SUV Haters: Read this
 

Screw all of you SUV haters, I am keeping my pick-up and soon to be Tahoe. I wonder how all of the "help me protect myself from the world" people will respond when they see that the smaller cars that they drive are PROVEN to be more dangerous.

Link here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...arweight_x.htm


Study: Lighter cars mean more deaths

By David Kiley, USA TODAY

DETROIT — Reducing the weight of vehicles, mostly to improve fuel economy, has resulted in more traffic deaths, especially in small cars, federal regulators said Tuesday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said a new study proves what the agency and many others have been saying: Until pickups and sport-utility vehicles are designed to cause less damage to smaller vehicles in crashes, occupants of the gas-guzzling heavier trucks will be safer than those in more fuel-efficient, lighter vehicles.

Fatality rates
Driver fatalities per billion vehicle miles from 1996 to 2000 in 1996 to 1999 models:
Very small cars 11.56
Small cars 7.85
Compact pickups 6.82
Midsize SUVs 6.73
Small SUVs 5.68
Midsize cars 5.26
Large pickups 4.07
Large SUVs 3.79
Large cars 3.30
Minivans 2.76
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration



The study was done as NHTSA prepares to write new fuel economy rules and side-impact crash standards, said agency spokesman Rae Tyson.

While some environmentalists fear automakers will use the study to ward off stricter fuel efficiency standards, Tyson said it should not be interpreted to mean that fuel economy and safety are mutually exclusive. "It is very possible for SUVs and light trucks to go on a diet, without compromising safety."

The new study contradicts one the agency did in 1997, which concluded that vehicle weight reductions didn't increase fatality risk. NHTSA engineers have long doubted that study's methodology and conclusions.

The new study found:

• A weight reduction of 100 pounds in the heaviest trucks and SUVs, those weighing more than 5,000 pounds, could save hundreds of lives a year.

• Weight reductions in trucks and SUVs weighing less than 5,000 pounds and most passenger cars could mean more fatalities for occupants of those vehicles.

• The most fuel efficient and often least expensive cars, the very small ones, have a fatality rate twice that of small and midsize SUVs and four times that of minivans.

• In collisions that involve the heaviest pickups and SUVs, 83% of fatalities are in the lighter vehicles.

The study shows that when trucks weighing 3,870 pounds or more lose 100 pounds of weight, fatalities in those vehicles increase about 3% in rollovers and in collisions with fixed objects. But those deaths are offset by lives saved when the trucks are in collisions with lighter-weight vehicles.

The report confirms what automakers have long known, "that downsizing and down-weighting vehicles has an adverse impact on safety," said Eron Shosteck, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spokesman.

But Joan Claybrook, a former NHTSA administrator and executive director of Public Citizen, said: "NHTSA's study is based on a comparison of the safety records of vehicles differing by 100 pounds, ignoring differences in safety design, which other studies have shown to matter more than weight."

The problem isnt really with the SUV's themselves, (Personaly I dont see their purpose, but whatever). The problem is that we take an average person, and put them in a vehical thats too tall, with more power than they are capable of handling safely. Hence, rollovers.

I dont hate suv's either, just the some of the people that drive them. I can't count the number of times I've been run off the road by some woman in an suv.

People in small cars are killed by assholes in SUV's.

Right - at least <b>Darkblack</b> got the gist of the story.
If everyone drove small cars, the safety record would improve drastically. For further explanation, see <i>Newton's Second Law of Motion</i>

However, being human and thus, selfish - I put my wife's and my safety above the safety of all of you out there (nothing personal), so I'll continue to drive our Explorer, thank you very much.

I hate it that people even try to argue how these "SUV's" are so much less safe... an explorer or Grand Cherokee or whatever weighs barely any more than a family sized car. And they aren't incredibly powerful or whatever either. The vehicles that do the damage are HEAVY vehicles (1 ton trucks, commercial vehicles etc) I've added 100 lbs of stereo equipment to my 1/2 ton fullsize truck already, does that mean its increasing the danger for everyone else on the road? I think not...

:lol:

ok, following the logic everyone seems to be excersizing, if I were to pile an SUV full of 250lb football players, would that make the SUV more dangerous...? ok bad example ;)

i have people in little weenie cars cut me off and/or try to occupy the same piece of road as my truck way more often that the "assholes in suvs"

bullshit ill keep my 3% thank you. those little car hippys can watch where they are going if they want more safety (thats what i have to do when i ride my motorcycle). and just to be on the safe side i think ill weld an extra hundred pounds of steel around the cab just in case.

There is nothing in those stats that says that the sole causal factor is vehicle weight. If it were the only factor then why are mid sized suv's more deadly than small suv's? One of the main things that cause more deaths in very small cars is that many of them don't have much safety equipment. The low rate of air bags in these cars could probably explain most of the difference. Idiots buying these shit little cars would rather spend on a bitchin' stereo or mag wheels, etc. instead of airbags, etc. /obvious but true.

Re: SUV Haters: Read this
 

TJ, did you bother to read the article or did you just make a knee-jerk assumption that it supported your existing opinion and reinforced your decision to do exactly what you want?

Saying that downsizing cars is a safety problem is really just a bass-ackward way of saying that UPsizing SUVs and other small trucks is creating a safety problem for the rest of us.

I don't hate SUVs - they have their place just like every other vehicle. They're useful for hauling things, driving in rough weather or off-road. What I object to are the massive numbers of suburbanites who buy them for reasons other than utility (what I like to call the "small penis" syndrome), or who have this "fuck all y'all I'll drive what I want" attitude. The fact is SUVs are not, on the whole, safer than other cars, and even if they were, <a href="http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe">which they're not</a>, you'd be trading in safety while driving for other downsides such as increased health risks due to air pollution, higher fuel costs due to increased demand, greater dependence on foreign oil.

Thankfully this is America and you have the freedom to choose exactly which handbasket you get to drive to hell in.

Umm, ALL cars since at least the early 90's have front airbags. Side airbags are generally an option on small cars and SUVs alike. Nobody said weight was the ONLY factor, but it is among the most significant.

Most modern small cars do quite well in crash tests where they run into a fixed wall (indicating they are well designed and have good safety equipment), but get into a head-on with an SUV that weighs 2000 pounds more and it's an entirely different story. Pretty basic physics.

