EARLIER this month, perhaps in preemptive celebration of Earth Day, the National Highway Safety and Traffic Administration announced that it was raising the required average fuel efficiency standard in the "light truck" category. It will be 22.2 mpg beginning with the 2007 models. This is a whopping 1.5 mpg increase over the current regulation.
This token increase is laughable. With the technology we have and the innovation that Americans have always prided themselves on, there's no reason why much larger steps cannot be taken. Here is one of the first steps: America needs to end its love affair with the SUV.
As far as fuel efficiency goes, SUVs are not the only offenders. Many sports cars are just as wasteful and furthermore claim no redeeming qualities other than the driver's ego boost. However, due to their overwhelming prevalence, SUVs are more of a concern, and the redeeming qualities their manufacturers claim are fabrications.
Despite what the commercials show, few SUVs ever leave the pavement. With many of them, a quick look at their tires reveals that they would not survive off-road for a minute. They make it through snow a few times a year, depending on where they are, but all-wheel drive sedans and wagons do that just as well. The "sport utility" of these vehicles is a misnomer.
SUV manufacturers and owners usually justify the vehicles with claims of increased safety. This is the hook used on parents, the implication being that they might not be doing everything they can to protect their children unless they drive a really big car. However, the best way to not be injured is to never be in an accident in the first place: Taller, heavier cars are less maneuverable and have longer stopping distances, meaning that they can not avoid accidents as easily. Four-wheel drive does nothing to help you get out of the way.
As far as single vehicle crashes go, it takes more force to stop a heavier object than a lighter one moving at the same speed. The extra momentum that the heavier object has must be absorbed somewhere -- this is simply a law of physics. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, "Heavy vehicles with stiff frames (most SUVs) might actually do more to harm the vehicle's occupants because there is little give, or energy absorption engineering, to dissipate the force of running into an immovable object." So if you drift off the road into an overpass support, you would actually be safer in a smaller car. The important thing is not the weight of the car, which can actually make you less safe, but how well it is designed to dampen impact.
But it is in crashes with other vehicles that SUVs and trucks are the most deplorable. In those crashes, the occupants of the SUV will be safer, but the occupants of a smaller car will be put in far greater jeopardy. Since heavier cars have more momentum and generally absorb less shock, a smaller car will find itself pushed around and absorbing a majority of the force. With some of the largest SUVs, such as the much-hyped H2, the smaller car may actually get run over.
Anyone who dismisses what SUVs do to the occupants of smaller cars, or thinks it makes SUV driving even more sensible, needs to ask a very basic question: why don't we care about other people? The safest crash to be in, all other things being equal, is two small cars, because there's the greatest chance that everyone involved will walk away.
In arguing against higher fuel efficiency standards, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (a Washington-based lobby group) frequently cites the higher selling rate of SUVs. They claim that people simply dislike more fuel efficient cars, and that the manufacturers are responding to consumer demand. However, car companies spend huge sums on advertising, and it is impossible to watch TV without noticing how many commercials there are for SUVs and trucks. Images of freedom and power are constantly evoked, as if anyone driving an economy car is somehow not fulfilling their duties as an American. Is it unreasonable to think that this same advertising machine could be employed for better cars?
There should be no cars for sale that waste fuel by not being as efficient as possible. Pollution from the burning of fossil fuels leads to global warming as well as respiratory diseases. Over 50 percent of the oil consumed in the United States has to be imported; that proportion is growing and so are the foreign policy implications.
There is no reason to be wasteful. It is arrogant and stupid, and it will continue to get us into trouble, both politically and environmentally. The only safety gained for a large, inefficient car is at the expense of everyone else. So go check out the Civic hybrid and unless you're going on a peace-keeping mission, get rid of the Hummer.
(Dave Algoso's column appeared Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dalgoso@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
