this is true, although i don’t think driving a big ol’ car puts you at fault for someone’s injury if the accident was the other person’s fault. however, you shouldn’t be able to avoid liability in an accident by saying ‘well they should have been driving a bigger car’. if, for example, you run a stop sign and slam into a car coming the other way, killing everyone inside, you should be held liable for those deaths, even if they could have been avoided by the dead folks driving a bigger car. so if you drive a particularly large and sturdy vehicle, you may want to be extra careful how you drive to avoid such liability, if not the increased possibility of injuring others. everybody makes mistakes. you don’t want yours to be lethal.
sure sounds like it
[ex-EMT steps on soapbox]
You are twisting the statistics to fit your claim. Maybe it could be said that passengers in SUV’s are 27 times less likely to be killed in collisions.
rigid frames and higher stances make it less likely that the person will be crushed in serious collisions, plenty of leg injuries but not impact to the upper body/head area beacuse the driver is literally above the point of impact.
and vans do not?
FYI everything that we see goes “directly into our retinas” please dont abuse technical terms to make your post sound better.
Well, I’m just trying to get at “Responsibility”, but “HOW MUCH responsibility”. I have no delusions about having the right to go smoke crack and see how far I can drive on the sidewalk.
I can’t control the actions of others. I can only “Prepare for the worst and hope for the best”. Preparing for the worst would involve me putting as much armoring and protection around myself whenever I’m in a dangerous situation. “Driving” is an inherently dangerous situation, since all you need is one second of inattention to get killed (in theory). But in either case, I can’t “force” other people to be good drivers, I can’t will a traffic accident away via powers of my mind… I can only prepare to protect myself, and do everything I can to prevent an accident from occuring. I can’t predict who’s going to slam into me… a tiny Metro or a hulking 18-wheeler. The worst-case scenario would be the 18-wheeler, so I prepare for THAT. Sucks to be the driver of the Metro, but I’m not clairvoyant.
“Drive defensively.”
Please see the latest Discover Magazine for an in-depth article on the physics of SUVs.
No responsibility whatsoever? That seems rather extreme to me.
By that logic, we should not be stopping for pedestrians, and we should not be slowing down in school zones. After all, who cares if someone else gets hurt, as long as we’re okay?
I don’t think there’s anything “objective” about saying that we have no responsibity whatsoever to anyone else’s safety.
First I think the argument as framed has significant flaws. It makes the assumption that SUVs are safer and that the additional danger to other vehicles is the result of the same factors that make it safer. Even if those were true assumptions it fails to consider whether similar levels of safety could be obtained at a more reasonable cost to the safety of others.
You are responsible for someones safety to the extent that reasonable people would determine that your actions pose unreasonable levels of danger to others. Suppose I decided to mount a huge wedge shaped cow catcher like device to the front of my SUV. I think even you would agree that notwithstanding the benefits to my safety this poses an unreasonable risk of damage to the public. My safety is simply not an excuse to create a public menace.
While SUVs were not (i hope) designed this way, imagine your comfort level with a Ford Explorer commercial extolling its virtues in a crash because it is designed to ensure that the other vehicle absorbs the bulk of the impact. This would be on par with the infamous Ford Pinto memo. Somewhat ironically your own safety would be close to the bottom of factors that could justify increased risks to others on the road if it offers any justification at all.
At this point, though there is in my understanding existing authority to demand that a manufacturer demonstrate the vehicle does not pose an excessive risk, regulatory agencies have not made such demands. The prospects of inevitable liability suits are however forcing companies to expand design criteria to consider damage to the other vehicle.
Ned, read this (link from the OP, which DDG kindly fixed for me). It basically states that, yes, you ARE safer in a heavier vehicle, and yes, a heavier vehicle IS more dangerous to a lighter vehicle.
The big problem with SUV’s after weight is the higher bumper. I routinely see SUV mongrels that have a bumper that’s above the hood of my car. Cars are designed to receive impact at the bumper. Avoiding another bumper with yours essentially guarantees that you’ll hit an area on the other car that isn’t most reinforced with the most reinforced area of your vehicle.
Thanks.
If people can drive SUV’s, I want the right to carry enough computer controlled armament to vaporize an SUV that’s about to hit me. A fast gatling gun or a shaped charge would be sufficient.
I understand that a heavier vehicle will offer somewhat more protection particularly in a collision with a lighter car. They are safer mostly because they are bigger then most other cars. If one carries the logic to its limits however the combined extra weight of the vehicles and resulting increase in kenetic energy makes your plan start looking like a mutually assured destruction tactic.
