7 ms·

One of my favorite philosophy papers: "Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked?" by Douglas Husak. He argues, base on data that SUVs have a hig

by yboris 5y ago

One of my favorite philosophy papers: "Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked?" by Douglas Husak. He argues, base on data that SUVs have a high crash incompatibility with other cars, they are immoral. SUVs impose disproportionate damage to other cars, resulting in excess deaths and injuries that otherwise would not happen. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447

giantg2 5y ago
Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? One ould have to select the vehicle capable of accommodating the most people and situations. Many large/tall people have trouble fitting into cars. You can't pull livestock in a car either. It's like two people are in a room. One says they're hot. The other says they're cold. The hot person can only take off so many clothes, while the cold person could put on warmer clothes. Edit: is nobody reading this in the context of the parent comment?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Why should there be a single default, instead of a default for each actual use case?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Because they are claiming that the energy mismatch is immoral. Still allowing larger vehicles on the road does not address that mismatch and the "moral" aspect.
- ironman1478 5y ago
  Car makers are making this the default. Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings. The problem is that even within the class of SUVs and trucks, those vehicles have gotten larger and faster over time. The analogy of the hot and cold person assumes the hot person is wearing a t-shirt and sweater, when in reality when you compare it to vehicles, it's more like they are wearing that gortex jacket from Seinfeld + 3 layers of sweaters. People don't need to cater to somebody unreasonable. People don't need SUVs. They provide like no advantage compared to a wagon to most people and endanger everybody else.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings." What? Do you have a source? "People don't need SUVs. They provide like no advantage compared to a wagon to most people and endanger everybody else." Can you pull a livestock trailer with a wagon? Anytime you get in any vehicle there is the potential that you endanger other people. Should we ban EVs? A Tesla S can weigh more than an F150... "The analogy of the hot and cold person assumes the hot person is wearing a t-shirt and sweater, when in reality when you compare it to vehicles, it's more like they are wearing that gortex jacket from Seinfeld + 3 layers of sweaters." Then the analogy still works well because the hot person still has clothes to remove. It's when people complain about being cold in the summer and don't wear heavier clothes while the warm people are already wearing the socially acceptable minimum. It's about approaching constraints.
    - jbigelow76 5y ago
      "Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings." What? Do you have a source? Doubling down on the livestock angle? I thought you were trolling. Can you pull a livestock trailer with a wagon? I see now that domestic livestock logistics is a passion of yours. Surely you have sources to tell us how many F-150s it takes to get our bacon to the local Wal-Mart.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Please read the comment chain. If you ban SUVs and trucks, there is a segment of the population that will be negatively affected by not having the ability to perform their tasks. The question was way ban SUVs and not cars - that eliminates the energy mismatch and allows the most people the utility they need. I'm asking that person if they've thought of these details when they made their comment.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - ironman1478 5y ago
- jbigelow76 5y ago
  You can't pull livestock in a car either. Yeah, because so many people are trying to fit three head of cattle into a fucking Ford Expedition.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    The other person is saying the mismatch in size/weight is immoral, so SUVs should be banned. I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. That eliminates the mismatch and provides use to the most people because there are things you just can't do with a car, and even people who cannot comfortably/safely fit in them.
    - jbigelow76 5y ago
      I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. Because you are willfully ignoring the pedestrian angle by saying the default should be SUV over sedans. Here's one of many sources that is very easy to google for. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s...
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "Because you are willfully ignoring the pedestrian angle by saying the default should be SUV over sedans." I'm not ignoring it, I'm taking a systems thinking approach to the proposed ban. If it's all about pedestrians, then we should also ban EVs (all cars, really). https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/axa-insurance-claims-high-end-evs-crash-more/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/axa-insurance-claims-high... https://frankellawfirm.com/are-electric-vehicles-leading-to-more-pedestrian-accidents/ https://frankellawfirm.com/are-electric-vehicles-leading-to-...
        jbigelow76 5y ago
