You are less safe driving an SUV
 

Opponents of SUVs have long argued that, in addition to guzzling gas like nobody's business, they make people in other cars less safe. "Too bad!" say the SUV owners, "my safety comes first!" Turns out SUV occupants are actually LESS safe: they're more likely to die in crashes than occupants of other types of vehicles. Anyone wanna trade in their Excursion for a Mini Cooper? ;)

(A lot of the risk comes from rollovers, which SUVs are more prone to, and mid-size SUVs are less safe than large SUVs; even so, fatality rates were higher for large SUVs than for large passenger cars.)

Here are the stats, accounted for in two different ways:
Deaths per 100,000 vehicles:

SUVs 16.42
Pickups 15.17
Passenger cars 14.85
Vans 11.2

Deaths per billion miles:

Mid-size SUVS: 6.73
Midsize cars: 5.26
Large SUVs 3.79
Large passenger cars 3.30
Minivans 2.76

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/bu...agewanted=1&hp

Safety Gap Grows Wider Between S.U.V.'s and Cars
By DANNY HAKIM

Published: August 17, 2004

DETROIT, Aug. 16 - The gap in safety between sport utility vehicles and passenger cars last year was the widest yet recorded, according to new federal traffic data.

People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars, the figures show. The government began keeping detailed statistics on the safety of vehicle categories in 1994.

S.U.V.'s continue to gain in popularity, despite safety concerns and the vehicles' lagging fuel economy at a time when gasoline prices are high. For the first seven months of 2004, S.U.V.'s accounted for 27.2 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales, up from 26 percent in the period a year earlier, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. However, sales growth for the largest sport utility vehicles has stalled lately, while small and medium-size S.U.V.'s, engineered more like cars than pickup trucks, continue to make rapid gains.

New figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shed light on how wide the differences in safety can be from one vehicle to another in the S.U.V. category, which now encompasses scores of models. For example, a few newer S.U.V. models appear to have a sharply lower risk of rolling over in an accident than other models.

Over all, crash fatalities declined across the board in 2003 to the lowest levels in six years, the government figures show, with 42,643 people killed in traffic accidents in the United States. Much of the decline appeared to come from fewer people driving drunk and more people buckling up. But the United States has not made as much progress as some other developed nations, because rates of seat belt use remain lower here and because of the growing numbers of S.U.V.'s and pickup trucks, which tend to pose greater hazards than cars both to their occupants and to others on the road.

Industry groups have insisted for years that S.U.V.'s are at least as safe as passenger cars, if not safer. One group run by industry lobbyists, called the Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America, says on its Web site that it is a myth that S.U.V.'s guzzle gas or that their higher rollover rate makes them more dangerous for their occupants. Ron DeFore, a spokesman for the group, cited statistics from the insurance industry, which found last year that fatality rates for newer sport utility vehicles were markedly improved from older models.

"Most people have gotten a skewed vision about the S.U.V. and think they're unsafe, and that's just not true," Mr. DeFore said.

But the main reason for the safety gap in S.U.V. and car fatalities, according to federal regulators, is that S.U.V.'s are more likely to roll over, a particularly deadly accident event that is a symptom of their higher ground clearance.

"It's largely a function of the rollover problem," said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the traffic agency. "In certain types of crashes, you're more likely to be better off in an S.U.V., but that is offset by the fact the you're more likely to roll over."

Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and a former top auto safety regulator, said, "There's no question that the rollover problem with S.U.V.'s really undermines their safety."

The traffic safety agency reported last week that there were 16.42 deaths of S.U.V. occupants in accidents last year for every 100,000 registered S.U.V.'s. The figure for passenger cars was 14.85 deaths for each 100,000 registered; pickups were slightly higher than cars at 15.17 deaths per 100,000, while vans were lowest at 11.2 occupant deaths for every 100,000 registered.

But not all S.U.V.'s are alike. New government data shows how much better some S.U.V.'s fare than others in tipping situations, the category's weak spot.

This year, the government started conducting rollover tests on a test track rather than merely analyzing the vehicle's dimensions on paper to determine rollover risk, as it had done in the past. One-third of the 2004-model S.U.V.'s that it tested tipped up on two wheels, halting the tests of those vehicles. One S.U.V. made by General Motors, the Saturn Vue, even had its suspension break on both the two- and four-wheel drive models, prompting G.M. to recall the vehicle. No passenger car tipped during the testing.