Even so, were it just a question of weight this wouldn’t be much of a debate. I understand the NHTSB estimates that the weight differential is insufficient in itself to account for SUV induced fatalities by about 1000 deaths per year. A car of equal weight to an SUV will inflict considerably less damage. Previous posters have already pointed out that this is the result of higher bumpers and stiffer frames. If safety is really such an important concern for you then perhaps you should buck up for a top rated mercedes rather than get your extra safety at the expense of others on the road. Lets not even start discussing what SUVs, especially with those pretty crash bars, do to pedestrians.
Don’t get me wrong, I have been driving them for 20 years so I am hardly what you might call anti suv. It isn’t your choice in cars I find offensive, its your moral calculus that is appalling.
Self-Preservation is “morally apalling”?
Don’t get me wrong… I have no desire to drive an SUV (no overwhelming desire, anyway). And I have no desire to randomly inflict harm on people. But if I have an option available to me that I believe would ultimately be beneficial to me, do I have an obligation to be cowed by the POSSIBILITY that I may hurt someone else in the process?
I’m not just talking about cars… I’m talking about guns, food, TV, sports, and anything else that could probably inadvertently hurt someone else. When does my responsibility to someone else end?
from a personal ethics standpoint, i feel that your responsibility to others starts as soon as you realize that a particular action is irresponsible. doesn’t matter if the action is legal or illegal. take mountain biking without a helmet. it’s legal in texas, but i can’t do it. i think to myself - if i wipe out on rocks, i can avoid busting my head open and needing an airlift off the trail by wearing a helmet. leave the helicopter available to someone who could not avoid injury, or simply doesn’t know the risks. i do know the risks, so i feel a need to wear a helmet for my own safety and a responsibility to wear a helmet because i depend on public ems for rescue.
if i thought driving an suv posed a significant public danger,i would obey every traffic law to the letter while driving one on city streets, so people could at least predict my actions. the only time i drive suv’s now is when i rent them on skiing or camping vacations. my perceived responsibility in those situations is providing my fellow vacationers with the peace of mind of a 4x4 and sufficient seating and storage space for our gear.
so when does your responsibility end? i guess when you decide you no longer need to act responsibly. you wouldn’t be the first.
But zwaldd, the reason I use SUV’s as an example is 'cuz it seems like such a trade-off either way. You can provide more protection for yourself at the cost of being more of a danger to others, or you can have less protection for yourself and as a result be less dangerous to others.
I guess you could always compromise and get a SUV/car hybrid… but who really wants to be driving an Aztec? 
i personally wouldn’t feel irresponsible doing that as long as i drove responsibly. use my blinkers, drive the speed limit, don’t talk on the cell phone, etc.
a couple years ago my brother and my girlfriend and i were cruising toward nyc on the pulaski skyway (no shoulder) in his pathfinder, and some maniac came out of nowhere, sideswiped us hard in the front, and continued speeding down the road, trying to outrun us. we chased him for about a mile and got his license plate, watching as pieces of his car fell off and it even looked like his tire blew. he got off at some exit and we wisely gave up pursuit and stopped at a gas station to call the cops. when we got out of the pathfinder to check for damage, we were amazed to find that there was not a scratch on his car. his bumper was scuffed - that’s it. i have to say i’m pretty thankful we were in an suv. otherwise we almost certainly would have spun into the cement median when we got hit. the downside? the thing got stolen twice in the couple of years my brother had it. he no longer owns any car (living in nyc and all).
Why get an aztec, you seem stuck on the idea that SUVs are somehow safer then cars of comperable weight. Not only will a top safety rated car provide similar crash performance the handling and braking superiority will keep you out of accidents in the first place.
I am not suggesting SUVs should be banned, they have their place. If, however, your only reason for having one is that it will shred the opposition you are both misguided and immoral.
I am probably reading this all wrong.
I hear people say that if I can afford or just decide to drive a higher, heavier, car I am immoral and have an obligation to be no more safe than they are because they can only afford, or choose a metro? I can not drive my high lift 4X4 truck because it will win in a collision with a metro? Or that it is okay only as long as the accident is the metro drivers fault?
What about Commercial Trucks? Do they get the death penalty if there is a fatality regardless of who caused the accident?
As already stated, there are already laws about what is legal and what is unnecessarily endangering. If they outlaw SUV’s or make them change how they are built, Okay, the government has spoken and we will obey or get new government workers by election. {I hope.}
I feel that all cars must be made so that they are not deadly to motorcycles, talk about an unfair advantage. If the accident was the car drivers fault, that should be considered attempted murder and an automatic 10 years imprisonment and $1,000,000.00 paid to the innocent biker. 