        If it's all about pedestrians, then we should also ban EVs (all cars, really). You've opened yourself up to the same absurd reduction, saying if even one farmer is disadvantaged then the standard should be towards the heavy pick-up/SUV instead of the sedan. You talk about "systems" and you say you are not ignoring the pedestrian portion of the system but you have not spoken to it. I would like to hear your position on the energy mismatch between pedestrian vs heavy vehicle as compared to energy mismatch between sedan and pedestrian. What is your perception of the pedestrian, their agency, their right of way in regards to the roads, etc... in the system you have in your head?
- richk449 5y ago
  > Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? (1) Many people can't afford larger vehicles. (2) It is a bad idea to make everyone spend more money on transportation. (3) Larger vehicles have worse gas mileage and are thus worse for the environment. (4) How do you implement the "baselineing"? Does congress pass a law that says all cars on the road must weigh more than X lbs? Seems like an odd policy. (5) Moving more people to SUVs will increase pedestrian and bike deaths, not decrease. (6) So everyone has a SUV. Won't some people just buy bigger SUVs to regain their previous safety status? Doesn't this just cause a race to the bottom? Why would you want to encourage that?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I'm not actually advocating this. The other person is saying the mismatch in size/weight is immoral, so SUVs should be banned. I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. That eliminates the mismatch and provides use to the most people.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      And also ban walking and bikes you mean?
      - oefnak 5y ago
        Or maybe genetically engineer people to be bigger.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        No, but clearly society has accepted the risks with cars, right? They could change city design be safer, or change the drivers test to be less of a joke. After all people do still die when hit with smaller vehicles. And looking at the study, you cloud just limit speed. Pedestrian outcomes are the same for cars and SUVs under 20 mph.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      That's kind of like saying that instead of denuclearization, let's just make having nuclear warheads the default and everyone else can get warheads too.
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? Apparently you aren't joking. 1. Because of pedestrians. 2. Because of bicyclists. 3. Because SUVs and trucks are wildly wasteful of the environment 4. Because SUVs and trucks are expensive so it means the rich kill the poor. 5. Because we are destroying the planet with our emissions and our waste, and you advocate more waste? Seriously?????
  - giantg2 5y ago
    1 and 2 can be handled via other means, like city design and speed control. 5 - EVs would not be producing emissions. 3 and 4 - you can also say these things about cars.
- gilbetron 5y ago
  Two cars colliding are safer than two SUVs colliding, it's simple physics. More energy = more damage, generally speaking. I'm 6'4" and never have trouble fitting in the vast majority of cars. In fact, most sedans are more comfortable for me than many SUVs.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Even with a rear-facing car seat behind you? I find it extremely uncomfortable, and even unsafe, if your knees are touching the dash and/or your head is touching the roof. "Two cars colliding are safer than two SUVs colliding, it's simple physics. More energy = more damage, generally speaking." There's also more energy absorbing material from the amount of energy the crumple zone can absorb. And the interior space make it less likely that it will crush you if the crumpling does extend into the cabin. "There are 20 percent fewer deaths when two SUVs collide than when two cars collide." This is an older article with some outdated info (like A pillars are larger and impact zones on cars have gotten higher), but this seems to refute your claim. https://issues.org/graham/ https://issues.org/graham/
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
Thanks for the link. This moral issue is indeed really fascinating. Cars are one of the few places where we regularly accept preventable deaths as faultless accidents. Across wide swaths of the US there's an implicit assumption that if a pedestrian gets hit they somehow deserved it, or that the only people that walk or bike are people too poor to buy a car and hence undeserving of compassion or justice. Our society is so saturated with these attitudes it's a bit shocking once you see it clearly in the abstract.
- ironman1478 5y ago
  Yeah, it's the saddest thing. I think what sucks, is that people don't really know how much better our lives would be if we were less car dependent. There are 6 million accidents a year. That means that like at least 18 million people ar affected (gotta get that car fixed in the best case right?) each year, at a minimum (let's assume a family of one child and two parents and one of these people gets into an accident and let's assume they were crashing into just walls or something). Accidents aren't just bad for the people in the accident, but they cause financial stress and mental stress to the families affected. If we just discouraged driving by even a small percent (and thus a small fraction of accidents) so many people's lives would be better, simply due to the magnitudes as play.
- matsemann 5y ago