Also an entirely different story from fixed object crash tests to two vehicles (large or small) traveling in opposite directions. A t-boning by a small car can make you just as dead as a t-bone from an SUV. Of course you may look better in the casket if you get hit with a small car but at that point does it really matter?

Well if this isn't the most obvious statistic ever. A Ford Excursion hits a Honda Civic head on at 60MPH. It isn't the fact that the person was driving a small car that killed them, it's the giant SUV driven by the woman on her cell phone that crashed into him.

The problem isn't so much the SUVs themselves, it's the fact they are bought by ppl who can't even park them let alone drive them. SUVs are the modern-day Saabs to many upper middle and higher class economic brackets. Anyone who is capable of driving an SUV and wants to buy one fine. I think it's a waste considering most SUV owners never use the vehicle for any heavy duty stuff(and no your golf clubs are not considered heavy materials). There are plenty of cars in the same price range that are large and able to protect their owners. My other main beef with SUVs is they block your view everywhere. I have a minvan and sit about twice as high as a car and I can't see around them. They create a lot of problems due to their popularity, and with many nimrods driving them the road is a dangerous place to be.

We should all just drive SUV's, then we'll all be safe.

Several good points have been raised. The critique of tj's argument sounds suspiciously like the argument part of the GRE... lol..... you're making a lot of conclusions from very little facts, and only choosing to make the conclusions that support your way of thinking. I suggest that you examine the issue more closely, and not jump to any conclusions.

The solution here is better design of vehicles, and not increasing the weight of the vehicles. In fact, if you read the article closely, you find that that is what the article says.

1) Heavier vehicles are 'safer' for their occupants in collisions, at the expense of the occupants of the other vehicle. From a societal standpoint, I don't see the benefit of having more "safety" in this manner.

2) One of the major safety issues now is the crash incompatibility between light vehicles and heavy vehicles. The bumpers of many SUVs and commercial vehicles are set very high off the road. Thus, when light vehicles like passenger cars collide with trucks, their in-built safety barriers like bumpers, reinforcement bars do not work as planned. Trucks often ride over cars, and their bumpers, in side collision tests, are higher than the side-reinforcement bars in car doors, thus allowing the bumper of the truck to penetrate the passenger cabin, and cause head injuries ( most often fatal... ).

And not to mention that the rail construction of most trucks, results in a VERY rigid frame, that penetrates the cabin of lighter vehicles. Manufacturers, in addition, are stiffening the bodies of trucks, in response to ill-thought out 'safety' regulations. ( Trucks are rated based on collisions with other trucks... so they become safer to their occupants if their bumpers and frame are made stiffer.... of course... the other 70% of vehicles are still cars...

I notice that when I drive my wife's Saturn, I tend to get cut off very frequently. Conversely, when I'm driving my rusted out old '77 Chevy pick-up, people tend to stay away from me. The perception being that I don't give a crap about that truck, and will take the risk of it being hit, rather than be intimidated. Of course, I don't drive it any differently than I do the Saturn. Just an observation.

I also have noticed that a lot of people that drive SUV's, have no idea how 4 wheel drive vehicles operate. They are meant to provide additional traction to gain forward momentum...NOT to help you stop on ice covered roads. 4 wheel drive provides nothing to help you stop. Therefore, you cannot drive 70 mph on icy roads, and expect to fare any better than any 2 wheel drive vehicle sharing the road with you. If more people understood that simple fact, my commute, on cold Winter Nebraka mornings, would sure be a lot easier.

Also, I feel that we should not jump to conclusions.

People who drive SUVs are not necessarily idiots who are constantly on the cell phones....

Don't get defensive over your SUV. There must be a good reason why you drive a polluting vehicle, that is unsafe to other road users, when you live in an urban area and the SUV has NEVER gone offroad before......

I have no bones with people who use their SUVs and pickups for their intended purpose. Even the soccer mom has some justification for a SUV. (even if i think minivans are a better alternative.... ) For the single passenger SUV in urban areas.... WHY???

Weight is an important factor. Inertia, mass, velocity, etc, all factor into who lives and who dies. SUVs (at least the full size land yachts) have that advantage on their side. But its not so much the weight of the vehicle, as it is where the weight is. On an SUV the weight is much higher up than it is on a passenger vehicle. Because of this, the casr struck by the suv is hit in an area not designed to take the full impact. If the front end of a car was designed for the whole hood/fender/bumber to take the impact, and it gets hit only on teh top half, you have significantly increased your odds of a fatality. You are putting more stress on a system that wasn't designed for it.


There is another VERY large class of vehicles that escapes teh big car anger that gets directed at SUVs. Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, 4wd ... their most loaded and heviest vehicle i believe. 4000lbs. Chrysler Town and Country = 4500 lbs. This is not uncommon. Minivans are terribly heavy vehicles, but nobody gets mad at them for sucking down gas, or for causing fatalities in crashes due to their weight. Again, its not necessarily the weight that kills, but where its at.

Another look at vehicle weights : Ford escape XLT Premium 2wd : 3300 lbs. Audi TT quattro roadster : 3500 lbs. The audi is a reasonably small 2 seater sports car. If it got into an accident and the occupants died, everyone would be angry saying that it was the stupid SUV thats big and heavy killing people again, but the sportscar weighed more.

Look at that same audi vs. a Ford Ranger. the ranger weighs 3100 lbs. Add a few hunder pounds for a lift kit, bigger tires and suspension and have it get into an accident with that roadster. It would probably eat the sportscars occupants alive, yet it weighs the same amount, or less.

It isn't always the weight of teh SUV, but where its at that seems to be the biggest problem as far as safety goes to me...

Because that person happens to like SUVs and therefore purchased one. That's all the justification necessary.

By the way, I happen to like blue. Give me a good reason why your house shouldn't be painted that color or else I'm gonna go over there and do it.

Weapons of Mass Destruction.

from Dave Barry's column.

Know why SUV drivers pay more in car insurance even though their cars are safer for them? It's because an SUV driver is likely to have higher claims against them for accidents that they cause than drivers of normal cars. That means that either SUV drivers are more dangerous, or SUVs are more dangerous. I'd guess that it's both.

I'm a former SUV driver and I've never been happier (and my repair bills have never been smaller).

so.....why do you have a car for an avatar?...and not a truck or SUV?

Haha, I like that!

