SUVs are far from the least safe vehicles on the road. The long time leader of fatalities is the Corvette. Similar to the SUV that tends to be a driver issue more than a reflection of the safety of the car.
There are a lot of factors at play in the SUV game. Yes they are higher from the ground, a higher center of gravity and can be tipped more easily than other cars. But not tipped easily.
The "notorious" Isuzu Trooper and Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports had to use a trained test driver to tip the Isuzu. A "common" driver could not have manuevered the Trooper at the speeds of the tests through the cones. additionally, the tipup outriggers added to the Trooper played some effect in their test. So yes, you can tip the Isuzu more readily than a passenger car. But that's not the whole story. The very nature of the off road vehicle precludes cetain motions. Drivers have to adapt to their choices. This is true in all cars, not just SUVs.
Here's a personal experience for you. I'm driving my Kia in rush hour traffic. The car is fully loaded for a trip, four people and their gear. The car infront of me flips up a large piece of tire tread. There is no where to go as I am locked in for evasion by the traffic. I don't have time to slow down. All I can do is hit it. My wheel flipped it up into the car body and dented it. But I had the clearance to mostly drive over it. If I was in my CRX at the time, It would have been much more serious and likely have tangled into my drive train and steering on that much lower slung car. That would have been a multicar accident.
The issue of SUV hazard to other drivers is falsely reported. First off the class of SUV is generally misused by the press. What they are talking about usually is a whole class of light truck, which also includes the PT Cruiser.
The Dodge Durango shares the same grill as all the other Dodge trucks, a slight modification of the Dodge grill logo common to ALL but two of their models. This is research? This is reporting?
Or how about You can not use the word kill accurately in this sense without establishing who caused the accident. That is poor journalism, even quoting someone else. If the driver of the "lesser vehicle" is at fault blaming the SUV and it's driver is asinine and a complete abdication of responsibility. Bad reporting/research, very popular true, but bogus use of words and statistics purely to malign a class of vehicle you have an agenda against.
Driving a larger vehicle is no endangerment unless that driver causes the accident. Do SUVS cause more multivehicle accidents? I have seen no such data. They do lead in single vehicle accidents.
Except the Windstar is an "SUV", a light truck. It has the larger mass, higher ground clearance and bumpers. Not as high, but by all proper use of the term SUV, the Windstar is an SUV.
Let's mix a bunch of different statistics to create a misleading paragraph. We'll take all the accidents off all SUVs, including cars we're not really maligning here, but we need the numbers. We'll include mostly single vehicle accidents to indicate that the cars are all hazardous and pain them all with a broad brush that applies to only some or even most of the cars, but not all of them. This is glittering generalites to support the agenda and not accurate reporting of facts. Junk. Dare I say excrement? Why are SUVs the largest group? There's more of those on the road than any other class of vehicle right now! Because the Class is so broad and includes vehicles the writers aren't thinking about.
Hmm maybe they're not as deadly as they think. So that would account for all the rollover deaths, not the roofs caving in? Which is it ? There is no accuracy in this article nor the common sentiment it is reflecting.
[/quote]Government researchers have found that a behemoth like the four-ton Chevy Tahoe kills 122 people for every 1 million models on the road; by comparison, the Honda Accord only kills 21. Injuries in SUV-related accidents are likewise more severe. [/quote]
But who's at fault. If I'm driving an SUV and the other guy causes the accident and has more injuries because of his "lesser vehicle", I don't care. The fault issue is critical to the use of the statistic.
Some truth here, but they ignore some things. Who's at fault, and the extra momentum (energy to be dissipated in the crash) of the the larger vehicle. But not all SUVs are large. Of the maligned off road style 4 wheel drive sub class, half the models are as small as most sedans. And instead of increasing safety in these passenger cars, they want to take something away from others? What kind of logic is that if not controlling and anti-social?
Lies. The bumper will hit the door. It's the rest of the front of the car that comes in the "vulnerable areas". Yes, some SUV's are jacked up enough for the scenario described. But not most factory models. That this is a lie as stated does not diminish the injuries incurred, true. But it totally discredits the arguments they want to make for lowering the bumpers.
Well, yes and no. There are some frightening studies on the death toll caused by the CAFE standards on fuel economy that resulted in lighter flimsier cars. Equalling more deaths.
Where's the linking data to attribute that to SUVs and their drivers being at fault? None? gee, that's surprising.
Yes and no. They are painting the whole class on a few again. Most SUVS are sold with street tires. Shoddy brakes is also misleading. Larger vehicles take longer to brake period. It's a simple engineering fact and brake design doesn't have a lot to do with it. In the end it comes down to the friction area of the tires with the road. A brake that could dissipate the extra energy of a larger vehicle at the same rate as the brakes on a small vehicle would lock up the tires, leading to skidding, leading to less efficient slowing and stopping.
BS, pure and simple. Again, the class of SUV is so large and includes such lousy image cars as mini-vans that this statement is just stupid. The writer means a specific sub-class, but that wouldn't paint with the broad brush to accomplish the agenda. The opinon piece referred to here is no different from the book. The author uses the term SUV but only discusses certain cases that don't illustrate the whole class.
And driving a Kia, that's image? Not.
It's not that you can't see past an SUV to drive safely. It's not that an SUV tends to stop more slowly that makes them unsafe.
In each of those cases other drivers following too closely for their own safety are at fault, though SUV drivers can also exhibit those characteristics too.
All drivers are supposed to drive such that they can stop in the distance they can see. Not just SUV drivers. Those things you don't like about SUVs? Those are things you as a defensive driver are supposed to adapt to as a safe and responsible driver.
But as with much of society, no one wants to take responsibility. That is why who is at fault in the accident is such a critical piece of the puzzle. If drivers aren't safe, it doesn't matter what any one else is driving.
This applies to SUV drivers too.