People buy SUVs despite the crash test ratings and rollover probabilities. They might just buy it for the way it looks, or its color, or even for social acceptance. The sales pitch that car manufacturers are throwing out is that SUVs have the power and durability of trucks, the luxury of a sedan, and all time, four-wheel drive. Commercials depict these vehicles conquering the worst of terrain, including snow, mud, water, and mountains. People buy these vehicles, and all of the sudden they feel invincible But some people come straight from these jump-and-splash commercials and try to emulate them (Emmons 1). What these people are missing in the advertisements is the fine print. Most of the time it will say, Professional Driver, Do Not Attempt. Nevertheless, someone gets the SUV and assumes that if the television says it is possible, than they can go out and do it themselves. People that take SUVs off road without training are headed for trouble. Their ignorance of what a four-wheel-drive vehicle can and cannot do cost them a totaled vehicle (Emmons 1). There have been numerous cases of people being injured, or dying due to a lack of off road, driver training.
Sport utility vehicles are designed for use off the road, but not many consumers buy them for that purpose. The advertisements are all about adventure and outdoors, but when was the last time you saw one off-pavement (Strauss 1). It is true that most owners of SUVs have them for the wrong reason. About ninety-five percent never leave the pavement , In fact, sixty percent of the sport vehicles sold in California are two-wheel-drive versions (Emmons 1). This shows the amount of people that do not use their SUV for its intended purpose. They own them, instead, for a completely different reason, such as for cargo space, to feel safe, or even for social acceptance. But the people who want SUVs for cargo space are putting themselves at risk, and the people who want SUVs to feel safe are putting others at risk.
Some drivers of SUVs develop extremely egotistical attitudes toward their driving. They believe that they are the kings, or queens of the road. You look down on everybody , Hethorn said, If there s a slow car in front of you and a car coming toward you, you know you can get around them. It s nice to know you have the power (O Brien 1). Some drivers are overly aggressive on the roads, which is a very dangerous way to drive. They are a leading cause for road rage. There are those who really need an SUV, and those whose ego needs one (Strauss 1). These people who get the SUVs just to look good, or to fit in socially, are the ones who cause accidents, and drive very aggressively on the roads.
Every woman, man and child deserves to be safe on the auto roads of America. With the introduction of SUVs into the society, a price is put on safety. The average SUV can cost up to thousands more than an average car. The two thousand one Ford Expedition has an MSRP value of twenty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety to forty thousand, five hundred forty-five dollars. It can hold a maximum of nine passengers. The two thousand on Ford Taurus Station Wagon has an MSRP value of twenty thousand two hundred eighty-five dollars. The maximum seating capacity is eight ( CarPoint 1). If these two vehicles were to collide, the Expedition would total the Taurus. The twenty thousand spent on the station wagon could have paid for only one model out of the six SUVs that Ford manufactures. In addition, that inexpensive SUV gets terrible gas mileage and is not as safe as the larger SUVs. The more money that is spent on an SUV, the safer the occupants because of the large size of the vehicle. Due to this, only people with more money can afford the largest SUVs. Forty thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend on a vehicle. Not many people can afford to spend that, so they buy smaller cars, such as the Ford Taurus. What is being set into play here is a kind of discrimination, where only the rich can afford to be safe. Spending large sums of money on an SUV pays for safety (for themselves, not others) and inefficient gas mileage. People should not have to spend their life savings on a vehicle just to entitle them to safety, which is something that all people should have equally.
Air pollution is becoming an increasingly dangerous problem that the world faces. Today one hundred seventeen million Americans live in areas where it is unsafe to breathe the air during much of the summer due to ozone or “smog” pollution ( Someday 1). One of the largest contributors to this in the United States are automobiles. Cars have an average gas mileage of close to twenty-five miles per gallon. The average for SUVs is only thirteen miles per gallon. Therefore, aside from costing more, SUVs use more gas, thus polluting the environment more than the average passenger car. Automakers are building SUVs and other light trucks that emit as much as three times more smog-forming air pollution and use 33% more gas per mile driven than the average car ( Someday 1). Due to poor gas mileage and pollutants produced by SUVs, they are contributing to global warming at an alarming pace.
The main reasons for the poor fuel economy are do to the design of the vehicle. SUVs have terrible aerodynamics, which create a tremendous amount of wind resistance. The engine has to work extra hard in order to keep a steady speed. Another reason is due to their height and weight. These contribute to the poor aerodynamics, but also play a role themselves. The weight makes the engine work harder in order to accelerate to a speed.