  Just read any headline after a collision and weep. For instance if a driver fails to yield and causes a cyclist to drive into it, the headline will most likely read any of: Cyclist hits car (implicitly blaming the cyclist). Car and cyclist involved in accident (an accident, nothing anyone could do, nothing to learn here). Cyclist hurt after car failed to yield (at least getting the story straight, but still the driver isn't mentioned, as if the car is acting on its own and the driver is a passive innocent person). Cyclist hit by car (no, again it's making the active part passive, it should read Car hits cyclist if so). https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter110/article8/ https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter110/article8/
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
slim 5y ago
Part of the appeal of SUVs is they put you in a superior position in case of crash. It's for people with competitive mindsets.
- grp000 5y ago
  I don't know if it's intentional, but it feels like you're implying these people are actively looking to cause crashes. Safety, storage, terrain capabilities, and "command position" are all going to be factors.
  - jbigelow76 5y ago
    I don't think the gp is implying that people are actively looking to cause crashes. What they are saying is that a "better you than me" mentality (which is unfortunately quite rational) is definitely a factor in the overall buying decision.
- anonfornoreason 5y ago
  I now drive a large truck, and moved my wife to a large SUV. The area we live in is more rural, with the small car being an exception. I absolutely was thinking about my family over anyone else when I made that decision. I have always tended to buy smaller cars and was a bit skeptical about larger vehicles, but once you get used to one it's really hard to imagine going back, at least when there's a size difference in the area you commonly drive in.
  - dbt00 5y ago
    When I was growing up in the 90s I lived in a rural area. I drove a late 70s-early 80s style detroit land yacht. I was an idiot and ended up in a cornfield doing 70mph. So did a classmate driving an SUV a few months later. Do you want to guess which one walked away and which one died from a rollover crash?
- giardini 5y ago
  SUVs are possibly safer if you collide with a smaller vehicle. But they are not safer in general. And they are especially not safer for pedestrians as the OP's URL says. Here's another earlier URL on that topic: https://www.treehugger.com/nhtsa-keeps-blaming-victims-instead-regulating-suvs-and-pickups-4851894 https://www.treehugger.com/nhtsa-keeps-blaming-victims-inste... SUVs roll over and, when they do, their occupants brains are often smashed. Not good for your next Google interview. SUVs are less maneuverable and can be unstable if one attempts to change course, especially at higher speed such as freeway driving. This is even more serious in rain and ridiculously obvious in ice/snow. Sedans are safer b/c - they are designed to be safer (sedan safety standards are more demanding than those of SUVs), - they are more maneuverable and brake better and - they protect you from front/rear/side impacts and from rollovers. Sure, the sedan is destroyed, but it did it's job, which is to protect you. You can always get a new car but you can't get a new brain if yours is pancaked.
rapind 5y ago
It’s all SUVs and trucks where I live. I was really into cars growing up, then I got over it. It’s so far beyond practicality and well into excess, like most shit around here.
jupp0r 5y ago
What's the matter with the SUV hate? Semis, vans, work trucks, etc are much bigger.
- OccamsMirror 5y ago
  They serve a utility. Vast majority of SUVs on the road are people that would be as well served with a standard sedan.
  - jupp0r 5y ago
    The vast majority of pickup trucks on the road are people that use the truck bed once or twice per year. Why single out SUVs?
    - TomSwirly 5y ago
      We all agree that any person who drives a big truck as a passenger vehicle is an antisocial personality, yes.
- afterburner 5y ago
  > Semis, vans, work trucks, etc are much bigger. You might be surprised if you check actual weights. After all, the original SUVs were literally just truck frames with nicer (and therefore heavier) cabins.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  I've been driving full sized vans since I got my license. In fact I took my driving test in a Dodge Tradesman. That thing is maybe a smidge smaller than my current van. I've been watching SUV's and Trucks get bigger and bigger over the last twenty years. Back in the 90's wasn't that common to share the road with anything the same size other than heavy work trucks and other vans. Now a lot of SUV's and weekend warrior trucks are as big/bigger.
TomSwirly 5y ago
In my experience, SUV drivers are much more likely to be completely crazy. Example: when I lived in NYC, I was walking across an intersection, with the light, an SUV going through the red light - very slowly - knocked me down (because I wasn't looking at him), and kept going! I got up, yelled, "Hey, you hit me!" but the SUV continued forcing its way through the pedestrians, against the light. I thumped on the hood, and the man opened the door, leaving his car to block traffic, and chased me across Eighth Ave, till I luckily found some police officers, who of course refused to do anything even when I pointed out his SUV parked in the middle of the street, and all the witnesses watching. The man was literally insane. Drool fell from his mouth as he chased me. I have seen similar things where I wasn't the target.

