford. ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/83 "2005-03-08T15:41:45Z")
Oh, and while I find the versatility of my SUV trumps pretty much every other concern, I do look forward to the day when a hybrid is produced that has adequate cargo space. I think that people underestimate the value of that space, especially for parents. Heck, I’d have bought a minivan, if the price difference between a loaded CRV and a bare Odyssey were not so significant. I think that a trailer is an unrealistic substitute, especially when considering cargo that must be secure against theft and climate controlled, as well as the added complications of effectively doubling the length of your vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/84 "2005-03-08T16:12:57Z")
> [@](#): > > LPG has been available for some time, but I only know one person that actually uses it. I’m not saying that LP cars/SUV’s will sell now, but the OP was asking (basically) what would it take, which I reply that gas price instability, and shortages would, which would also mean people will be looking for alternative fuels. It is my prediction, The large mega SUV will fall not because of gas prices alone. It’s a factor of availablity of fuel that will push it over the edge (or have it roll over the edge). People need to have a certain amount of moterized mobility to perserve their current lifestile. If the motorized distance you need to go requires more fuel then your mega SUV can take you, you will need to downsize. These situations will also cause a shift to alternative fuels. Use of such fuels can maintain the range you require in times of limited gas supply. CNG and LP can be used directly in a gasoline engine, and actually work better then gasoline (less maintance). So it should take an early lead. Also the Gov’t would have a hard time if LP or NG supplies run out as people depend on that for heat and cooking. I’m not saying that the Gov’t can make gas out of thin air, but there is more pressure for them to keep that going and not ration it if it comes to that. Alcohol is the closest fuel that can be used directly in a gasoline engine, but I think it would cause the engine trouble, though it may run. Again home heating oil can be used directly in dieseil engines w/o any modification, and again it would be hard to ration home heating oil. I’m not saying the above has to happen, just it could happen. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/85 "2005-03-08T16:41:06Z")
The other thing that I see will make people give up SUV’s (as stated above) was to treat it as a truck, restricting where it can go and park. **SUV OWNERS** a questiong for you. How would you handle the following hypothetical situation, you can only obtain 1/2 the quantity of fuel that you currently use? ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/86 "2005-03-08T22:04:50Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > You can point to all the news articles you wish, but honestly I simply don’t and won’t believe it. I don’t feel safe in a small car, which is too bad as I would love to get over 30 mpg. I personally think there is a bias against SUV’s which effect how reporters report (ever hear of Dan Rather?). Laws of physics are against your statement that actual fatality rates are higher (in SUV’s), sorry laws of physics are not politically correct (unlike reporting). > > I can’t control what other people drive, nor can I control how they drive. The only thing I can control is what and how I drive. When I choose I have to consider what others are doing as that does effect my choice. > > I am entitled to my own opinion as to what I wish to drive and my personal reasons for it, also I am entitled to not believe everything I hear on a news report, especially after the Dan Rather incident became public. The vehicle I choose to drive actually scored the highest safety rating the Gov’t grants for a vechical. Look, trust your gut feel about laws of physics all you want, but the fact is that the SUV simply isn’t any safer than a small car. It may feel that way, but the actual fatality rates simply don’t back it up. And the fact is that you are increasing the danger for others on the roads that either don’t have the means or the inclination to spend money on an SUV. And again, you’ve done so for no benefit to yourself. Again, I don’t begrudge people for choosing SUV’s for their load abilities, utility, etc. Hell, if they just got one to be cool, then that’s not the worst thing in the world (seems a little silly to me), but I just can’t stand people that buy them with the knowledge that they’ll willingly put others at risk to increase their own safety in certain situations while at the same time increasing their own actual risk for total injury in all accidents. It’s just a lack of regard for human life that really troubles me. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/87 "2005-03-08T22:16:40Z")
