May
1999
Monsters
of the Road: Four-by-Fours Endanger Other Road Users
By Philip Goff |
|
|
In the first part of his two-part series on light
trucks—sport utility vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks—Philip
Goff looked at how these vehicles damage the environment. In this
second part, he explores the dangers posed by them to car drivers and
other road users.
One of the reasons people say they need large pickup trucks and sport
utility vehicles (SUVs) is because they feel safer. Yet while these vehicles
may marginally enhance the safety of their privileged drivers, they put
most other road users at much greater risk. Besides being intimidating
to car drivers, full-size SUVs also show the upper class’s disdain
for those who cannot afford them. SUVs satisfy the need to be bigger,
taller, and more powerful. All of these physical attributes make the occupants
more safe than those whose economic standing precludes the purchase of
a $25,000 to $50,000 SUV. This, then, brings up possibly the most insidious
characteristics of light trucks: although they protect those inside, their
sheer size makes the roads far more dangerous for everybody else.
America’s move toward private, motorized transportation and away
from public transit and walking since World War II has always had a negative
impact on the poor and working class. The lack of a public transportation
system has forced many to spend far too much money simply getting themselves
around or, for the least advantaged without cars, stuck with little access
to employment. Fifty years later, while these inequalities still exist,
the profusion of light trucks—pickups, SUVs and minivans— has
made the roads more perilous for those who cannot afford them. In accidents
between light trucks and cars—typically weighing hundreds or thousands
of pounds less—the fatality rate for car drivers is four times higher
than that of the light-truck driver. Although twice as many cars drive
America’s roads as light trucks, 1,100 more Americans die in car/truck
accidents than in car/car accidents. In the state of Washington alone,
135 people were killed in car/light truck accidents in 1996, compared
with 58 fatalities in car/car accidents. A University of Michigan study
released this March looked at how many car occupants would have survived
if they were struck, not by a light truck, but instead by another passenger
car. The study concluded that two thousand fatalities would not have occurred
if one of the participants in the accident was not driving a pickup, mini-van,
or SUV. In all likelihood, the figure is now significantly higher, for
the study utilized figures from 1996, the year that sales of full-sized
SUVs—the biggest and most dangerous light trucks—began to take
off.
The Effect of Physics
The millions of light trucks on the road today have not
necessarily increased the gross number of accidents, but they have dramatically
increased their severity. In a typical collision of two mid-sized cars
going 30 mph, both drivers may experience minor injuries and the vehicles
exhibit moderate damage. Replacing one car in this scenario with a 5,000-pound
SUV yields much different results. The SUV driver walks away unscathed
and with minor damage to the vehicle, while the car driver is severely
injured or dead and the vehicle is nearly totaled. Regardless of fault,
in this scenario the clear loser is the one whose economic condition,
ecological concern, or matter of taste led to the purchase of the passenger
car.
The primary explanation as to why light trucks are so dangerous to drivers
of passenger cars is simple physics. All else being equal, the vehicle
with the most mass will inflict far more damage. While the typical weight
for a mid-sized car, such as a Honda Civic or a Toyota Camry, is 2,500
to 3,000 pounds, mid-sized SUVs, such as the Nissan Pathfinder, top 4,000
pounds, and full-sized models, such as the Ford Expedition, top 5,000.
For those wanting to be the king of the road, the Chevy Suburban weighs
in at 6,750 pounds and is marketed as the largest SUV on the planet. In
the year 2000, motorists can expect to see the Ford Excursion top the
Suburban by a full ton. According to a technical paper published by General
Motors, the driver of a car is five times more likely to die in a collision
with another vehicle that is 50 percent heavier. The rate increases to
13 times when the other vehicle is twice as heavy. Based on this, one
shudders to think what will happen when an Excursion collides with a 1,960
pound Geo Metro.
