Fielding feedback on sport utilities
Todd David Whitmore
The Common Good
One of the benefits of writing columns is that I often hear and learn from readers. In my last column, written half in jest and wholly serious, I argued that sport utility vehicles or "SUV's" violated Catholic social teaching in a number of ways. Their wasteful gas mileage, excess emissions and threat to both others and the vehicle's own passengers appeared to be in conflict with human dignity, solidarity and the common good in those instances — which is most of the time — when other vehicles would do. I also indicated that the posturing inherent in most ownership of SUV's was part of a consumer society that so pursues image that it divorces freedom from truth.
I received more responses to that column than virtually any other and those against SUV's outnumbered those in favor by a ratio of eight to one. On the wasteful gas mileage, I learned from one reader that changing from an average car to a 13 miles per gallon sport utility vehicle for one year would waste more energy than if one left the refrigerator door open for six years or had the television on for 28 years. Regarding emissions, I learned that while a Honda Civic produces 40 tons of carbon dioxide over 124,000 miles (itself a lot), a Chevy Suburban releases one 115 tons and a Ford Excursion 134 tons, well over three times that of the Civic.
On the point regarding danger to others, a number of people reported difficulty seeing around SUV's, making pulling out into traffic — say, taking a right from the right-hand lane when the SUV is to the left of you and blocking your ability to see traffic coming from the left — much more hazardous. In other words, the extra visibility that SUV drivers seek denies others the ability to see at all in critical situations. Other people reported that the height and bulk of SUV's actually work against the extra visibility that their drivers seek: these people said that SUV drivers often seemed not to see them but rather to see right over them.
One commenter provided additional information regarding the use of car phones. It seems that studies have shown that drivers using car phones are sufficiently distracted that they are as likely to get in accidents as someone who is legally drunk. The most dangerous vehicle, this respondent said, is the SUV with a car phone.
Another person made an interesting point with respect to the danger to those in the SUV itself. He said that although SUV's, because of their greater mass, cause more destruction to other vehicles, when they collide with things bigger than they are — for instance, a bridge abutment — the threat to passengers in the SUV itself is accentuated. This is because SUV's are listed as trucks, not as cars and so do not have to have the same safety standards. They therefore do not have what is called a "compression zone" between the mass of metal and the passengers that is required of cars. This particular respondent called it the bully syndrome: SUV's threaten (as they are designed to do) those objects smaller than they are, but do not stand up when what is in question is an object as big or bigger.
A number of comments came in regarding the issue of the SUV image in a consumer society. Again, Charles Wheelan, whose horrible one-vehicle SUV rollover I recounted last time, admits that he bought the SUV because it "projected a different image than a minivan or a station wagon." I left out the final lines of his own column: "I should never have put my family in that truck or any other like it."
One respondent pointed out that the zenith — the nadir? — of such image seeking is "that oxymoron, the luxury sport utility vehicle." Lexus and Mercedes now make vehicles of this type. In these cases, he pointed out, "the press for image is so strong — going for two at once — that it is lost on the owner that the activities that the images convey are incompatible."
A number of people tried to give me solace when reading that my car was hit by two SUV's in a month. The comment of one stands out: "Look, I get mad too. But this is what I do. I think back. To 1988 to be exact. Remember the presidential election then? Bush vs. Dukakis. Bush was 17 points behind when running against nobody, just anybody the Democrats might put up. It was Bush against anyone and he loses. Then the Democrats put up Mike Dukakis. Now, people point to this and that as to why Dukakis lost.
But I know what turned it in favor of Bush. It was that ad that had Dukakis riding in that tank. Bush had a war record; Dukakis thought that he had to look tough. So he turns out this ad with him and his head in a helmet sticking out of a tank smiling and bobbing like those figures with heads on a spring that people put in the back windows of their cars. But everyone knew what a crock it was. So I know they get you mad, but when you think of those SUV drivers and the tanks they buy for image, think Dukakis '88."
One writer in favor of SUV's argued that in the mountains of Montana and Wyoming they are necessary, and are not just for image. Indeed, these are examples of where such vehicles aid travel where other vehicles may not.
This is why I said that SUV's are fine when there is a "specific need" for them and, "There may well be places and times where high carriage on a vehicle is helpful." The tougher cases are those where the region is not mountainous, but receives a lot of snow (again, Indiana does not count).
In unplowed areas after a storm, the high carriage can be of help. The trade-off is that the narrow wheel base in comparison to the height of the vehicle makes the SUV a liability when the roads are cleared of snow, but ice may remain. My wife lived in New York 30 miles from the Canadian border for two years. There the vehicle of choice was the Subaru because of its all-wheel drive and wide wheel base relative to height. In most cases, however, the situation is like that which one respondent reported from New Jersey: the SUV's are only put into four-wheel drive at the Mall in order to facilitate driving over curbs.
A writer defending the vehicles suggested that the reason that people who actually rock climb do not drive SUV's is because they would rather spend their money on climbing gear or work less and go on a climbing trip. And that was exactly my point: while generalizations must be made with caution, it can be ventured that most of those who actually rock climb would rather partake in the activity itself than look like they might be someone who partakes in that activity.
Todd David Whitmore is an associate professor in the theology department. His column runs every other Thursday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Thursday, February 1, 2001