> [@Stryfe](#): > > Do you have road tax or its equivalent in the US? We do in most States (it’s a State-level tax), and it’s generally called “personal vehicle property tax”. This sometimes leads to the practice of people illegally registering their vehicle in a taxless State and driving it in their current taxing State full-time… ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/88 "2005-03-08T22:20:07Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Look, trust your gut feel about laws of physics all you want, but the fact is that the SUV simply isn’t any safer than a small car. It may feel that way, but the actual fatality rates simply don’t back it up… …while at the same time increasing their own actual risk for total injury in all accidents. I have no dog in this fight, but it seems you’d settle this fairly quickly if you could start linking to hard cites showing that SUVs did not have a statistically significant improvement in safety for the drivers and passengers of the SUV. Or worse, had a statistically significant **decrease** in safety for the drivers and passengers of the SUV. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/89 "2005-03-09T00:02:16Z")
> [@](#): > > I have no dog in this fight, but it seems you’d settle this fairly quickly if you could start linking to hard cites showing that SUVs did not have a statistically significant improvement in safety for the drivers and passengers of the SUV. Actually I did provide a site showing that small cars are deathtraps (US GOV’T carsh tests) ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/90 "2005-03-09T00:06:00Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Actually I did provide a site showing that small cars are deathtraps (US GOV’T carsh tests) No. You provided a cite showing that small cars fare poorly in collisions of 2 or more vehicles. **threemae** ’s point is that the advantage of SUV’s in such collisions are offset by their disadvantages in single-vehicle accidents. I’m taking no position on whether that’s true or not; I’m just pointing out that your cite doesn’t demonstrate that **threemae** is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/91 "2005-03-09T00:14:03Z")
> [@](#): > > threemae’s point is that the advantage of SUV’s in such collisions are offset by their disadvantages in single-vehicle accidents. Yes but **threemae** has yet to produce a cite at all. None to counter my cite, or none to support that it is offset by other accidents. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/92 "2005-03-09T01:32:11Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > a questiong for you. How would you handle the following hypothetical situation, you can only obtain 1/2 the quantity of fuel that you currently use? Grrrrrr. Lost that post. Got a wind and snow storm going on. Power when out. I would consider buying another more fuel efficient car to drive in the summer as soon as it makes economical and practical sense to do so. So far, that’s a pretty long way off. Taking a figure of $3 a gallon for gas (it’s just under $2 here), and considering an economy car that gets 50% better highway than my Pathfinders 20mpg. And only being able to drive the car 6 months (7000mi) out of the year, I could save $350. In gas. A drop in the bucket when compared to initial cost, insurance and maintenance. Of another car. Now, double that cost. My Wife and I both drive SUV’s. Add an economy car for each of us to use in the summer and we may save a little gas money, but the additional costs of 2 more cars would way way offset that. And we would have two cars that sit piled in snow all winter taking up parking and snow storage. Put an actual gas ration on, and that’s a bit of a different situation. Since both my Wife and I must have 4x4’s 6 months out of the year, I could probably work 10 hour days (though I would hate it). I may be able to telecomute a day or two a week, but I would have to upgrade the satellite connection. Not really sure if I could get the speeds I need to be productive. Both my Wife and I are folks that get the tap on the shoulder when something is needed. I, myself like to actually be there. We could move closer to work. The houses nearer work (we work in a resort community) are at least twice as expensive as the house we own. And, since we like where we live, it’s not something that we would do without a great amount of consideration. I believe that kanicbird, and others are correct that as fuel prices increase, more research will be done and options made available. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/93 "2005-03-09T02:08:36Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Look, trust your gut feel about laws of physics all you want, but the fact is that the SUV simply isn’t any safer than a small car. It may feel that way, but the actual fatality rates simply don’t back it up. And the fact is that you are increasing the danger for others on the roads that either don’t have the means or the inclination to spend money on an SUV. And again, you’ve done so for no benefit to yourself. > > Again, I don’t begrudge people for choosing SUV’s for their load abilities, utility, etc. Hell, if they just got one to be cool, then that’s not the worst thing in the world (seems a little silly to me), but I just can’t stand people that buy them with the knowledge that they’ll willingly put others at risk to increase their own safety in certain situations while at the same time increasing their own actual risk for total injury in all accidents. It’s just a lack of regard for human life that really troubles me. This is just factually incorrect, and is contradicted by a cite you posted. From [here](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf)(pdf) From the abstract: > [@](#): > > - The association between vehicle weight and overall crash fatality rates in the heavier MY [model year] 1991-99 LTVs (light trucks and vans) was not significant. > - In three other groups of MY 1991-99 vehicles – the lighter LTVs, the heavier cars, and especially the lighter cars – fatality rates increased as weights decreased. > - MY 1996-99 pickup trucks and SUVs had, on the average, higher fatality rates than MY 1996-99 passenger cars or minivans of comparable weight. > > Logistic regression analyses of fatalities per billion miles in two-vehicle collisions show that MY 1991-99 LTVs were more aggressive than MY 1991-99 cars when they struck other vehicles. **The analyses show correlations between occupants’ fatality risk in the struck car and the frontal height-of-force and rigidity of the striking LTV**. From page vii: > [@](#): > > In MY 1991-99, and earlier, **heavy vehicles had lower fatality rates per billion miles of travel than lighter vehicles of the same general type**. When two vehicles collide, the laws of physics favor the occupants of the heavier vehicle (momentum conservation). Furthermore, heavy vehicles were in most cases longer, wider and less fragile than light vehicles. In part because of this, they usually had greater crashworthiness, structural integrity and directional stability. They were less rollover-prone and easier for the average driver to control in a panic situation. **In other words, heavier vehicles tended to be more crashworthy and less crash-prone.** From page 2: > [@](#): > > One safety factor, momentum conservation, is a direct consequence of a vehicle’s mass. Other parameters, such as a vehicle’s length and width are naturally and historically (i.e., during 1968-99), but not inevitably proportional to its mass. **Most of those parameters favor the heavier vehicle, making it physically, intrinsically safer than the light vehicle**. The article also says this: > [@](#): > > When a heavy and a light vehicle collide, the heavy vehicle keeps moving forward; its occupants experience a small velocity change. The light vehicle gets pushed backward; its occupants experience a higher velocity change. These are consequences of the laws of physics; nothing can be done to equalize the velocity changes. For example, in a head-on collision, a 1 percent weight advantage corresponds to more than a 5 percent reduction in the driver’s fatality risk, relative to the driver of the other vehicle. > > What benefits an individual – being in the heavier of the two vehicles – however, does not necessarily benefit society as a whole. So I’ll grant that if I’m in a big car, and you’re in a small one, you will have a greater chance at being injured than I will. So be it. As I stated previously, it is not the only reason, but it is a factor in the decision. I also grant that phsyics would dictate that a higher car would have a higher chance to roll performing similar maneuvers. I’ll take my chances. In other words, your repeated claims that the “fact” is that SUVs are not safer than a small car, are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/94 "2005-03-09T04:56:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is just factually incorrect, and is contradicted by a cite you posted. > > From [here](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf)(pdf) > From the abstract: > From page vii: > From page 2: > The article also says this: > So I’ll grant that if I’m in a big car, and you’re in a small one, you will have a greater chance at being injured than I will. So be it. As I stated previously, it is not the only reason, but it is a factor in the decision. I also grant that phsyics would dictate that a higher car would have a higher chance to roll performing similar maneuvers. I’ll take my chances. > > In other words, your repeated claims that the “fact” is that SUVs are not safer than a small car, are wrong. Well, unlike **kanicbird’s** assertion that I didn’t post any cites, you at least managed to read what I posted. However, you’re simply cherry picking the sections relavent to vehicle on vehicle crashes, where I will concede a definite advantge to SUV’s in safety (at a clear disadvantage to the other car). The relevant summary here from the abstract remains: “• The association between vehicle weight and overall crash fatality rates in the heavier MY 1991-99 LTVs (light trucks and vans) was not significant. • In three other groups