I really don't care about the safety of anyone besides myself and the people I care about. If you decide to putt around in a 1500 pound Geo and it implodes when you cut off a Navigator and get creamed (I love how anti-SUV zealots pretend that only SUV drivers are idiots), it's your own damn fault. You risked safety to get gas mileage and cheapness in return; that was your call.

I guess we should ban 18 wheelers too, since they'd take out a big SUV just as easily as a Hyundai. :rolleyes:

hNobody's talking about banning SUVs. I think what most of us who drive small cars, for whatever reasons, would really like is the following:

1. SUVs redesigned to be less deadly to smaller cars. They could easily have the bumpers lowered below windshield height for other cars. SUVs are not just dangerous to economy cars, but also to mid-sized family sedans and other "non-hippie" vehicles.

2. If SUVs got better gas mileage - which is ENTIRELY within the realm of engineering possibility without sacrificing safetly - more people would probably be willing to drive them. I'd have a hybrid or electric RAV4 in a heartbeat.

3. Those of us who choose more fuel-efficient cars often do so for environmental reasons. We are concerned about the long-term effects of air pollution on EVERYONE and are frustrated at the "memememe" attitude that has made fuel-inefficient and dangerous vehicles best-sellers, and damn the consequences to the rest of you and to future generations. We ban smoking in public places because of the health risks to others, yet we allow pollution-spewing vehicles to damage our air quality in the name of "consumer choice." It seems wrong to me, and in the end the only people it really benefits are the automakers who make HUGE profit margins on SUVs because 1. people are willing to pay for them, and 2. they are still exempt from fuel efficiency standards that apply to all other consumer cars.

Re: Re: SUV Haters: Read this
 

I did bother to read the article. Thanks for asking.

I also read you your statement. It is interesting how they dont bother you... You just dont want them around. I also like how you tell me that I am going to go to hell because of my choices. Nice touch. Oh, and I forgot: You are acusing me of having a small penis because of driving an SUV. All very nice arguements. Oh, and who can forget that I tell everyone to "fuck off" because of what I am driving.

Full of assumptions today, aren't we?

You go ahead and drive a small car if you want. I can afford to drive something nicer, and I plan to do it. It is also safer for me, which counts.

Nothing I like better than people who steroetype me for the car I drive. Shall I pick something out about you and do the same?

From "Ths Simpsons"

Marge: I heard that SUV's are more likely to be involved in fatal accidents.

Bart: Yeah, fatal to the person in the other car.

My Cobra is a "play" vehicle. I haven't driven it in about 2-3 weeks. It is a fun car but I dont drive it to work. It is a hobby car. And it is fast. I am sure the tree-huggers would hate it too.

Re: Re: Re: SUV Haters: Read this
 

I clarified my position above - it's not SUVs that I object to, it's the fact that they are unnecessarily inefficient and unsafe, and generally "more car" than is needed for the purpose they serve: driving single passengers back and forth in a suburban environment. If they were safer (both on their own and to other drivers - the safety of SUVs is actually a myth) and required to abide by the same fuel efficiency standards as other vehicles, I would have much less problem with them.

Quote:

I also like how you tell me that I am going to go to hell because of my choices. Nice touch.

Nonono, I was referring to the figure of speech "we're all going to hell in a handbasket" - used as an expression of dismay when you think destruction is immanent, as I think we are if we don't change our treatment of the environment. I didn't mean you personally were going to hell.

That was uncalled for, I'm sorry.

Quote:

All very nice arguements. Oh, and who can forget that I tell everyone to "fuck off" because of what I am driving.

Actually you told us all "screw all of you SUV haters" not "fuck off." My mistake.

Quote:

You go ahead and drive a small car if you want. I can afford to drive something nicer, and I plan to do it. It is also safer for me, which counts.

See, this is the thing that gets me. You assume bigger=nicer. Or more expensive=nicer. Is it about appearances? Prestige? Status? Why not get a BMW or something instead of an SUV? Same net effect, better for the environment.

Quote:

Nothing I like better than people who steroetype me for the car I drive. Shall I pick something out about you and do the same?

Actually you started out this post doing just that: "All you SUV haters", like you have any clue who we are or why we object or give any thought to the validity of our arguments. You want what you want, and damn the consequences. Sounds like we fit each other's stereotypes pretty well.

You DID say "fuck you"... ;)

It's not a money thing. It's a size issue. I DO think that a Tahoe or an Expedition (SUV), or something of that nature is nicer than a Civic or a Focus (small car). I enjoy being able to get into a vehicle without banging my knee or head on the frame of the car. I'm a big guy (over 6'0) and hate cramming into little cars. I think alot of people who hate SUV's would get them, though, if they could afford them. SUV's have a lot more uses, can haul a lot of stuff and a lot more people.

I could care less what other people drive. I think it is kind of pointless to pick on SUV's because they dont have good fuel economy or things to that effect. I am sure that there are plenty of other things that people do that are terrible for the environment.

You are right. I did start the topic off incorrectly. I just get really frustrated with the fact that people get so irate over what I drive. I'd hate to hear what people think about my blown Cobra with no cats. I think I got 12 miles a gallon last time I checked. It is a little car but I have alot of fun when I drive it! :crazy:

Want my opinion on the worst drivers? Mini-van owners. Maybe that will start another arguement :lol: :D

It's not a money thing. It's a size issue. I DO think that a Tahoe or an Expedition (SUV), or something of that nature is nicer than a Civic or a Focus (small car).I enjoy being able to get into a vehicle without banging my knee or head on the frame of the car

see: lincoln, caddilac etc...


SUV's have a lot more uses, can haul a lot of stuff and a lot more people.

See: minivan, and besides, how often do you haul 2x4's in your tahoe? :hmm:

I love my SUV (Lexus LX470)
I feel that SUV's aren't for some people. I am a good curtious driver, but there are just some pricks out there in small cars and SUV's. Maybe they should have a license to drive an SUV or any larger vehicles. Some people just don't know how to handle the power and size.

The thing that amazes me about SUV's is how the industry has taken a vehicle that does so many things so poorly, used a superb image creating PR campaign, and had huge commerical success

Want to really haul lots of stuff? Get a pickup or a station wagon?

Gas mileage? Small car

Comfy ride? A nice sedan

Want to watch a big SUV power through mud and climb rocks in commercials, while you sit in suburban traffic and breath smog each day on your commute? Grab the SUV!

amen. I have been in two SUV accidents.