The traffic agency has also released new rankings of rollover risk for many 2004 models. It calculated that the Honda Pilot S.U.V. has only a 16 percent chance of rolling over during a single-vehicle crash, compared with a 26 percent chance for the Chevrolet Tahoe and for many versions of the Ford Explorer.

The Chrysler Pacifica, an S.U.V. that somewhat resembles a station wagon, was found to have only a 13 to 14 percent risk, comparable to passenger cars, which ranged from an 8 percent risk for the Mazda RX-8 to 15.5 percent for the Subaru Outback wagon.

Rollover risk, though, is only one part of the safety picture. In crashes between vehicles, heavier vehicles tend to perform better than lighter ones, which is one reason that the smallest cars tend to have the highest occupant-fatality rates. The ways that people who own different types of vehicles tend to drive them is also a factor, especially in the case of sports cars.

But weight is not a simple proxy for safety. In a federal crash study this year, large passenger cars and station wagons, averaging about 3,600 pounds unloaded, were found to have a death rate of 3.3 for each billion miles traveled; they were second only to minivans, which had a rate of 2.76.

Ranked third safest after the large-car category were the largest, tanklike sport utility vehicles, which weigh in at an average of 5,100 pounds unloaded; their death rate was 3.79 for every billion miles. Midsize cars, averaging just over 3,000 pounds unloaded, had a 5.26 fatality rate; midsize S.U.V.'s, by far the most popular type, with an average weight over 4,000 pounds, had a death rate of 6.73 in the study.

Even within categories, there was considerable variation in performance from model to model. Detailed results for federal front- and side-impact tests and rollover tests can be found online at www.safercar.gov.

Complicating the safety question is what happens to people in the other vehicle in a collision. Because of the higher ground clearance of sport utilities and large pickup trucks, their bumpers often skip over the crash structures of passenger cars, raising the likelihood that an occupant of the car will be killed or seriously injured.

Automakers have agreed to work together on structural changes, and the traffic safety agency has proposed new rules that would require automakers to install side air bags as a way to mitigate the problem.

http://www.bridger.us/mini/pictures/.../0222_2_15.jpghttp://www.bridger.us/mini/pictures/.../0110_2_34.jpg
MINI vs F150
ummmm yeah.. I'll take a MINI.... since the F150 cab looks super deformed.

i always wondered why bumpers weren't a standard height...

stunning photo. Really visualizes those statistics. Personally, I've never really liked SUVs anyway, and this only solidifies my inclination to feel that way. I want a car that will protect me as I drive, not one that will make it more likely for me to be injured.

That's actually interesting, about a year or so ago, one of the news programs, Dateline, 20/20 something like that, I thought working with Consumer Reports, did a show on crash tests-- and the Minis (which are just butt ugly cars) came up practically dead last, like you would not walk away from a 35 mile an hour head on crash.

I was just joking about the Mini Cooper - mostly for Cynthetiq's benefit. He has a bit of a fetish.

Looks like you're safest in a minivan, actually, although whether that's because drivers are safer or the vehicles are safer, I'm not sure.

odd as the MINI has one of the highest safety records from NHSTA and several other bodies... (while they do have a look that only some can love...)

then again, after the whole Dateling/GM exploding fuel tank fiasco from years ago, I don't put too much stock in the reporting from the TV trenches.

Yeah I have heard elsewhere that SUV's are pretty dangerous, but Americans love that feeling of safety they get from SUV's. It's almost as if they get power trips being 3 feet higher off the ground then everyone else. I used to really oppose SUV's but have since given up wasting my energy trying to convince people they are bad.

I think the main issue with SUVs (besides the higher bumper and what they do to regular sized cars and pedestrians) is that the drivers of SUVs *think* they are safer and so take more chances...

In the winter, up here where we get really bad conditions, I am as likely to see a 4x4 SUV in the ditch as I am a regular car... Instead of slowing down like they should, drivers of SUVs frequently keep the same pace... trusting their 4x4 to keep them on the road.

It's not that I'm less safe because I drive a small car, it's that I'm less safe because other people drive SUVs. Honestly, I don't know what it is with people, but they get in an SUV and think they own the road. I've almost smashed my little Saturn numerous times dodging idiot SUV drivers. If you don't have five or more children, live in Nome, Alaska, or play a large musical instrument professionally, what do you need an SUV for? And don't even get me started on those stupid penis-extension pickup trucks.