by yboris 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? One ould have to select the vehicle capable of accommodating the most people and situations. Many large/tall people have trouble fitting into cars. You can't pull livestock in a car either. It's like two people are in a room. One says they're hot. The other says they're cold. The hot person can only take off so many clothes, while the cold person could put on warmer clothes. Edit: is nobody reading this in the context of the parent comment?

tshaddox 5y ago
Why should there be a single default, instead of a default for each actual use case?
- giantg2 5y ago
  Because they are claiming that the energy mismatch is immoral. Still allowing larger vehicles on the road does not address that mismatch and the "moral" aspect.
ironman1478 5y ago
Car makers are making this the default. Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings. The problem is that even within the class of SUVs and trucks, those vehicles have gotten larger and faster over time. The analogy of the hot and cold person assumes the hot person is wearing a t-shirt and sweater, when in reality when you compare it to vehicles, it's more like they are wearing that gortex jacket from Seinfeld + 3 layers of sweaters. People don't need to cater to somebody unreasonable. People don't need SUVs. They provide like no advantage compared to a wagon to most people and endanger everybody else.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings." What? Do you have a source? "People don't need SUVs. They provide like no advantage compared to a wagon to most people and endanger everybody else." Can you pull a livestock trailer with a wagon? Anytime you get in any vehicle there is the potential that you endanger other people. Should we ban EVs? A Tesla S can weigh more than an F150... "The analogy of the hot and cold person assumes the hot person is wearing a t-shirt and sweater, when in reality when you compare it to vehicles, it's more like they are wearing that gortex jacket from Seinfeld + 3 layers of sweaters." Then the analogy still works well because the hot person still has clothes to remove. It's when people complain about being cold in the summer and don't wear heavier clothes while the warm people are already wearing the socially acceptable minimum. It's about approaching constraints.
  - jbigelow76 5y ago
    "Ford is (or has?) eliminated cars from their American offerings." What? Do you have a source? Doubling down on the livestock angle? I thought you were trolling. Can you pull a livestock trailer with a wagon? I see now that domestic livestock logistics is a passion of yours. Surely you have sources to tell us how many F-150s it takes to get our bacon to the local Wal-Mart.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Please read the comment chain. If you ban SUVs and trucks, there is a segment of the population that will be negatively affected by not having the ability to perform their tasks. The question was way ban SUVs and not cars - that eliminates the energy mismatch and allows the most people the utility they need. I'm asking that person if they've thought of these details when they made their comment.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - ironman1478 5y ago
jbigelow76 5y ago
You can't pull livestock in a car either. Yeah, because so many people are trying to fit three head of cattle into a fucking Ford Expedition.
- giantg2 5y ago
  The other person is saying the mismatch in size/weight is immoral, so SUVs should be banned. I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. That eliminates the mismatch and provides use to the most people because there are things you just can't do with a car, and even people who cannot comfortably/safely fit in them.
  - jbigelow76 5y ago
    I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. Because you are willfully ignoring the pedestrian angle by saying the default should be SUV over sedans. Here's one of many sources that is very easy to google for. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s...
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "Because you are willfully ignoring the pedestrian angle by saying the default should be SUV over sedans." I'm not ignoring it, I'm taking a systems thinking approach to the proposed ban. If it's all about pedestrians, then we should also ban EVs (all cars, really). https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/axa-insurance-claims-high-end-evs-crash-more/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/axa-insurance-claims-high... https://frankellawfirm.com/are-electric-vehicles-leading-to-more-pedestrian-accidents/ https://frankellawfirm.com/are-electric-vehicles-leading-to-...
      - jbigelow76 5y ago
        If it's all about pedestrians, then we should also ban EVs (all cars, really). You've opened yourself up to the same absurd reduction, saying if even one farmer is disadvantaged then the standard should be towards the heavy pick-up/SUV instead of the sedan. You talk about "systems" and you say you are not ignoring the pedestrian portion of the system but you have not spoken to it. I would like to hear your position on the energy mismatch between pedestrian vs heavy vehicle as compared to energy mismatch between sedan and pedestrian. What is your perception of the pedestrian, their agency, their right of way in regards to the roads, etc... in the system you have in your head?
richk449 5y ago
> Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? (1) Many people can't afford larger vehicles. (2) It is a bad idea to make everyone spend more money on transportation. (3) Larger vehicles have worse gas mileage and are thus worse for the environment. (4) How do you implement the "baselineing"? Does congress pass a law that says all cars on the road must weigh more than X lbs? Seems like an odd policy. (5) Moving more people to SUVs will increase pedestrian and bike deaths, not decrease. (6) So everyone has a SUV. Won't some people just buy bigger SUVs to regain their previous safety status? Doesn't this just cause a race to the bottom? Why would you want to encourage that?
- giantg2 5y ago
  I'm not actually advocating this. The other person is saying the mismatch in size/weight is immoral, so SUVs should be banned. I'm asking why ban SUVs and not cars. That eliminates the mismatch and provides use to the most people.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    And also ban walking and bikes you mean?
    - oefnak 5y ago
      Or maybe genetically engineer people to be bigger.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      No, but clearly society has accepted the risks with cars, right? They could change city design be safer, or change the drivers test to be less of a joke. After all people do still die when hit with smaller vehicles. And looking at the study, you cloud just limit speed. Pedestrian outcomes are the same for cars and SUVs under 20 mph.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    That's kind of like saying that instead of denuclearization, let's just make having nuclear warheads the default and everyone else can get warheads too.
TomSwirly 5y ago
> Why not set SUVs and trucks as the default then? Apparently you aren't joking. 1. Because of pedestrians. 2. Because of bicyclists. 3. Because SUVs and trucks are wildly wasteful of the environment 4. Because SUVs and trucks are expensive so it means the rich kill the poor. 5. Because we are destroying the planet with our emissions and our waste, and you advocate more waste? Seriously?????
- giantg2 5y ago
  1 and 2 can be handled via other means, like city design and speed control. 5 - EVs would not be producing emissions. 3 and 4 - you can also say these things about cars.
gilbetron 5y ago
Two cars colliding are safer than two SUVs colliding, it's simple physics. More energy = more damage, generally speaking. I'm 6'4" and never have trouble fitting in the vast majority of cars. In fact, most sedans are more comfortable for me than many SUVs.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Even with a rear-facing car seat behind you? I find it extremely uncomfortable, and even unsafe, if your knees are touching the dash and/or your head is touching the roof. "Two cars colliding are safer than two SUVs colliding, it's simple physics. More energy = more damage, generally speaking." There's also more energy absorbing material from the amount of energy the crumple zone can absorb. And the interior space make it less likely that it will crush you if the crumpling does extend into the cabin. "There are 20 percent fewer deaths when two SUVs collide than when two cars collide." This is an older article with some outdated info (like A pillars are larger and impact zones on cars have gotten higher), but this seems to refute your claim. https://issues.org/graham/ https://issues.org/graham/