I like seeing all these SUV's in the city...it gives me something to snicker at.
I always get a chuckle when I see some of these SUV's in the big city stuck in gridlock. If someone is fool enough to buy a BMW or Lexus SUV and drive around in an urban environment looking like idiots, who am I to stop them?
All I know is when you get out on the dirt and mud roads you NEVER see the city-slickers in their shitty high priced SUV's.
I can honestly say that if I was in my truck and I saw a fancy SUV stuck in the mud out in the country, I'd toot my horn and drive on by (unless it was woman with kids, I'm still a nice guy you know:D)

SUVs seem kinda useless to me. Big gas guzzling boxes. Part of the reason the death rate in small cer is high is probably cause they got smoked by an SUV. I drive a 3/4 ton diesel 4x4 pick up with a big faking bush bumper & winch on the front. If I ever hit a little car I'd go right over them. I'm not proud of this but it is a fact. I don't drive a big truck cause it's cool. I drive it cause it is handy & cause I can't put 5 people in a toyota PU. If I didn't need a truck to haul equipment I would drive a car. I'd get something practical like a turbo Volvo wagon. All the SUVs I see on the streets just make me shake my head in wonder.

I've read every reply and honestly have no idea what you guys are arguing about.

It seems that there are ass-head drivers everywhere. A lot of them drive little sedans and lot of them drive big ass SUVs. So, of course, if these guys get into accidents then the SUV group is going to have a much better safetly rating simply because they're driving small tanks.

I don't mind the smaller SUVs. I don't, however, like the really big ones. If you ever have the need to transport 12 and haul all their luggage, maybe you should consider buying a "short" bus or better yet, taking two cars.

I require a large vehicle for my work- I sell swords and knives at conventions, ren faires, ect and need the cargo space- despite this, I have no use for suv's- give me a pickup truck or a cargo van- cheaper, and more utilitarian- I do not, however, care if others want/need suv's- this is a free country, driven by MONEY- as long as people will pay 40,000 for a high dollar suv, more power to them, sure it makes little sense to me, but if you dont like suv's vote with your DOLLAR- that is the only thing that matters in the REAL world, and the one thing that auto makers will respond to....

"yet we allow pollution-spewing vehicles to damage our air quality in the name of "consumer choice." "

You, have no idea what you are talking about. A new SUV is as clean as any car (cept maybe hybrid and PURE electric) off of the lot. A common misconception is that bad mileage = pulluter. This is not the case. Those new H2's that get bad gas mileage are a Low Emmissions Vehicle. Just like a civic. I can Gaurauntee you they have essentially 0 CO, 0 NOx, and 0 HC. You would be better off suckin on a tailpipe of any new car (except some deisel trucks) than you would be being a smoker of cigarettes. Chances are, a 5 yr old Civic will be a bigger polluter than a brand new H2. Also, take a look at Europe. Gas is incredibly expensive their, so naturally they have VERY fuel efficient vehicles. Most people naturally equate this with low pollution, but almost NONE of their cars could pass even teh federal emmisions in the US, let alone the california emissions.


As for the reason behind getting an SUV,

Yes, many aspects of an SUV are better in a more specialized vehicle. But how many other types of vehicles can put all of those together? SUVs are unique in that they can provide room to haul stuff, room for people, a comfy ride, durability, multi-terrain performance, and in some cases decent gas mileage. If anyone had any of those requirements, and asked for a suggestion for a car, you would of course send them toward an SUV. Why? Because its pretty much the only vehicle capable of fulfilling all those needs.

Lincoln Navigator? Nahhh it's a little too expensive.

Quote:

SUV's have a lot more uses, can haul a lot of stuff and a lot more people. See: minivan, and besides, how often do you haul 2x4's in your tahoe? :hmm:

I will kill myself before I ever own a minivan. :o And I dont haul 2x4's in the Tahoe. I use the truck for that. My truck doesn't get any better gas mileage than a Tahoe. Why don't people hate pick-ups? The Tahoe is for COMFORTABLY taking 3+ people somewhere with their luggage. It is an EASY vehicle to get a child and child seat in and out of. It is safer to drive (yes, this is a me me me attitude. I dont care). It sits up so you can see better while driving. It has a good re-sale value, as opposed to the Saturn that my wife had.

First of all, I can find the research for you if you'd like.

Second, you can't take one example (the Hummer) and use it as indicative of an entire class of vehicles (SUVs).

Third, you can look up vehicle emissions at the EPA web site, and the "LEV" classification is just so much bullshit. The fact that they have Hummers and Civics in the same LEV class (which, actually, they don't) belies the fact that the LEV classification has a large range of emissions scores - basically between 2 and 6. T1 and T2 classifications are for scores of 0 and 1 (worst polluters), LEV is between 2-6, SLEV and ULEV(super and ultra low) between 7&8, etc., with 10 being the best scores (electrics and hybrids).

<a href="http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_03.pdf">http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/all_alpha_03.pdf</a>

The Hummer gets an emissions score of 2 (LEV).
The Honda Civic gets a score of 7-8 and is classified as an ULEV. GMC Yukon between 0-3 depending on the sales area.
Chevy Silverado 1-2.
Toyota Highlander 4.
Landcruiser 0-2.
Camry 7.

To quote from the EPA web site:
"The emissions score is primarily based on the tailpipe emission standards of two significant air pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons (HC), both of which contribute to the formation of smog. Particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO) are also considered. "

<a href="http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/about.htm">http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/about.htm</a>

So you go suck on a Hummer tailpipe all you want. I'll go find a 5-year old Civic, or even a Toyota Avalon. Bottom line is, larger cars tend to release more pollutants into the air. Pththbt.

I'd like to thank the SUV-purchasers for one thing; SUVs have a huge markup on them, so you are doing a big part to keep the auto industry alive. My little car probably had a lower purchase price because of you.

First off, most SUVs dont pullute LESS than a car. They do pollute the same or slightly more. a new car will spew out *maybe* 1 or 2 ppm (parts per million) HC (raw gas). a new SUV *might* stick out upwards of 3-5 off of the lot. and your absolutely right, that SUV is polluting 250% more than the car!! tahts terirble! what you dont look at is that the limit is approcimately 100 ppm. that 2 or 3 ppm is negligable. Like statistics, you can make numbers say whatever you want them to, if you have no reali life comparision and dont stop and think about what they mean.