of MY 1991-99 vehicles – the lighter LTVs, the heavier cars, and especially the lighter cars – fatality rates increased as weights decreased. • MY 1996-99 pickup trucks and SUVs had, on the average, higher fatality rates than MY 1996-99 passenger cars or minivans of comparable weight.” Basically, SUV’s have either a neutral edge or disadvantage to the safety of passenger cars. _All of these points deal only with weight._ All this is applying to is the vehicle weights _within classes_. In other words, a heavy passenger car like a Saab or Volvo would be better here. It does not compare across classes. Across classes the passenger vehicles always tie or win depending upon the MY. In real life, as opposed to people’s emotional reactions to what they perceive a vehicle’s safety to be, the high center of gravity and roll over risk of the SUV offsets the weight-inherent safety advantage. So, if you’re really that concerned about safety, get a heavy passenger car and at least one person will be safer off. As it stands, choosing an SUV for that reason will only make yourself much more dangerous to others given your higher than normal force height and do nothing to actually make you safer. What’s so hard about this? Truly, the ability to read a government report and cherry pick half arguments that seem to support SUV-safety is amazing. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/95 "2005-03-09T05:27:57Z")
Table 3, XIV is, I think, the most important table in the report. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/96 "2005-03-09T16:26:49Z")
> [@](#): > > put an actual gas ration on, and that’s a bit of a different situation. For many I would assume this would be a deciding factor. People I suspect will pay for gas and look to save in other ways, perhaps downgrading their cable service, or cutting it out all together. Keeping 2 cars per person is not pracatical, as one will sit for long periods and that is detrimental to both cars. If there is short term rationing I could see some doing this however, if they have access to a fuel efficent car. Perhaps more would use public transportation, and deal with longer commuting time, perhaps even finding a way to make that productive time. Maybe some will walk or bike to work or train station. I used to be able to walk, it took about 20 minutes and I really liked that, now that is not possiable. The added benifit is you could get rid of that gym membership. I personally would look into somehow being able to switch to LP gas (if available) to extend my range beyond the rationing limits. Moving closer to work might actually trump trading in the SUV. Then if you are moving to more a a city like area you are less likely to need 4/AWD due to paved and plowed roads. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/97 "2005-03-09T16:41:03Z")
It is a 334 page pdf report. I quoted some relevant sections, including the abstract, listed the page number for the quotes, and you accuse me of cherry picking? What would you rather me do, quote the whole document? Give me a fucking break. The problem with table 3 XIV is that it includes fatalities of the entire vehicle accident. Both the driver of the SUV and the driver of the “other” vehicle. But we are talking about the safety of the driver of the SUV, not the “other vehicle, so that is less relevant. What is more relevant is the table on the very next page, XV, that shows DRIVER fatalities by vehicle class: (same source) > [@](#): > > The four vehicle groups with the\*\* lowest fatality rates for their own drivers\*\* were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07). Here is what it says about the aforementioned table 3 XIV: > [@](#): > > A more detailed comparison of the fatality rates of small SUVs, mid-size SUVs and mid-size cars of MY 1996-99 shows that rollovers and occupants of the “other” vehicle in 2-vehicle crashes accounted for the higher risk of the SUVs. In other words, the reason that fatality rates are higher when looking at overall crashes, is that the “other” driver of the non-SUV is the one being killed. This is consistent with what I’ve been saying. > [@threemae](#): > > Look, trust your gut feel about laws of physics all you want, but the fact is that the SUV simply isn’t any safer than a small car. > [@threemae](#): > > However, you’re simply cherry picking the sections relavent to vehicle on vehicle crashes, where\*\* I will concede a definite advantge to SUV’s in safety\*\* (at a clear disadvantage to the other car). Face it, your proclamation that an ‘SUV simply isn’t safer than a small car’ is contradicted by your own cite, and coincidently, yourself. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/98 "2005-03-09T17:48:41Z")