You know, i dont think as a whole SUV drivers are any worse than regular drivers (in normal conditions at least), its just that because of their size, they are that much more noticable. I mean your going to remember almost being killed by a big rig far mor than almost getting hit by a Metro. But yes, in inclimate weather, SUV and AWD cars tend to get themselves into a lot of trouble.

Ya know, i've been looking at that a lot lately, and it seems they actually are very similar...on STOCK vehicles. The problem is that most people who get an SUV, at least in socal, dont want to leave them at stock height. You take a vehicle with an already high center of gravity, and raise it some more. Not only do you get rid of any bumper compatibility, but you also increase the risk of rollovers enormously.

And as for the "you dont need an SUV, so you should be allowed to have one" argument, i wont go into it too deep. but who is anyone to decide what i should or shouldn't be allowed to drive?

I thought that by deforming, the truck distributes the impact of the crash over a longer period of time, reducing the destructive force on the passenger. If you took a 4 foot pipe and chucked it at me so it hit dead on, it might kill me. If the pipe had 10 hinged bends in it, as it hit me it would fold accordion style. Same weight, same force, longer time during impact. It would still hurt like a bitch though.

All I can say towards the SUV vs Car issue is Caution = Safety. If everyone drove cautiously, there would be a hell of a lot less accidents.

I agree. It comes down to the drivers themselves.

while it may be dispensing energy... notice where the dashboard is vs. the crashtest dummy... note especially the legs. The dummy in the MINI is almost undisturbed.

I think it's the mentality of people in an SUV that creates all the problems. Like Charlatan says: they think they are impenetrable and so take more chances and pay less attention.

We have a minivan and it's so versatile, they have all the pros of having a large vehicle but none of the cons. Unless you think "but I don't look COOL!" is a con. We have moved so many people using that van, it's amazing how much they hold when you take the seats out.

I wouldn't buy an SUV because of the gas issues, but the '05 Escape Hybrid is coming out. As for why I would want an SUV? So I can fit in my car comfortably. I'm big. Even if I wasn't big, I'm 6'4", and therefore don't fit in most small cars without hunching my back, and I can't really drive like that.

Hey rukkyg, how will you park that SUV on the streets of Troy? :lol:

/local joke about the shittyness of parking in Troy

The problem is that people think that 4WD means they won't lose traction. They also seem to think that everyone but they will roll over. "Only idiots who can't drive roll over." ... as she takes a sharper-than-90° turn at 45mph.

Yeah, SUVs are by no means any safer than normal cars.

One thing that will probably inflate that SUV number is pickup trucks. I have seen 3 morons in pickup trucks (not that everyone is a moron who drives one) spin out at 25 miles per hour or so when taking turns in the past year. They have no weight in the back, and when people decelerate quickly it's even more pronounced, and when they then try to turn like a civic, they spin out like crazy. Few things are scarier for me as a pedestrian then when I'm walking and I see a pickup go sideways.

I drive a big ol' van. Thanks for making me feel safe!

i read a New Sci article ... as far as i remember there were 3 issues it mentioned
1) an SUV is basically a truck underside attached to a car top - cars have had so much work done on their road holding ... trucks less so
2) higher off the ground therefore less stable
3) a large percentage of accidents were due to people turning the SUV over, and a large percentage of fatalities were due to no seatbelts

anyway, with safety features like ABS brakes they find that it just makes people driver faster because they can ... so the safety improvement ends up being damn close to zero. if you give people more grip and traction they'll just push it harder until something bad happens ... human nature innit?

The problem I see on the road is people in SUVs drive them like cars, not trucks, you drive a SUV, truck, or jeep like a car it will bite you in the ass some day.

People buy them to use as cars, then are astonished that they dont drive, ride, and behave exactly like the Camry they traded off on it.

I think eveyone should have to drive Kenworth W900L's. That'd end all the size wars. :)

:thumbsup:
from my uncle who went from a Volvo turbo diesel to a Navigator,"It doesn't go as fast as my Volvo did, nor does it handle like it."

and he drove it like he drove his volvo...which was very bad, one time on the way to work I woke up with him driving the wrong way on the West Side Highway in NYC. I never fell asleep with him driving ever again.

lol i'm suprised you ever got in a car with him at all after that

I figured you were less safe driving a SUV because I was gonna shoot you for talking up too much road and trying to run me over when I ride my scooter.

