# SUV haters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 20, 2002, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675 "2002-08-20T00:58:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![coosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@coosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coosa)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/261 "2002-08-29T01:05:34Z")
Ah, my links are back up! [Overview of Vehicle Compatibility/LTV Issues](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/LTV/) I thought some of you might be interested in seeing that this _has_ been given some consideration by the powers-that-be. This was published in February 1998. Apparently this was first seen as a problem in the mid-1970’s when VW Beetles began appearing on the highways along with the heavier American cars, and there was a much greater disparity in weight/size at the time. This seems to been less of a problem between 1975 and 1997 - I suppose that the trend towards smaller, more fuel efficient cars during that time accounts for that - but it is now on the rise again due the popularity of SUVs. > [@](#): > > Upon completion of this research, the agency will decide whether to propose a regulation, a consumer information program, possibly similar to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), or to take no action. One regulatory alternative could be a labeling requirement on the propensity of vehicles to rollover. Aha! Some of the results of their research have already been put into action - the labels new SUVs have on the dash that warn of their poor maneuverability and tendency to rollover. I recently read somewhere (can’t remember where) that they are considering additonal measures - making the warning labels bigger, brighter, and more specific. For some reason this just doesn’t impress me as a very effective safety measure. If I’m understanding this correctly, it looks like overhead airbags will be a future safety feature in new vehicles. I think it’s interesting that the ABS braking system doesn’t seem to be working out as planned. I’ve never driven a vehicle with ABS, but I understand the system was supposed to enable drivers to simply stomp on the brake and not worry about pumping to prevent brake lock. I wonder if it’s another case of drivers being overconfident about a safety feature, and therefore not braking as soon as they should, or driving faster because they believe the ABS brakes can compensate? Anyway, some of you should feel better to find out that they are requiring, effective in 2002, all LTVs (light trucks, which include SUVs) > [@](#): > > \*\* up to 3,500 kg (7,717 pounds) meet the same stopping distance requirements as passenger cars.\*\* It seems that failure to wear seat belts, alcohol use, and speeding/aggressive driving are major contributors to SUV crashes/fatalities. Unfortunately, the best engineering in the world can’t make up for an unsafe driver. However, the braking requirements are a great step in the right direction. Several people mentioned the stiffness, etc. of SUVs, and sure enough, the NHTSA has looked into that, too. [The New Car Assessment Program: Has It Led To Stiffer Light Trucks and Vans Over The Years?](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/1999-01-0064/1999-01-0064.html) Apparently, the automakers claimed that meeting the crash requirements of NCAP was having the undesirable effect of increasing the stiffness of SUVs. According to this report, LTVs have actually “softened” over the years of NCAP testing, so participation in NCAP _has_ contributed to the improved safety of these vehicles. Oh, and I didn’t save the link, but I read that Chevrolet’s 2002 Silverado pickup will have something called Quadrasteer, an all-wheel steering system that should increase maneuverability. If it works out well, the feature will be added to many more vehicles, particularly LTVs. Another interesting report: [Characteristics of Fatal Rollover Crashes](http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-438.pdf) If I understand this correctly, there doesn’t seem to be any _decrease_ in the stability of SUVs (so the vehicles themselves have not deteriorated in design/engineering), but their natural propensity to roll coupled with their increase in the overall percentage of vehicles on the road has put them at the top of the rollover list. The high fatality rate seems to be largely due to the failure of occupants to wear seatbelts, increasing the chances of ejection, partial ejection, and/or being thrown about inside the vehicle. Speeding, alcohol intoxication, and the age/sex of the drivers also seem to be significantly involved in SUV rollover crashes. No one seems to be sure how much should be blamed on the vehicles and how much on the drivers. There’s no doubt that SUVs (and pickup trucks and vans) are more prone to rollover than regular passenger cars, but a large majority of those accidents involved intoxicated young men who were speeding on two-lane undivided highways. It’s the same problem seen with Camaros/Firebirds - they appeal to the segment of drivers who are the most likely to drive them unsafely. Well, I see now why the NHTSA links were down; they’ve added some of the 2001 statistics to FARS. I’ll have to check the main page and see if they have anything new on SUVs, etc. Anyone who wants to see crash statistics can go here: [Fatality Analysis Reporting System](http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/main.cfm) ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/262 "2002-08-29T01:34:35Z")