**Re: SUV vs car safety** One aspect that can’t be shown in the statistics is the human factor. A person who needs the ability to drive in bad weather (say for work) is more likely to buy a 4/AWD SUV over those who can choose to not drive during bad weather. Also the roads one drives has a lot to do with it, if your roads are maintained (plowed) you have less of a need then if it’s not. During bad weather, this would seem to indicate that the %'age of SUV on the road will be higher then ‘normal’ driving conditions. During bad weather you expect more accidents, do it would seem like the SUV accident rate is higher, but it could be that the accident rate of those who feel they must drive during bad weather is higher, and those people, for practical reasons choose 4/AWD SUV’s. Another factor is that the people who tend to buy SUV’s might have different driving stiles then those who choose small cars, which again could explain why one accident rate is higher then the other. This factors are real but seem way to complex to be analyzed. Another interesting aside. It would seem if a Honda Civic was heading towards a hummer at 60 mph (each), it would seem the correct reaction for the small car would be to swerve (and pray), while the Hummer driver would to bleed off speed before crashing straight into the Honda, as swerving could cause a deadly rollover (praying couldn’t hurt either). ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/99 "2005-03-09T18:53:45Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > Another cost is one of a widening trade imbalances and a burgeoning national debt, both of which feed inflationary pressures and further bury of children in crippling debt. This could be a real problem. We are so addicted to driving and, unless you live in San Francisco, or one of the older Eastern cities, your community is likely to be planned around the idea that everyone drives everywhere they need to go. So most people will continue to drive just as much, or nearly as much, even if gas costs 6$/gallon. You have to get to work, pick up your kids from school, and so on. It’s not like deciding to cut down on amusements and entertainment. I think the economic effects of this will show up well before the children have to worry about it. What do you think will happen when we continue to flood the world with ever-weaker dollars to buy ever-more expensive oil? We’ll have less money to spend at home, which will hurt business and jobs here. I’d say that’s the immediate risk. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/100 "2005-03-09T19:58:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It is a 334 page pdf report. I quoted some relevant sections, including the abstract, listed the page number for the quotes, and you accuse me of cherry picking? What would you rather me do, quote the whole document? Give me a fucking break. > > The problem with table 3 XIV is that it includes fatalities of the entire vehicle accident. Both the driver of the SUV and the driver of the “other” vehicle. But we are talking about the safety of the driver of the SUV, not the “other vehicle, so that is less relevant. What is more relevant is the table on the very next page, XV, that shows DRIVER fatalities by vehicle class: (same source) > > Here is what it says about the aforementioned table 3 XIV: > In other words, the reason that fatality rates are higher when looking at overall crashes, is that the “other” driver of the non-SUV is the one being killed. This is consistent with what I’ve been saying. > > Face it, your proclamation that an ‘SUV simply isn’t safer than a small car’ is contradicted by your own cite, and coincidently, yourself. No, it’s clearly not contradicted by the next table. My apologies, you’re right that was a total fatality rate for the other car as well (silly me, placing value on the human lives outside of your own vehicle) but here’s the actual info from the next table: Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles Very small 4-door cars 11.56 Small 4-door cars 7.85 Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26 Large 4-door cars 3.30 Compact pickup trucks 6.82 Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07 Small 4-door SUVs 5.68 Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73 Large 4-door SUVs 3.79 Minivans 2.76 Your right, the Geo Metro is close to twice as dangerous as other car types, and a small 4-door is also more dangerous than most other vehicles, but a mid-size 4-door is safer than either a small or medium-SUV, and a large 4-door car is safer than any type of SUV or pick up truck. With the large 4-door car you’ll help insure your own safety while at the same time presenting a much smaller risk to others by having a lower force-height. Again, I know that thinking about others safety and not killing other people is crazy to some people, but it doesn’t seem _that_ wild to me. Assuming it won’t totally destroy your manhood, a minivan’s your best choice for both your own safety and others. **kanicbird** , these statistics have been adjusted or pro-rated for driver age, gender, urban/rural driving, and “other factors.” If you’re confusing “need to drive over snowy roads” with “overestimating their vehicle’s safety and abilities,” well I think that’s an inherent risk of SUV’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067.md?page=6)