I'd think if you take out rollovers, SUV's are much safer. I've been in 1 accident in my Explorer (older model, more prone to rollover), and when I got T-boned, it just pushed the door in and down, while the car that hit me folded up like an accordian. I was fine, the woman who hit me was pretty shook up. While it was only about a 35mph crash, I felt no tipping that would cause a rollover even though I got hit pretty hard. It all comes down to how you drive it. If you drive like an idiot, you're more likely to be less safe.

unless someone in a bigger SUV side impacts you and turns you over ... or some nut on a scooter shoots you in the ass ;)

yes it's true - people who drive like fools are less safe

suv's are evil in the hands of soccer moms and business executives who buy them for status. if those people stuck with thier caravans and porsches, respectively, the SUV wouldnt have such a bad rap.

*note: i drive a sports car. have always driven sports cars. will always drive sportscars.

BUT...i like the practicality of an SUV. particularly since i have so many outdoor hobbies and activities that require a trunk capable of handling more than one suitcase. do i think every SUV should have a powerstroke diesel or hemi? fuck no! cool hip mom doesnt need 300 hp and 340 foot pounds of torque to take her 50lb kids to soccer practice. gimme a fucking break!!! most people could probably get away with 6 cylinder SUV and get the same task(s) accomplished. the vehicles themselves are very useful and very practical...when purchased for the proper reasons. /end rant

You need to try some other cars. I'm 6'3 (with at least 2 inches of spiked hair) and fit in my teeny little Toyota MR2 comfortably.

I dont see why people get all up in arms over the SUV issue. If people want to buy an SUV, good for them. The bumper laws is a good point though. I used to have a Chevy truck lifted 8 inches. If I ever hit someone with that, even most SUVs, I'd be hitting them right at head level. If I T-Boned someone who happened to be driving a convertible, the skid guard of my truck would have ripped the top half of their torso off. Just something to think about :cool:

Vehicles are supposed to fold up like that (at least the front area, anyways). In an ideal situation, the front crumples and the driver area stays intact.

sarcasm

Only SUV drivers drive poorly or wrecklessly.

/sarcasm

I used to drive a full-size Bronco. Then I went to a crew-cab dually. That was a slight learning experience...... CURB CHECK!!!

I'm not sure if it's a trend in just the Midwest but majority of full-size SUV drivers are bad drivers. It's hard not to develop a road rage when you constantly get cut off by these careless drivers. I think SUVs aren't necessarily bad or unsafe, it's the person that's behind the wheels.

Stupid
Useless
Vehicles

Mostly, because I don't have one.

new yorker had a great article on this a few months ago. The main thing was that people in SUV's assume they are safer so paradoxically drive less safe.

It came down also to the fact that 4 wheel drive is largely useless on ice and that smaller cars are more responsive.

Agree with that thought ! ;)

There is only one problem with all vehicles. Human intelligence and the deficiency of it.

I take issue with a few things here, but one in particular: it is the mentality of smaller cars around larger cars that creates more of a driving hazard. As a former truck driver I can't tell you how many times i've seen people risk their / my life to hurry up and get in front of me, even though they know their exits an 1/8 of a mile down the road. Floor it when my blinker would go on to avoid the agony of me being in front of them. And this behavior is more the rule of thumb rather than an exception as you might expect.

Hey look, I can make a slanted post comparing the safety of small cars and SUVs by using one single example of each, too!

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../97019_2_2.jpg

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_rat.../0328_2_13.jpg

Cynthetiq, if you look closely at that picture that was rigged to look that way, completely different crash tests/speeds or else the people who did the test were neglegent.

They had the barrier set dead center for the mini, perfect for the absorbtion on what it was based on. They did not adjust for the truck, which was well below where it was designed to absorb the impact. This is VERY evident because of the forced projection at a 45 degree angle upwards, this is the most perfect placement on a frontal strike for this truck for maximum damage. Instead of hitting the frame of the truck, or even the crumple zone which is what absorbs almost all of the energy, the protrusion struck the axle which is clear in the picture. The axle isnt designed for absorbtion and it's THIS that caused the interior damage. The reason I suspect this was the intended occurance is the object is not flat, but a protrusion. Where will you ever see an occurance like this while driving? Point two on this: The reason I think it's completely different tests is the protruding object in picture 2 does not match with the damage done to the mini. There is no puncture like crumple (it's flat, not a > shape), this simply does not match with the object shown in picture two.

Now you may say things like this happen, but if you look at the height not very likely. They design the highway barriers to be high enough for semi's, so I promise you they'd be higher than 2.5 feet.