Also, those numbers are federal standards. Federal cars are sloppy gross polluters. A lot of California reject polluters will pass Federal standards. Also, cars have been getting bigger and more polluting over the years (at least thats what people think). Over the last 30 years we have doubled the amount of cars in california and cut the amount of smog in half. At teh same time we have also increased the amount of deisel trucks and large semi's. We have cars that are getting 1/3 or less gas mileage than the cars from teh gas scares of teh 70's. Yet they are allowed to pullute 1/10 of those cars, and they have better performance and are larger. It is all realative. As our standards continue to get more strict, the actual differences in the pollution output gets incredibly small, so 2 cars could have negligible output differences, and one could get a "7" on that scale, and one could get a 2.

Example, a ford f150 5.4L automatic, according to the feds, got a ZERO on that 1-10 scale. It is a horrible polluter right? Well stick on on the smog dyno and youll see one with 70k miles get perfect 0's on the emissions, occasionaly giving 1-2 ppM NOx. 70,000 miles later on a car the feds say is the worst pulluter, and it is pulling what should be a 9 or 10. Another example, a Jeep Wrangler. EPA gives it a 4, or a 1 if not sold in CA. thats a pretty sad number. It pulled about 6 ppm HC (99 or so max), 0.01% CO, and about 12ppm NOx. Again, almost nothing, yet it gets a "bad" rating.

I guess part of my point is that the difference between a hihg and low rating can be essentially nothing. Also, that those federal ratings you are quoting, while are accpeted, are terribly bad. A low number in CA, you come out to be a pretty high number on that scale the EPA gives. Its all about standards, and thats a list for the worst standards in the country. Like the jeep, gets a 1 for the federal version, and a 4 for the CA version. Just one example.


Of all the reasons to complain about and SUV, emissions shouldn't be one of them. in reality, and in comparison, they dont give off too much more than a car.

Even if SUVs don't give off "too much more" emissions than a car, they do give off more, and 2-3 ppm is not a big deal if you're talking about one car, but when you aggregate the effects times millions of SUVs and light trucks on the road, it is a big deal. Your point is taken about the condition and age of the vehicle, though.

Granted, there are other significant sources of air pollution - coal burning power plants, small engines that aren't regulated, etc., but internal combustion vehicles still account for the vast bulk of air pollutants, and either tightening up fuel efficiency standards for the majority of polluting vehicles, or getting them off the road, is a fairly simple way to make a big dent in the environmental impact. And even if pollution is getting better in some areas, it's still a huge public health problem in many other areas.

Well, of course the tercels are going to get crushed by the escalades out there. If we all had small cars, that would mean safety plus a better environment.

Course we could all go buy into large SUV's. Then that would be considered the norm for gas mileage, and pollution. Also, if all cars were big, they would all be safe, right? Safety seems like it will always be one persons safety at another persons expense. Until technology improves some more, larger cars will always be safer for THIER occupants.

Darkblack is my HERO! Right on bud :)

Pffffffft....

Call me an ALIVE asshole all you want.

Why, cause the small car thought his CRX was a racecar and flew in fron of the SUV and slammed on his brakes? Or maybe because he cut him off to show how fast his little racecar was...


People in small cars can and are just as bad of drivers as people in SUVs. Women can be dangerous no matter what they drive :D

no we would just all die whenever we ran into something. and i would have to suffer through driving an an uncomfortable ass little car every day. thank god i have the freedom to smoke a stogie while driving down the road in my big cumfy truck ignoring the hippy liberals whining that i shouldnt be allowed to smoke, drive anything bigger than a shoe box, own a gun, pray to my god without honorable mention to everyone elses, or keep any of my money for myself.

ahhh i feel better now

ps. arent gereralizations fun?

I find it amazing that a Stupid Useless Vehicle that costs thousands of dollars and is capable of climbing Mt. Kilamanjaro can only mount a speedbump at 1 MPH.
I can't wait until it snows. Those stupid useless vehicles look so cute laying in the highway median on their roofs.

I just backed into a guy in a black Acura sportcar in a restaurant drive-thru last monday with my Highlander.

I didn't see him. I had gone too far and passed the order menu panel and was backing up. The little car had just pulled in behind me and was below my rear window and directly behind me so I couldn't see him through my side mirrors. I heard a terrible crunch. My rear bumper slid over his bumper and pushed in his grill and headlight and buckled his hood and snapped his hood latch and did $2500 CDN worth of damage. My Highlander has a little scratch on the bottom of the bumper, hardly noticable.

I have an SUV because I live in the country on a private unmaintained gravel road and we get lots of snow up here in Ontario. I also have a 20 foot 3500 lb. boat and need to have a good vehicle to pull and launch it.

My Highlander gets better gas milage than the Previa it replaced. After having a minivan, I wouldn't want a little car. I don't think I could even fit into one!

I wonder if you could enter a SUV in a demolition derby?

That's a lot of damage! Highlanders aren't all that big compared to the rest of the SUV's too. An SUV demolition derby would be fun to watch. A Honda civic demolition derby would be even more fun. :D

I am by no means a "hippy liberal" at all. But personally, i have seen a lot of different people drive a lot of different types of vehicles, and their is some truth to your statement. I believe we should have several different classes of drivers liscense' for different size vehicles. I think little CRX, go kart size and weight vehicles should have separate requirements to be able to get a liscence to drive. Same with minivans and large SUVs/trucks. Most people dont know how to handle their normal sedan, let alone a car at 2-3 times the size and weight. I think any vehicle above 4800-5000 lbs should require a different liscence and test to drive. same with any vehicle under 2500 lbs.

See that is the difference between you and me. I care about your saftey along with mine.

I care about you too. I love you guys :icare:

Was this thread's purpose to make people hate less SUV drivers? Because it had the opposite effect on me. I hate selfish people -_-

It depends on what you see as selfish. Is it selfish to hate SUV drivers because they have a different preference of car they want to drive? Or is it selfish to drive a "safer" bigger vehicle, while not everybody can or wants to?

I think people should drive nearly anything they want.

I think in the opinion of most SUV-haters, it's selfish to drive a car that may or may not be safer for the driver (the jury is out on that one) but is definitely less safe for everyone else on the road, and creates a worse environment for everyone. Affording it is not an issue, although I do think most people who don't need to drive SUVs for utility's sake purchase them for reasons of prestige. I could afford an SUV, but I choose to drive something smaller that gets better gas mileage because it's consistent with my values of environmentalism and caring about more than my own life.