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

Thanks for the link. This moral issue is indeed really fascinating. Cars are one of the few places where we regularly accept preventable deaths as faultless accidents. Across wide swaths of the US there's an implicit assumption that if a pedestrian gets hit they somehow deserved it, or that the only people that walk or bike are people too poor to buy a car and hence undeserving of compassion or justice. Our society is so saturated with these attitudes it's a bit shocking once you see it clearly in the abstract.

ironman1478 5y ago
Yeah, it's the saddest thing. I think what sucks, is that people don't really know how much better our lives would be if we were less car dependent. There are 6 million accidents a year. That means that like at least 18 million people ar affected (gotta get that car fixed in the best case right?) each year, at a minimum (let's assume a family of one child and two parents and one of these people gets into an accident and let's assume they were crashing into just walls or something). Accidents aren't just bad for the people in the accident, but they cause financial stress and mental stress to the families affected. If we just discouraged driving by even a small percent (and thus a small fraction of accidents) so many people's lives would be better, simply due to the magnitudes as play.
matsemann 5y ago
Just read any headline after a collision and weep. For instance if a driver fails to yield and causes a cyclist to drive into it, the headline will most likely read any of: Cyclist hits car (implicitly blaming the cyclist). Car and cyclist involved in accident (an accident, nothing anyone could do, nothing to learn here). Cyclist hurt after car failed to yield (at least getting the story straight, but still the driver isn't mentioned, as if the car is acting on its own and the driver is a passive innocent person). Cyclist hit by car (no, again it's making the active part passive, it should read Car hits cyclist if so). https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter110/article8/ https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter110/article8/
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

slim 5y ago

Part of the appeal of SUVs is they put you in a superior position in case of crash. It's for people with competitive mindsets.