Now if you try to argue off of that picture that the mini is safer let's look at a head-on collision. The truck would use that thing as a ramp, the people in the mini would be killed instantly. How is that safer?

Now I agree that there are a lot of shitty SUV drivers, but from personal experience there's a lot worse car drivers than SUV/trucks. Besides, I tend not to trust anything the NY Times says anymore, we all know how trustworthy their reports have been in the past couple years...

It's the same test, it's just that he happened to pick one of the best-performing small cars versus the worst-performing pickup truck.

The photos I posted are also of that same test, just an unsafe small car versus a very safe truck--an newer version of the same one Cynthetiq posted (Ford F-150), as a matter of fact.

actually as MINI enthusiast (an still non owner) it was a NHSTA website coverage that I picked it up from that was written up and posted several months back.

damn you suv owners are getting really defensive

For starters, when vehicles collide SUV's/trucks are higher in the air. Which means the bottom of the bumper will ride up onto a car in a head on collision which puts all the energy of the crash onto the car, most likely killing the front passenger/passengers, and that's a fact. So these fucking head on collisions into a wall with an SUV/truck mean absolutely nothing. Well, unless you hit a brick wall or another SUV..... BTW, most accidents aren't head on collisions.

And this death per 100,000 vehicles is a joke also. Because 100,000 SUV's are carrying waaaay more passengers than 100,00 cars, and that's another fact. So lets tally up the amount of passengers in the vehicles first.

The only thing that would worry me about driving an SUV would be rolling it. My girlfriend was borrowing someone's 02 Blazer last week, was clipped from behind while turning, and the Blazer flipped a few times. But because she was wearing her seatbelt, as she always does and I almost never do, she walked away with some cuts and bruises on her left arm because when the vehicle flipped on the driver side her arm was against the window, the glass shattered, which lodged 8 pieces of glass in her arm, then skid across the pavement for a few seconds until the vehicle flipped once more. She was lucky, the Blazer was totaled, and she walked away. I'm sure that more people would survive roll over accidents if they were wearing their seat belts, but that's a personal choice we all make, and I'll never tell anyone to wear one because I don't do it myself.

And I'll tell you one thing. If you had to be in a head on collision, and the two vehicles were a Mini and a full size pick up truck. Only a moron would take the Mini. A big ass truck will total a Mini. The truck outweighs and out powers the Mini which puts almost all of the energy of the two vehicles into the Mini. Just think. When they collide which vehicle is barely gonna move and which will go flying back 15 feet. I doubt I need to answer this. The vehicle that gets thrown back is absorbing nearly all of the energy from the crash. A truck would nearly run that little fucking car over, and I don't need to see pics from a stupid crash test in a controlled environment. Newsflash!!!!! Accidents don't happen in controlled environments people!!

Just so you know, I'm not an SUV owner. I own a Civic, and I'll bet my ass that an SUV/truck would absolutely kill me in a head on collision.

Tell me how safe a car over a SUV when you hit a moose. That is a reality here.

SAAB happens to have the highest safety record for hitting Moose for some reason...

I'm soo with you Cedar, I love my little saturn, but I've been in an accident with an SUV and he completely crushed my hood without even touching the bumper or headlights (wish I had taken pics)

I thought wearing a seat belt is mandatory. Not a question of personal choice.

And while we're on seat belts: what's the deal with not wearing a seat belt?

I dont drive an SUV, in fact I hate 90% of those who drive them. I just dont like statistics that dont hold up to scrutiny. Sixate stated most of what I was going to about SUV/Truck survivability being easily under emphisized in statistics and tests.

Sure, there is a law in Ohio to make it mandatory to wear one, but it's not like your car won't start if your seat belt isn't on. I choose not to wear it, that's my choice and the risk I take. I understand the consequences of my actions. If I get pulled over and get a ticket for not wearing one, which has happened twice, I won't bitch. I'll pay the fucking $50 fine, and continue to not wear it.

Snip
Really now.. that my friend is alot of people to hate. What about them do you hate?

Yeah, true. Actually, I'm waiting for Volvo to start making cars that refuse to run if the occupants aren't all wearing.

What I don't understand is: what is the big deal with not wearing your seat belt? It doesn't restrict your movements. It keeps you from breaking your teeth in the steering wheel if you rear-end someone. In a fast corner, it keeps you from sliding out of your seat.

Unless you do it in protest of a regulation you find unnecessary? But there's so many regulations that I find unnecessary. Can't possibly break all of 'em...

