With Obama's new fuel economy standards, I suppose it was predictable that a certain political party would try to make it look like this was the end of the world as we know it again. The issue is safety. Of course in a perfect world, we could all be driving around perfectly safe in our 4 ton armoured mobile offices/shopping carts, and getting 150 miles per gallon. But in our imperfect reality, apparently the trade off is safety vs. fuel economy. According to Republicans, and a fair number of Democrats too.It always strikes me, as I ride around on my motorcycle, that car drivers, especially SUV drivers put a lot of faith in the fact that they have several tons of steel around them. So much faith in fact that they pick up the cell phone to text a few messages to their friends about how safe they feel, while hurtling along at a speed well over the limit. So safe that they feel they can stretch out with the newspaper while the cruise control keeps the speed at 120.
Now I do not have so much faith in the steel cocoon surrounding me, as I have none while riding my motorcycle. I do have a helmet and heavy clothing that may or may not do the job in case of an accident, so I focus on paying attention. It would not be wise for me to say any more, for though I am not a superstitious person by nature, I do know when I have pushed the Gods far enough.
But it seems to me that this thing about the bigger the car the safer, is a false argument, and possibly even linked to oil company propaganda. Because SUV's had a higher injury rate due to rollovers, which is more common than head on collisions these days.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/suv/statistics.html
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/28002-rollover-accidents-explained.htm
Our Toyota Matrix, quite a small car by American standards, has never rolled over yet, even though it was practically demolished in an accident where I was struck from the side and the Matrix spun 90 degrees to the direction of travel before coming to a stop. Neither of us was injured in the crash.
Size matters only if you ram another vehicle. The bigger vehicle will transfer some of its momentum to the smaller vehicle, so the smaller vehicle will theoretically have a greater change in velocity. For example, in the case of a head on accident, the bigger vehicle could drive the smaller vehicle backwards some distance. But this is a stupid and dangerous game to play, if you are assuming you are going to be safe because you are planning to hit a smaller vehicle. Especially when the smaller vehicle is me on my motorcycle and the bigger vehicle is you on a cell phone.
The most dangerous part of the collision has been known for years, it is the occupant of the car against an interior part of the car. In which case the mass of the car has nothing to do with it. Or alternately it is the mass of the car crushing the occupant who was thrown from the car, in which case the mass of the car is working against you.
There are so many other ways to be safe. Air bags, careful driving, winter tires, seat belts, careful driving, better roads, no cell phones, staying sober, and these are just some of the tips.
Now let's get serious about fuel economy standards. Get a smaller, more fuel efficient car and save the environment, cut down on wars, save some money too. five tons of steel won't make you safe.
The trend in North America to SUVs over the past several decades could be considered an arms race. And, as with any arms race, no one wins in the end.
ReplyDeleteThe American auto manufacturers, through insidious advertising (read, propaganda), have disseminated the myth that larger vehicles are safer vehicles. And the North American public has bought into that myth.
The actual mechanics of how this came about are adequately covered in Keith Bradsher's High and Mighty. Suffice it to say that much of this was through appeal to consumers' 'reptilian instincts.'
The most effective method for avoiding injury in a collision is to avoid the collision itself.
And the vehicles least equipped for evasive maneuvers are those with high centres of gravity, excessive mass and compromised suspensions and tires ... i.e. SUVs. In fact, in all many cases, those vehicles simply trip.
By the same token, collision avoidance also presupposes a certain level of awareness and alertness. As you mention, many of us motorcycle riders take alertness almost to the level of paranoia. Past experience being our harsh teacher.
But, although I cannot support my contention with hard data, I'm inclined to agree with you ... drivers of those large SUVs tend to become mentally cocooned, reducing their situational awareness, impairing their ability to respond to events.
I do remain optimistic, though. In the 1950s American auto analysts were predicting that the German import, the Volkswagen, would never sell in the U.S. By the 1960s over 500,000 copies were being registered each year!
As Fiat starts to drive the recovery of Chrysler, we may well see flocks of Fiat Puntas (1.3 litre 5.5L/100km diesels) or even Pandas (1.1 litre 4.1L/100km) scooting around on our roads, duking it out with all those aging Ford Explorers, Expeditions and Excursions!
And none too soon, in my humble opinion.