Usually I try to show some manners. Strangely, I am a libertarian for the most part. Drive what you want. I think most of my arguments were valid to the extent they were not rude. How I expressed myself I am not particlularly proud of. I know this is the Pit, but, I would hate to think my participation in this thread was typical of my posting style. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/263 "2002-08-29T01:55:04Z")
Beagle: Yeah. Me too. For what it’s worth, you’ve applied some effort and reason to your perspective, IMO. See you on the road 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/264 "2002-08-29T01:56:41Z")
And, on that note, if a moderator is willing to lock this one down for me, I’d appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![coosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@coosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coosa)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/265 "2002-08-29T02:17:26Z")
BTW, anyone wanting to research the crash-test data on a vehicle (but be forwarned that many vehicles have not been tested, or completely tested) can go to the NHTSA test results site here: [http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/) And I couldn’t resist popping back in to mention that the 2002 Acura MDX 4-Dr. 4x4 w/SAB - an SUV - has gone through the side-impact and rollover testing (frontal-impact testing is TBT - to be tested) The side-impact results: Front Seat - 5 stars, Rear Seat: 5 stars Rollover Resistance: 4 stars Also, although the other ratings aren’t very good, the Pontiac Aztek has had a 4-star rollover rating for the last two years - I didn’t look back any further than that. ---
**Author:** ![MrMyth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@MrMyth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrMyth)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2002, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675/266 "2002-08-29T02:49:52Z")
Beagle, despite my little tirade at you, I found you to be one of the more reasonable people in this thread. That being said… Jesus fucking chocolate-covered Christ!! Ethical, unethical. Moral, immoral. Some of you in this debate sit higher on your own opinions than I ever could in my devil-spawn SUV. If your visibility is impaired, maybe its because the inside of your own ass is tinted! I mean damn, some of the self righteousness just flows faster than the apparent oil slick I leave everywhere I drive. Ace0Spades - > [@](#): > > I find people who sacrifice other people for their own fashion sense to be contemptible. Whether this includes you or any other poster on this thread is up to interpretation, but a mere glance at the posts here with regards to tinted windows shows that it applies, in general, to the class of SUV owners. Yeah, it applies in general to all SUV owners, because the vast majority of them posted to this thread all expressing the same opinion. (smell the sarcasm? waitaminnit, maybe that’s just my filthy exhaust fumes) Hell, the vast majority of posters on this MB who own one didn’t even post in this thread, because they’re smarter than me and don’t enjoy repeated kicks to the lungs. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Ace0Spades > Holy shit! Let me weep a bit for Syclla. This is such damn stunning arrogance and selfishness, that I’m worried that owning a SUV is evidence of sociopathic tendencies…Forgive me if I feel you’ve nailed the SUV side of this debate, and if I categorize SUV owners as “Selfish Fucking Jackasses,” using this thread as my cite. Good gravy mavy, man!! Can you even see earth from your world? So now not only are SUV drivers wasteful fashion whores, but you also imply that we are sociopathic to boot? What’s next, every time I change my oil I’m thinking of screwing my mother? I understand you probably can’t fathom why we made the choice we did and bought such a vehicle. I just wish you would face the fact that you simply won’t ever understand it and stop trying to force any old explanation onto the situation so that it sits better on your palate. To me, your logic is just as selfish as you claim me to be. You see an SUV on the street - big, hulking Suburban - you get annoyed. You curse to yourself that you can’t see around it, or through it. You’re scared to pass it because it might crush you with its horrible stopping distance if you come to a sudden stop. This thing, this object, has completely ruined your day. So you think to yourself, “Self, what kind of a person would buy such a vehicle that so thoroughly inconveniences me? Why, that person must be an asshole! Don’t they know that **I** can’t see around their behemoth? Don’t they know they could kill **me**?” In the end you’re pissed off and call me selfish because I did something that doesn’t agree with YOU. I’ll ask yet again - just how much am I or anyone else expected to give a shit about anyone else safety above and beyond my own family’s? And I mean that question to apply to the really real world - not the theoretical one where morals and ethical choices apply to what I drive. You win, though. I give. I can’t argue this dumb ass point anymore. This was certainly not the way I wanted to stop lurking. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go put a new sway bar on my truck, to (gasp) make it more stable. Not because I care about that VW Golf in front of me though, but just because **I** want less body roll. Selfish bastard that I am. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suv-haters/124675.md?page=13)