grp000 5y ago
I don't know if it's intentional, but it feels like you're implying these people are actively looking to cause crashes. Safety, storage, terrain capabilities, and "command position" are all going to be factors.
- jbigelow76 5y ago
  I don't think the gp is implying that people are actively looking to cause crashes. What they are saying is that a "better you than me" mentality (which is unfortunately quite rational) is definitely a factor in the overall buying decision.
anonfornoreason 5y ago
I now drive a large truck, and moved my wife to a large SUV. The area we live in is more rural, with the small car being an exception. I absolutely was thinking about my family over anyone else when I made that decision. I have always tended to buy smaller cars and was a bit skeptical about larger vehicles, but once you get used to one it's really hard to imagine going back, at least when there's a size difference in the area you commonly drive in.
- dbt00 5y ago
  When I was growing up in the 90s I lived in a rural area. I drove a late 70s-early 80s style detroit land yacht. I was an idiot and ended up in a cornfield doing 70mph. So did a classmate driving an SUV a few months later. Do you want to guess which one walked away and which one died from a rollover crash?
giardini 5y ago
SUVs are possibly safer if you collide with a smaller vehicle. But they are not safer in general. And they are especially not safer for pedestrians as the OP's URL says. Here's another earlier URL on that topic: https://www.treehugger.com/nhtsa-keeps-blaming-victims-instead-regulating-suvs-and-pickups-4851894 https://www.treehugger.com/nhtsa-keeps-blaming-victims-inste... SUVs roll over and, when they do, their occupants brains are often smashed. Not good for your next Google interview. SUVs are less maneuverable and can be unstable if one attempts to change course, especially at higher speed such as freeway driving. This is even more serious in rain and ridiculously obvious in ice/snow. Sedans are safer b/c - they are designed to be safer (sedan safety standards are more demanding than those of SUVs), - they are more maneuverable and brake better and - they protect you from front/rear/side impacts and from rollovers. Sure, the sedan is destroyed, but it did it's job, which is to protect you. You can always get a new car but you can't get a new brain if yours is pancaked.

rapind 5y ago

It’s all SUVs and trucks where I live. I was really into cars growing up, then I got over it. It’s so far beyond practicality and well into excess, like most shit around here.

jupp0r 5y ago

What's the matter with the SUV hate? Semis, vans, work trucks, etc are much bigger.

OccamsMirror 5y ago
They serve a utility. Vast majority of SUVs on the road are people that would be as well served with a standard sedan.
- jupp0r 5y ago
  The vast majority of pickup trucks on the road are people that use the truck bed once or twice per year. Why single out SUVs?
  - TomSwirly 5y ago
    We all agree that any person who drives a big truck as a passenger vehicle is an antisocial personality, yes.
afterburner 5y ago
> Semis, vans, work trucks, etc are much bigger. You might be surprised if you check actual weights. After all, the original SUVs were literally just truck frames with nicer (and therefore heavier) cabins.
Gibbon1 5y ago
I've been driving full sized vans since I got my license. In fact I took my driving test in a Dodge Tradesman. That thing is maybe a smidge smaller than my current van. I've been watching SUV's and Trucks get bigger and bigger over the last twenty years. Back in the 90's wasn't that common to share the road with anything the same size other than heavy work trucks and other vans. Now a lot of SUV's and weekend warrior trucks are as big/bigger.

TomSwirly 5y ago

In my experience, SUV drivers are much more likely to be completely crazy. Example: when I lived in NYC, I was walking across an intersection, with the light, an SUV going through the red light - very slowly - knocked me down (because I wasn't looking at him), and kept going! I got up, yelled, "Hey, you hit me!" but the SUV continued forcing its way through the pedestrians, against the light. I thumped on the hood, and the man opened the door, leaving his car to block traffic, and chased me across Eighth Ave, till I luckily found some police officers, who of course refused to do anything even when I pointed out his SUV parked in the middle of the street, and all the witnesses watching. The man was literally insane. Drool fell from his mouth as he chased me. I have seen similar things where I wasn't the target.