I guess free climbing should be outlawed along with swimming with out a life jacket. ::: sheesh :::::
My responsibility to you is to not only not ‘needlessly’ endanger you, [good,] but to make my life more dangerous just because you want to drive a metro [bad]… no way.
Moral Philosophy:
By a utilitarian standard, if you are enhancing your safety, by the exact amount that you are hurting another’s safety, then such an action is ok, IMHO.
If, OTOH, other people’s risk increases to a greater extent than your risk declines, then the action is immoral. SUVs appear to fall into this category.
BTW, utilitarianism has been criticized for demanding boundless morality by its practitioners. So it perhaps isn’t too great a standard for discussing “responsibility”.
If the question is rephrased as, “How moral do we have to be?”, I suppose I could offer a milder standard:
…Obey the law. Don’t lobby for laws that advance human suffering.
Under that scheme, driving the Ford Excursion (7270 lbs.) would be perfectly acceptable. (Although you may want to choose a vehicle that offers side and head air bags, which the Excursion does not.)
SUVs
Again, in addition to being heavier, their design makes them prone to rollover (unsafe for you) and their high bumpers make them more damaging to other cars involved in a collision. But you could presumably change the context to one where you are considering sedans of various weights.
BUT, I must stress that empirically, weight is only one factor among many. Design changes (such as dual air bags) can enhance your safety without compromising the safety of other drivers.
For more empirical information
See this month’s Consumer Reports; their annual auto issue is out. The Volkswagon Pasand, the Volvo S80 and the Lincoln LS are thought to be particularly safe heavy cars.
For humanitarians, the Volkswagon Golf and the Honda Civic are two safely-designed small cars.
(Don’t assume that a Mercedes would be the safest car on the road; the crash test on the M-Class (the only one completed) gives a score of 4 out of 5 for the driver, which is less than perfect.)
Consumer Reports also notes that many insurers are lowering their SUV medical premiums (reflecting the added safety that their occupants enjoy) while raising their SUV liability premiums (reflecting the added risk imposed on the public). On net, the SUVs are tending to be charged higher insurance rates.
Well, if you wish to engage in context-dropping, that’s just fine. I certainly do not see any analogy between willfully negligent acts and suggesting that SUV owners not listen to those who would tell them to sacrifice their own safety at the cost of others (and it’s a moral issue as far as I’m concerned…I don’t understand why that self-sacrifice is seen as so noble and self-protection is so petty and selfish). I didn’t say “objective”, I said “Objectivist”…I’d figure that the capital letter and the -ist suffix would give away that it’s a well-defined school of philosophy.
Rugby :
We-e-e-e-l-l-l-l, objectivism is a well-defined, if somewhat fringy, school of philosophy. For example, it’s not listed in my Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. For example, crank.net appears to agree with me.
I do; it is arguably a matter of degree. If your vehicle is imposing heightened risk on other drivers who are sharing a public road with you, that is a morally relevant consideration, IMO. It is certainly a legally relevant consideration, to the extent that the driver of a large vehicle is liable for damages in the event of a collision. And recently, it has become a financially relevant consideration, as insurance companies begin to adjust their premiums to reflect the added costs certain vehicles impose on the wider community.
Oh, absolutely. I can’t think of any way to excuse away irresponsible driving… people have the privilege of being in command of a ton of fast-moving metal, and you’d think they’d at least TRY to obey the law.
I find this to be a funny statement. That’s all I will say about that.
… While there are some good reasons to be self sacrificing I find this whole thing kind of silly.
No one is looking at the large trucks, not the 18 wheelers, just 1-ton and up the farmers and such use. Check their liability costs now as to years ago before the ‘somebody is gonna pay big jury set’ got to rolling.
No one has yet responded to my question about ‘motor cyclist’ rights in this area.
Insurance rates are going up on SUV’s liability because when their drivers “are at fault” and they have to pay, there is more damage and injury to the ‘small car set’ and they are in business to make money, not lose it. More and more ‘average’ people are buying SUV’s and so the incidence of the SUV’s drivers being at fault is going up. The insurance rates are just reflecting this.
Should a law be passed that all 18 wheelers must have bumpers to match the average cars? Think this would help in truck car wrecks? The truck companies are immoral because they use a large vehicle that is dangerous to the average driver?
3½¢ [ Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers. ]