We had a 1976 Ford Granada had that "feature" sensors in the seats determined if driver and passenger were seated and belted as appropriate. Since it was a pain and not a law at the time, the parents figured out that if you lifted your butt when starting it would start. thus defeating the start/seat belt feature.

See, here's what it comes down to. It's my car, and I'm not doing anything inside of it that's harming anyone else. Me not wearing a seatbelt hurts nobody, and it's never hurt me either. It's a risk I take, and I'll continue to take that risk. And I'll tell you why. Here in Ohio it is legal to ride a motorcycle without, and I repeat, without a helmet. You can't possibly tell me it's more dangerous for me to drive my car without a seatbelt than what it is to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, can you?

As far as I can tell, driving without a seatbelt is even safer than riding a motorcycle with a helmet, let alone without one. Can't see how much that helmet's gonna help in a highway pile up or a high speed wipe out. Maybe a lot of bikers will agree. I see people on motorcycles wearing a t-shirt, shorts and sandals, and a helmet. How insane is that? Lose the helmet!

You're talking about "taking a risk" when choosing not to wear the belt. If I assume you're referring to the risk of injuries, then you acknowledge the usefulness of seatbelts, yet refuse to wear one. Sounds like a protest to me. No big deal: I agree with you. It's nobody's business whether I wear a seatbelt or not. (Well, maybe my girlfriend will like me more without all of my teeth smashed into the back of my throat.)

Me, I'd have belts fitted to the car if they weren't mandatory and the car came without 'em. In a crash, I'd rather not have the steering wheel crack open my chest, or bust through the windshield with my forehead.

But that's me and I'm a pussy. :-) That and the fact that when I was 6 I "borrowed" dad's car keys and while playing with the ignition, managed to start his car and even pull away, hitting another parked vehicle at what must have been 10 miles an hour. I busted 2 front teeth on the steering wheel and had a welt as big a as pear on my forehead for a week. My cousin was in the back seat, and she managed to break a couple of teeth as she smacked the back of my seat! How much more fun can you have as a kid! Luckily, those were milk teeth. And yes, it was a stick shift.

actually they are for cars, but trucks aren't regulated because at the time of the laws, no one drove a truck unless they NEEDED a truck.

This is why lowering/raising your vehicle is illegal in many places.

There is an addition safety issue hardly ever mentioned, that is the number of accidents which occur during left turns at larger intersections due to the inability to see beyond some monster SUV or truck headed the opposite direction and also turning left. This problem existed before the SUV boom, vans and commercial trucks presented the same problem but their numbers were so few there impact on driving safety was minimal. Here where I live better than 50% of those vehicles in the turn lane are pickups and SUVs, and left turn related accident increasing.

Now WTF is the difference between an SUV and a minivan.

I'll tell you what the difference is. The DRIVER... and the passengers. If you're a 40yr old mother with a backseat full of kids you are going to drive differently than the average person driving an F-150 or an SUV.

I know I drive a lot differently when theres someone riding with me, even if it's a friend or whatever. I don't like to make other people nervous. If I ever have kids I am sure I would be that much more cautios when I drive them somewhere.

The vehicles have a different purpose and attract different drivers. I have seen SUV drivers do absolutley idiotic things, just because they "could". Things like drive over grass and curbs just to avoid a red light. Back in highschool my friend used to drive his SUV on a huge pile of woodchips behind the school. Now come on, where is the intelligence in that.

Big cars make people do stupid things.

I hear people complain about this a lot. Now for the record I drive an Escort and I drive it down to my school about 20mi on the freeway everyday. I see a lot of big cars and semis and the like and I've never had a REAL issue.

If I'm behind them then I can follow them safely. If I'm in an adjacent turn lane I don't have to look at the other traffic, just look at the stoplight and wait for my arrow (and if its a double left turn lane there WILL be an arrow of course, it would be much too dangerous without).

If theres an SUV on my left and hes turning left and im next to him turning right, sure I cant actually SEE the road to my left... but if he's pulling out to make a left turn then logically it must be safe for me to make a right turn at the same time correct?

I am only 18 but hey, I've had my liscence since I was about 16 and a half and I've never had an accident, so all I can say is my methods work for me. Test them at your own risk. :)


Frankly, I'd rather drive a small car with small blindspots (my car has practically none) and be lower to the ground, than drive a big ass SUV with 3 or 4 blind spots and be above most other traffic.