The high ground clearance required to accommodate off-road shock absorbers
also increases the vulnerability of passenger car drivers. The front bumpers
of large SUVs are higher than the steel frames and bumpers of cars, aligning
instead with the side-door panel or even the window. In a side-impact
accident, the jacked-up light truck can nearly climb over the smaller
car and its bumper engages the weakest part of the car, hitting the driver
at torso. A driver hit from the side is always in greater danger. When
struck by a car, the driver is six times more likely to die, but, when
struck on the side by a Four-by-Four, the driver is 27 times more likely
to be killed.
With jacked-up frames, boxy designs, and upright driver sitting positions,
light trucks are much taller than cars and become visual obstructions
on the road. They prevent motorists caught behind from seeing through
or around them and, when parked near corners, block views of oncoming
traffic from car drivers stopped at intersections. The roof height poses
problems for cyclists and pedestrians who are accustomed to seeing, and
being seen, over other cars. Headlights of light trucks are the same height
as a car’s side-view mirror, and nearly the same height as the rear-view
mirror, creating dangerous glare for car users.
Present and Future Danger
Light trucks themselves are not the invincible vehicles
they are marketed to be. Although their weight, height, and rigidity make
them significantly safer in multi-car collisions, they are dangerous to
their drivers in other ways. According to the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, their fatality rates are higher than cars in single vehicle
crashes, i.e. when the vehicle hits a stationary object. They are also
more likely to tip over while turning. Light trucks, especially the large
models, are also inferior in the category of “active safety.”
Active safety is the driver’s ability to avoid accidents by means
of effective braking, balanced handling, and quick and responsive steering.
(“Passive safety,” on the other hand, is attained primarily
through the vehicle’s size, weight and safety features.) According
to comparison tests of nine full-size SUVs by Popular Mechanics
magazine, all have “impressive passive safety, but their active safety
is atrocious.” In one of the tests, Popular Mechanics found
that the average SUV tested could perform a certain lane-change maneuver
at 45 mph while a typical passenger car could pull off the same maneuver
at 52 mph. The average distance to stop the nine vehicles going 60 mph
was 148.5 feet, 22 feet more than a mid-sized car such as a Toyota Camry.
These numbers can clearly make the difference between a near-miss and
a major accident.
Despite the dangers posed by the biggest light trucks, the quantity of
accidents has remained relatively low because most drivers are middle
aged, married, and have children. They tend, therefore, to drive more
conservatively than other motorists. As these new vehicles age or go out
of style, they will be placed on the used-car market and made available
to a much more diverse group of drivers. Last year, the New York Times
asked, “What will happen a few years from now when drunks (sic) and
reckless youths can buy these three-ton vehicles used for under $10,000?”
The sense of power and invincibility promised by the large pickups and
SUVs will probably lead to far more aggressive driving by those buying
the used trucks. Therefore, one probable answer to the Times’
question is a much higher accident rate-per-mile as these large vehicles
age and are driven more irresponsibly.
There are many disparate reasons why the sale of light trucks has gone
from 16 percent of all new vehicles in 1971 to nearly 50 percent in 1997,
and why, in just the past three years, the sales of full-size SUVs has
tripled. Apologists for light trucks would like people to think the vehicles’
popularity is due to the market forces of consumers who “need”
towing capability, added storage space, the ability to drive off-road,
and the perceived safety of a heavy vehicle. In fact, what has had more
of an impact are the lack of government regulations, the lowest price
of gas in decades, a strong economy, advertisers’ indoctrination,
and the self-indulgent desire to drive the biggest and most powerful vehicles
on the road. Light trucks have been used for decades by farmers, ranchers,
and contractors, and will continue to be needed for their commercial uses.
What has to be curbed, however, is the casual use—commuting, shopping,
or taking the mountain bike to the state park—of highly polluting,
gas-guzzling vehicles that exacerbate global warming, increase our dependence
on foreign oil, and intimidate and endanger tens of millions of car drivers
on (and off) the road.
Philip Goff is an urban designer and transportation activist
living in Portland, Oregon, where mass quantities of both SUVs and bicycles
somehow seem to co-exist. For more information about light trucks, please
contact Philip Goff by writing to him c/o Satya.
|
|
© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC. |
|