Spare me. http://www.gamingforums.com/images/smilies/puking.gif

You can't beat freedom of choice. I would hate to take that from anybody.

So what you're saying is, if a 60 mph head-on collision between an Expedition and a Civic were imminent, you'd rather be in the Civic. Because emitting marginally less emissions, using less gas, and caring about the guy in the other vehicle is more important than your life. Interesting. I guess some of us value our lives a little differently than others...

Re: freedom of choice: I don't want to ban SUVs, thereby taking away freedom of choice. I just wish that people would choose more wisely and based on long-term outcomes instead of immediate personal desires. We all agree to certain limitations on our freedoms for the greater good - speed limits, no-smoking laws in public places, etc.

Quote:

So what you're saying is, if a 60 mph head-on collision between an Expedition and a Civic were imminent, you'd rather be in the Civic. Because emitting marginally less emissions, using less gas, and caring about the guy in the other vehicle is more important than your life. Interesting. I guess some of us value our lives a little differently than others...

Irseg, we all make decisions based on certain probabilities. I'm betting the the probability that I get into a head-on collision at 60 mph with an Expedition is low enough that my driving a smaller car is less risky than you would suggest. If I get into a 60-mph head-on crash in ANY vehicle, I'm likely to come out mangled. Not to mention that head-on crashes at that speed are much less likely than offset crashes and side-impact crashes, at which SUVs fare rather badly. It hardly seems worth it to me to hasten a high-probability event with negative impact on millions or billions of people - global warming and air pollution - by supposedly protecting against a relatively unlikely event that will affect only a few people: me personally getting into a head-on collision in a small car at 60 mph with an SUV.

Large trends are an aggregate of millions of individual decisions. I'd rather protect the group than my own ass in this case when the data show that my own ass is actually relatively safe.

This seems to be one of those discussions that you cannot participate in without getting slammed down for your opinions or thoughts. But I'll share mine anyway. This may get long and boring, so feel free to skip it.

I moved to the States from Europe earlier this year, and as you can imagine (or may even know from personal experience), the "automobile culture" differs there greatly from the American one. I ended up in Texas, which seems to be truly the land of trucks. I am still amazed by how many people here drive a truck, and even more so by the size of these things. I've seen bigger SUVs here than I ever did in Europe, and I've been driving for close to ten years. It feels like 3 or 4 out of every car I see out there is a truck. Since this is mostly a college town, I find it hard to believe that ALL of these kids driving an SUV actually needs one. Having said that, though, I do feel they have every right to drive one should they so choose.

My wife drives a Japanese sedan (Jap model, US build), fairly new, automatic, with an engine of well over 2 litres. Now I'm no tree-hugger, but if there is a choice I always go for a more economic and environment-friendly solution when it comes to a car. It amazes me that the engine on her Jap is relatively big for a sedan, especially since a typical European sedan with a 1.6 or even 1.4 litre engine can kick out a whole lot more power with less consumption and pollution. But looking further into this, it seems that American sedans typically seem to have engines that are bigger than necessary, and less efficient compared to the European models. The only reason I can think of why this is, is that the automobile manufacturers in this country still front the image that "bigger is better". Hence, even a small car should have an unnecessarily big engine.

Probably the reason for this is that there is less pressure in America for automobile manufacturers to build engines that consume less yet provide the same power. This is because gas is significantly cheaper here. Before I came to the States, I paid approximately 3 dollars and 80 cents per gallon, for gas. Wouldn't that make you consider selecting a more economic model, too? Hence European manufacturers have had to focus on economy while not producing cars that are less efficient than their North American counterparts.

I used to work at an auto shop that specialized in purchasing and repairing and then reselling new Volvos that had been involved in car accidents. European-made Volvos (I don't know about American manufactured models, haven't had the opportunity to check them out) are extremely safe; I saw hundreds of wrecked Volvos and not one of them was done in so badly that the cabin was completely gone. Yet I've seen a co-worker of mine fold a Jap car's door with his bare hands...

To me, a car is not a status symbol, it's utilitarian. It serves a purpose and that's it. I do think that buying a big car to show it off is utterly ridiculous, just as in Europe people don't buy trucks, they buy as "small and lean" cars as possible, to show off. I would be willing to fork up the money for an SUV, but only for a used one...I would not want to spend a dime more than necessary paying for unnecessary engine power or ridiculous amounts of steel.

You are absolutely right, out of necessity, Europe and japan make small cars and small engines. They tend to have worse maintained, more congested, and smaller streets than the US. Naturally a small car works here. They also have incredibly high gas prices. This discourages large engines, so small, high output gas-freindly engines are the norm there. Good power, in a small car, with happy gas mileage. Everybody wins.

Well, almost everyone wins. While you tend to get smaller cars and engines with better performance AND mileage, you simply cannot pass USA emmissions standards. To get cars to pass strict emissions standards here we tend to put in larger engines capable of large amount of power. We then choke the power out of them to meet strict emissions requirements yet still maintain sufficient power.

Ever wonder why the Japanese, european, australian, etc. cars have more power? Because they are dirtier. They pollute too much to be allowed in the US as a daily driver. The pollution limiting equipment we require robs horsepower.

Anyway, had to leave for a while and forgot what i said. Point im making is foreign (to the US) cars are better for fuel and size, but pullute more than even our large (non-deisel) cars/SUVs

It's very much like the old adedge guns dont kill people.Cars, no matter what size dont kill people,bad fucking drivers kill people,along with speed and alcohol of course.

There is some truth to this, especially for older cars, but not so much for newer ones... Old cars are allowed to go as far as 600 ppm (HC), which is three or more times the limit of some states, that is true. However, cars built after 1992 are required to stay below 100 ppm, which is, to me, extremely low, and even lower than most states' standards.

I think the only way that limit can be met in European cars is by using a catalysator, which is mandatory in cars built in 1992 or after.

It depends...

The car you drive should fit your needs. We've got a family of 5, 3 kids ages 10-17, a big dog, a cottage, with an 18' boat, on a lake 7 hours drive away and live in suburbia adjacent to the snow belt. The Suburban is almost a necessity.

If we were just two with no kids and no dog and no towing and no 4 wheel drive living in NYC. The same car would be stupid.

Thanks for listening.