In the past years, the average price of gas has risen to nearly two dollars per gallon in some areas. This high break has not affected the number of SUVs on the road. Most people are driving their thirteen miles to the gallon, and then filling their tanks. There have been reports of people resorting to stealing gas. Some people have even been seen stealing gas; driving away without paying for their gas, and to top it off, they drove SUVs (Strauss 1). Because of all the gas consumed by SUVs, they contribute greatly to global warming. The United States is the number one contributor to global warming, and the automobiles that are on the roads are adding greatly to that fact.
Governmental loopholes have encouraged manufacturers to continue producing these gas-guzzling SUVs, and are making it easier for the public to buy them. Because of the classification of SUVs, the manufacturers have escaped close to ten billion dollars in nineteen ninety-nine taxes ( Close A12). Normally, if a vehicle does not get at least twenty-two and one half miles per gallon, the manufacterer must pay a gas guzzler tax. This tax is applied to cars, which an SUV, by definition is not. Therefore, manufacturers can profit from these vehicles, making thousands per vehicle, and while contributing to the air pollution and safety problems of the United States, get away without paying taxes. While Congress has mandated stricter emissions standards to cut air pollution, its tax policy favors production of the biggest, most-polluting vehicles on the road ( Close A12). Congress wants to clean up the environment, but their tax policies say just the opposite.
SUVs are classified as a type of light truck. This law was enacted to help farmers that purchased these light trucks for work. They were tax exempt, but it was assumed that the vehicles were to be used for work. Now, business people have been taking advantage of this tax break, and buying SUVs because of the tax break. However, the same provision intended for agriculture is now being used as a loophole by astute business people who travel in Chevy Suburbans, Lincoln Navigators and other monster SUVs ( Close A12). The government allows a twenty thousand-dollar tax deduction for these people if their vehicle weighs six thousand or more pounds. People in businesses have been buying these large vehicles just to take advantage of the tax break. Shrewd tax accountants have been advising clients to purchase the mammoth SUVs to qualify for the generous tax advantage ( Close 1). In order to save just a little money, these tax accountants are telling people to take advantage of this law.
By administering these tax breaks, the government is indirectly contributing to air pollution and the low fuel reserves. By offering this break, people will purchase these SUVs, despite whether they need it or not. If the government were to stop offering these deductions, fewer people would purchase SUVs, and pollution would be reduced. So far, there has been only one instance where the government has come into play on the pollution issues of SUVs.
In California alone, close to one hundred twenty-six thousand, seventy five tons of nitrous oxide will be avoided each year, by twenty-twenty, as a result of California state regulation, enacted in November nineteen ninety-eight, requiring SUVs and other light trucks to meet new car standards ( Someday 1).
California is hoping that it will act as a role model for the rest of the country.
Sport utility vehicles are a growing problem on the roads of the United States. They offer risk to themselves with the likelihood to rollover, risks to other, smaller cars in collisions, and a risk to the environment. The only way to fix this problem is with governmental intervention. If the government were to make a law requiring all SUVs to meet the safety requirements of regular passenger cars, the roads would be a safer place to drive. Nevertheless, until the government decides to rework the regulations on SUVs, they should be banned from the road, due to the inherent dangers which they can possibly cause to themselves, and to other drivers.
Works Cited
Baumgartner, Mark. Rollovers Reduce SUV Safety. 12 Dec. 1997: 1.
Close the SUV Tax Loophole. The Hartford Courant. 26 Feb 2001: A12.
Emmons, Steve. Sport Utilities: Have Fun, but Play It Safe . Home Edition. 17 Feb 1995: E1. Newsbank. Online.
Healy, James R. SUV Drivers Can Reduce Rollovers. 26 Sept 2000: 1.
Laliberte, Monica. Overloaded SUVs can Create Rollover Problem. 14 Nov 2000: 1.
Millers, LS. 2001 RAV4: Unsafe at any speed?. 31 Dec 2000: 1.
MSN CarPoint. 2001
Mulshine, Paul. SUVs: High Rollers, Licensed to Kill. 15 Aug 2000: 1.
Nomai, A.J. The SUV Fad: A Public Message. 1997: 1.
O Brien, Keith. SUVs Popular Despite Pollution. Statesman-Journal. 22 March 1999. Newsbank. Online. 25 Feb 2001.
Institute Says SUV Bumpers Poor for Low-Speed Crashes. 14 Sept 2000: 1.
If you Drive an SUV, or Hope to Someday, Read This!. March 1999: 1.
Skruck, Jeff. No Contest: SUVs vs. small cars in crashes. The Sun. 10 June 2000. Newsbank. Online. 25 Feb. 2001.
Strauss, Gary. SUV s Bleeding at the Pump. USA Today. 3 March 2000: 1A. Newsbank. Online. 25 Feb 2001.
Strong, Catherine. Ford Offers Air Bag System for Rollovers. 12 Jan 2000: 1.
Predicted Rollover Probabilities. 2000: 1.