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.
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.
https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter110/article8/
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.
Safety, storage, terrain capabilities, and "command position" are all going to be factors.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I'm asking that person if they've thought of these details when they made their comment.
Not everybody needs to do those things. I have lived 28 years without owning a truck and will never need one. My father knows how to drive many sized trucks for work, but he never needed to own one. Trucks provide utility and to be clear, I singled out SUVs because they have basically no value for people buying them, except that it makes them feel safe because they aren't the smallest vehicle on the road anymore. Most are terrible off-roaders and if people need to carry more people they can buy wagons and vans.
Also, the EV remark. The issue is that SUVs are correlated with more deaths, including hitting peds at higher rates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_sport_utility_v...
If an EV car was correlated with higher deaths than other vehicles, that should be examined and we need to consider it.
I always love revisiting the Canada episode of The Grand Tour where they tested 3 midsize SUVs and concluded that they’re neither sporty nor provide much utility.
But in a proposed world of no SUVs or trucks (read comment chain), there are some people who would not be able to perform their tasks. If we have to ban something, why not leave the most capable vehicle that provide coverage to the most people. I'm trying to get the original commenter to explain.
Also, aren't vans the worst pedestrian offenders?
And for EVs...
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/axa-insurance-claims-high...
https://frankellawfirm.com/are-electric-vehicles-leading-to-...
I think you've misinterpreted something. No one is suggesting banning trucks or lorries; only SUVs. They are not the same. Trucks, lorries, vans, buses, coaches, all provide meaningful utility. SUVs do not.
Generally speaking, I believe it is reasonable to only be arguing against the commenter, not the articles or papers they reference.
The commenter in question only mentions SUVs, and not trucks. So even if the article about morality did lump trucks and SUVs in the same category, that's not what the commenter is bringing to the table.
They do to many people, but not to most. Where do you draw the line?
I personally like the "Hochdachkombi" format (e.g. Citreon Berlingo) ... smaller than a SUV with twice the trunk volume (1000l compared to e.g. the 550l of a X3).
I can (and I have) transported four fridge size PA speakers in that car and still have some space on top for monitor speakers. All while still fitting on tight parking places in the city and using 8l / 100km (30mpg?).
Unless you're a contractor/handyman that needs to haul things like drywall, lumber, water heaters, etc. So there are some professions in the city that may require larger vehicles. Also, sometimes those farmer still have to drive into the city for things anyways, like for medical care.
You are saying, why not ban cars? But not all SUVs are created equal. They aren't all RAV4s or CRVs. If you look at the new land rover defender, its unclear how people can even see out of that monstrosity. Its enormous and has insanely bad visibility and is HEAVY. That thing would destroy other SUVs, let alone cars. A ford explorer from the early 2000s is flimsy compared to these new SUVs.
I suggest YOU read the comment chain.
No one is suggesting that. We're suggesting that these not be used as passenger vehicles by consumers, not that businesses that actually need them give them up.
What about farmers that don't operate as an LLC? How about people that have livestock as a hobby? Or other hobbies that involve trailering, like race cars?
Then what are the SUVs being replaced with? Is it strictly cars? And what kind benefit do we see if SUVs are still allowed by some, but not others?
Ford.com
Car options include mustang and The GT. So no more focus, fiesta, fusion, Taurus or others.
IMO, that’s basically no car options. Plus, the Mustang is basically not driveable for many month in WNY.
If an option does exist, then perhaps the comment should have said they elimited cars from their offerings.
Long winters with heavy snow fall and icy road conditions. Sure, some folks drive them year round. But the number of rwd cars on the road when snow is on the ground is nearly zero.
Also, the mustang is a 2dr coupe. Whether or not it is capable, most folk do not want to deal with car seats/strollers in a coupe. It's also not a car marketed towards families.
I just find it hard to believe there is much demographic overlap between folks that purchase a mustang vs a corolla or accord.
tl;dr - Due to targeted marketing and preconceived notions, the only people buying mustangs are those that want them. It's an entry level sports car.
Eh, I grew up driving an old caprice in the mountains of PA - no anti-lock, no traction control, not even posi-trac. My current truck is RWD only, although I don't live in the mountains anymore. While FWD can offer a slight advantage, I don't think it makes much of a difference as long as you have the proper tires and make smart choices.
So it is drivable.
I think it's more that the people who own the nicer trims of those cars try to save them from the salt or people who can't drive. Not to mention that RWD cars are already a minority of the vehicles on the road, except for 99% of the time the trucks you see will be in RWD.
Yeah, it's definitely more of a single person's car, or a second car for a family without small kids.
Yeah, because so many people are trying to fit three head of cattle into a fucking Ford Expedition.
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-s...
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...
https://frankellawfirm.com/are-electric-vehicles-leading-to-...
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?
So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you have a source?" I'm kidding, I know the livestock angle was never genuine :)
But to finish it out, in 2020 farmers received $46.5 billion dollars in aid[1]. If farmers transporting livestock is such a small percentage of actual use cases why not account for that in subsidies instead of saying that society has to normalize the scenario with the worst case negative externalities?
[1] Source: https://work.chron.com/much-subsidized-farmers-paid-20223.ht...
Look at the laws and fatalities. It's clear that society accepts some fatalities. If they didn't, we would still be driving carriages or walking everywhere. Even the article on morality in this chain acknowledges that some fatalities are considered acceptable if the value derived is worth it.
"I'm kidding, I know the livestock angle was never genuine"
It is genuine.
"If farmers transporting livestock is such a small percentage of actual use cases why not account for that in subsidies"
How would subsidies help? What about people raising livestock as a hobby?
"instead of saying that society has to normalize the scenario with the worst case negative externalities?"
How can you say it's the worst case to have larger vehicles like SUVs? One could view having only cars as having more negative externalities if it means preventing many people from doing the things they love? Especially if the pedestrian aspect can still be solved by other means, like reducing speed and safer city designs.
(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?
And looking at the study, you cloud just limit speed. Pedestrian outcomes are the same for cars and SUVs under 20 mph.
But if SUV purchases are mostly driven by vanity and comfort, it's much harder to morally justify them.
Also, banning cars completely simply isn't a realistic policy goal, whereas limiting or eliminating SUVs could plausibly get some political traction. Why let perfect be the enemy of good?
So going 200 km/h in your SUV (common sight on German Autobahns) is the worst thing you can do.
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?????
5 - EVs would not be producing emissions.
3 and 4 - you can also say these things about cars.
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.
"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.