However, in the Greater DC metropolitan area, that's the way to bet. If I had a nickel for every solo rider in an SUV, no child seats, dog cages, or trailer hitches visible who cut me off in traffic while yakking on their cell phone, I'd be able to buy a Maxi Mog and monster truck their asses.

This whole conversation misses the point, though: Yes, SUVs and light trucks are safer than cars. Hummers are far safer. An M-1 Abrams tank is safer still.

The point is that, with (according to NPR Morning Edition yesterday - 10/17/2003) 50% of cars sold last year light trucks or SUVs, and fuel efficiencies falling, not because engines are less efficienet but because cars are getting heavier, gas gets more and more expensive.

I have no argument for folks who need an SUV to haul a trailer or 7 children (though why a family needs that many in this day and age is beyond me, and proof of mental softness as far as I can tell as a father of 2), or dog cages or some such similar thing - Heck, I keep a pickup truck , but I only drive it when I need it- but the folks commuting in F-150s and Oversized SUVs are doing nothing but driving up the price of gas and increasing our dependance on oil from places where they'd be just as happy to give each of us a C-4 suppository. And I have yet to find a reason anyone outside the military needs a hummer (chuckle - well, maybe Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would be improved by a skillful hummer each, but we're talking cars here) though.

So, while it is an environmental thing, that's secondary. It's economic and political. It just makes no sense to drive more weight than you need.

For the record - I drive a Hyundai. I would drive a small, fuel efficient, American car if they made one for sale at a reasonable price. They don't. I would also drive an SUV if it ran on something other than gasoline or with a hybrid engine and I could afford it (and it had been out for a couple of years so that the kinks had been worked out of the model. I think the hybrid Escape is in its second model year now. I'll probably trade the Huyndai and the truck for one in another two years.)

It's selfish to have you automotive preference materially decrease national security. That is the bottom line.

Now, each SUV owner has only a tiny part of this, but putting all together, they have a significant impact on our Middle East policy (oil interests are the next largest consideration after Israel), which is 80% of why we have problems in the Middle East (the other 20%, an estimate, is PR), which is 90% of why we have a deadly terrorist threat, which is 10% of the reason and 80% of the excuse for having a war with Iraq, and 100% of the reason that Governor Bush has any credibility at all, which is 100% of the reason we have deficits for as far as the eye can see.

So, to boil all that down:
SUVs are a significant part of a significant part of the largest part of our greatest national security threat, and, incidentally, the worst government this country has ever had bar none.

Exactly!

This is why I don't like yuppies who drive SUVs. Thanks for demonstrating for us today.

As soon as I read this article, this is what i wanted to say. I highly doubted I was the first one and I was not. :p

I have a 95 Geo metro, a 92 Jeep Wrangler, a 88 Chevy Cavalier, a 91 Isuzu trooper, a 75 Ford F-100. Each has its purpose and use.

The safety of a vehicle would be a moot point and no one would worry if everyone would do what they are supposed to do when they climb behind the wheel , DRIVE!!!! A vehicle is not a place to eat, read, talk on the cell phone, scream at the kids. If every driver put 100% of their attention to the task at hand, wrecks would not occur. Notice I did not say accidents there is no such thing as vehicle accident, if a vehicle is properly maintained including tire pressure and condition, brakes etc. and drivers pay attention to highway laws, speeds and road condition and drove defensively they would never have to worry about being involved in a wreck.

Cool article that neatly convinces some that we should be dependant on gas guzzling hunks of steel. Basically; keep buying petroleum and make some huge company rich.

I should note that I have a titanium plate running along the remnants of the humerous (upper arm bone) of my right arm- it is held there by 13 titanium screws and was installed at a cost of 24,794 dollars- this was required after a person driving in a small, fuel efficient, zippy car swerved into the side of my fiancee's car. resulting in our impact at 70 mph into a very unsympathetic concrete barrier- more than a year later i can use my "improved" arm, but no where near as well as before- while I do not support suv's, as I think they are overpriced, I feel far safer in a large vehicle, and had I the money (ie i hit the lotto) I would not hesitate to get a hummer, the older one that is built like a tank, (the new ones are too small) thus greatly decreasing my chances of repeating my earlier ordeal.....as i cannot decrease the population of bad drivers, some "armor" would be nice.

I have driven vehicles from sports cars to mini vans to pick-ups to my current Explorer. The vans and trucks offer much better visibility. The sports cars offered better handling and acceleration. I think this whole argument comes down to driver responsibility.

You have to drive the vehicle you are in. By this I mean stay within its capabilities. It takes some time but you need to learn how the vehicle you are driving responds in different situations.

You also have to take into account the vehicles around you. I drive quite a bit. My daily drivers have always been trucks or SUVs. I find most of my problems come from other drivers expecting my vehicle to handle like theirs. I rarely have a problem with other trucks or SUVs. My problems typically are caused by smaller cars weaving in and out of traffic or expecting me to be able to take a curve at the same speed they can.

Conversely I have to remember than on rougher roads they will not travel as fast as I would. I'm not concerned about cruising over steel plates in construction areas where they need to think about ripping the front valence off or damaging their 13" wheels.

I know this was a question about vehicle saefty related to SUV size. I know we have to plan and design vehicles around the impact they will have on another in a collision but there should also be more emphasis put on how the vehicles are driven. This should be done without the "woman putting on make-up/talking on cell-phone" comments. I've seen plenty of that but I've also seen the "guys reading the newspaper/talking on the cell-phone/making entries in dayplanner/PDA" drivers.

Prince: As I understand, the term "Jap," is still considered a pejorative in this country. Not being Japanese, naturally I might be wrong, but to be safe let's both shy away from it. As far as I can tell, in no way did your post contain any hints of racism, but just in case let's play it safe.

-- Alvin

Well the logical thing to me seems to be to drive a minivan considering their kill percentage seems the lowest. We own a midsize car - I wouldn't buy a compact. I also have friends who drive SUV's. I do agree - it does seem to me that the people in SUV's tend to be a little more pushy on the roads - I think because they feel less afraid about what will happen to themselves. I've even seen my friends in their SUV's driving a little less defensively and more pushy because they know they can. We all need to be more careful on the road. Maybe if cars didn't feel as safe we'd drive more carefully to protect ourselves and others??

Thanks, Alvin -- I used it just as an abbreviation of "Japanese"; I didn't know it had such unpleasant connotations, otherwise I certainly would not have been so lazy in my typing. I'm far from racist, myself, and am glad you pointed this out so I know better than to throw that word (Jap) around.. :)

I agree completely. One thing that would have been helpful is if they plotted the data for only two-car collisions, separated by weight and by vehicle class. If weight were the dominating factor, we would see a nice, fairly linear correlation between fatality rate and weight. If it were linear enough, class of vehicle would not even be necessary.

Obviously there is some correlation between class of vehicle and weight. However, if we posit that a large sized car weight approximately as much as a mid-size SUV, we can already see that the correlation between weight and "safety" (as determined by number of fatalities) is not a strong one. In fact, as I remember, all things considered one is 6% more likely to die in an SUV than in a car. The unsettling conclusion is that this number will probably rise, as SUVs as a whole are generally newer (and held to higher safety standards) than the aggregate of cars. Worse, according to driver statistics SUVs are primarily driven by the safest drivers: married, male, and middle-aged.

As an aside, one of the most dangerous drivers is not necessarily a single, female, college-aged driver (though from personal experience it may seem like it), but actually young male drivers. Youth trumps all it seems. But the really interesting data point is that for young male drivers, the lighter the car (to a point), the lower the accident rate. It seems that young males driving Metros are more aware of the relative danger they face and adjust driving behavior accordingly, moreso than young males driving SUVs or sports cars.

But, in good fun, if you'd like to tweak your local campus feminist, one last interesting piece of data is that if you hold miles driven constant (males drive most of the miles in the USA), women are 33% more likely to be in a two-car traffic accident and 17% more likely to be involved in damage to property. However, as a disclaimer, I do not hold any responsibility to damage done to your person (even if, amusingly, done by automobile) if you use this fact. As a secondary disclaimer, in general, the safest female drivers (married, middle-aged, with children) drive a far smaller percentage of total miles driven by women than the safest male drives do of men. Statistically, if populations were held constant, I have a strong feeling that women are just as safe drivers as men. It's just that more of the dangerous women drivers are out there compared to men. As a final disclaimer, in general, you are still more likely to be hit by a man (or have your property damaged by a male driver), because in general men drive much more of the miles in the States than do women. Whew. I hope I've sufficiently put out enough disclaimers to disprove any accusations of chauvinism! I don't think women are worse drivers than men, but I have to admit that quite a bit of fun can be had occasionally tweaking the radical campus feminist. :D

It's not only safer in collisions with other vehicles, but collisions with stationary objects. Having a 7700 pound Escalade is probably overdoing it if you're worried about hitting a tree or guardrail at a reasonable speed, but I, for one, would hesitate in buying a 2000 pound Metro, even if everyone else were. I am not an arrogant enough driver to assume that I will never hit anything on my own accord, no matter the circumstances. Thankfully I have not hit anything yet, but I wouldn't lay any money out saying I won't. If I were a betting man, I would bet on the next woman I see over me on who is the better driver. :D

We have to remember that the amount of energy imparted from the offending car into yours is proportional to mass (which is proportional to weight), and proportional to the square of velocity. So a car traveling twice as fast and weighing the same will contribute twice as much energy into the collision as an SUV traveling the same speed but weighing twice as much.

This does not mean that, in an imminent collision, speed up, to swing the equation further in your favor (as that simply adds more energy into the mix). Instead, if you assume you are not the one at fault, the speed and mass of the other vehicle is beyond your control. More, if you are the one being hit, most likely you don't have much time to reduce your speed. Thus the only variable in your control is the weight of the vehicle: roughly speaking, the more mass to absorb the energy between you and the leading edge of the force being projected into your vehicle, the safer you will be. It works for both sides: we can replace metal relatively cheaply; lives are irreplaceable.

The problem is that, being higher, an SUV crashing into your vehicle is less likely to hit something big and energy-absorbing, like your engine. A bumper isn't necessarily going to be enough to do the job. The fundamental problem is crash incompatability.

-- Alvin

PS: Prince: I'm positive you meant it as an abbreviation; it was completely obvious while reading your post. You mentioned you moved here from Europe, so I didn't think you were aware. Just didn't want you to be accused of being a racist when clearly you are not!

My only problem with SUV's is the way people use them. NO ONE, NO ONE in a big metropolis (such as DC where I live) needs an SUV. I grew up in a place where you actually had to have an SUV to go to some places and I think that makes sense, but in DC there are really narrow streets and parking is really difficult, and still you see a bunch of SUVs. I probably will have a farm some day and drive a truck, because you need a truck if you have a farm, but 4 wheelin in big cities is just funny

The whole point in most modern new SUVs is not to go offroading in them. In fact i would hope a lot of them dont try it (thought watching it break could be fun). Where else but an SUV can you fit a lot of people (carpool) comfortably, with a smooth ride, plenty of power, Room and capability to haul stuff if you want, off road capability, and even decent gas mileage?

Most poeple , especially in DC, will only get a vehicle that meets their needs and desires. IF you want your vehicle to be able to do all of the above, i cant think of many small vehicles that will accomplish that...

I bought mine mainly because of the winter weather we get here in Pennsylvania. I use mine as my daily driver so I really can't take the risk in driving it off-road. I would love to though.

It works well as a family vehicle too. 2 car seats fit in the backseat nicely and I have plenty of room for carrying all the gear that goes with 2 young children.

I like my truck and sometime soon I hop to buy a 1997 Toyota Landcruiser. You drive what you need, space to haul gear, ground clearance to go places, and four doors that is why I see the reasoning behind SUVs. My .02.

Despite some ideas such as that...I own an SUV, which I did by used. I'm a poor guy so I'm driving a 92 explorer in Minnesota. I realize that you can't speed your ass through places in snowy weather. Also, I do have real world off road applications I've used before as well. Secondly, I'm what I feel a coservative driver and that is what it really comes down too. If you drive like an asshole in an SUV or a compact, its all the same....trouble.

Also, I can mount a speedbump pretty damn fast :lol:

I don't hate SUVs (and will possibly get one in the future) but this story is bogus. As has been stated in many other posts, the larger SUVs are causing (at least partially) the fatalities in the smaller, lighter cars. Collision between a Tacoma and a Sprint...I know who's coming out of that accident.

So why should the Tacoma be at fault just because it is bigger? We all have to share the roads and there are pros and cons to both vehicles. There was a choice made to purchase one or the other.