by Garrison Frost

When asked last year if perhaps conservation was the remedy to the United States' dependence on foreign oil, Vice President Dick Cheney said that conservation was a "moral decision" that every individual "had to make for themselves." At the time, Cheney re-emphasized his opinion that conservation alone could not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and continued to advocate oil exploration on Alaskan nature reserves.

Well, now is the time to take Cheney at his word and press the issue about the morality of driving sport utility vehicles. This is not some stupid concept along the lines of "what would Jesus drive," rather it is a simple question based on the facts surrounding the vehicles in question. Truth is, the use of SUV poses real dangers to people, and their ownership should be viewed in the same light as other questions of morality.

At the time of this writing, hundreds of thousands of American, British and Australian troops are fighting a war to replace Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Ostensibly, the reason for this action is to free the oppressed people of the region and to prevent Iraq from becoming a threat to U.S. security. That said, it seems unlikely that the U.S. would be taking such an action if not for the oil reserves in the reason. As one U.S. official said during the first Gulf War, "We wouldnít be doing this if their major export was carrots." Still, how oil played into our motivations in the Iraq is debatable, but few would argue that oil has absolutely nothing to do with our actions. So it is safe to say that some people will die as a result of our oil consumption, and no single transportation product relies as heavily on cheap gasoline as the new SUVs. Thus, it is fair to discuss the morality of sending troops to Iraq to defend our right to drive SUVs.

Beyond the oil consumption issue is the proven fact that SUVs are unsafe for their drivers, and more importantly, other drivers on the road. And given their exemptions from emissions standards, they are also unsafe for everybody not on the road as well. In short, according to some studies, more people are dead because of the popularity of SUVs. This information refutes the standard arguments from the auto industry that people should be able to make their own choices. Well, the driver of a Honda Civic usually doesn't get to choose what kind car broadsides her in a major accident. It would be nice of the owner of the other car would make sure that personal choices on his part don't result in the needless deaths of others. These are the types of choices we make when we decide not to drive while under the influence of alcohol. So then why is choosing not to drive a dangerous vehicly any different?

SUVs are not illegal and much of the information cited above and below is up for debate. Nonetheless, there is enough information out there to make a case that owning an SUV makes life abroad and in our country more dangerous.

Pleas to our morality are common. Our public officials waste no time asking us to make moral choices on abortion, taxation, affirmative action, religion and other matters. Why have they remained silent on SUVs which put our soldiers in harm's way and threaten the lives of our families at home?

Below are a few more facts on SUVs for your consumption:

• SUV occupants die at a slightly higher rate in accidents than their counterparts in cars.
• Rollover accidents accounted for just 3 percent of all U.S. motor-vehicle accidents in 2001, but they caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities. NHTSA statistics show an SUV occupant was three times more likely to die as a result of a rollover than an occupant of a passenger car. Fatalities in single-vehicle rollovers increased in 2001 by 22 percent to 8,400 deaths, with pickups accounting for the biggest gain.
• SUVs are nearly three times as likely to kill the occupants of the other car in accidents, causing about 1,000 extra deaths per year.
• Only about 5 percent of drivers actually use 4-wheel drive.
• Scientists report that fuel efficiency can be increased by at least 25 percent using existing technology.
• SUVs can create up to six times as much air pollution as regular cars, which some experts have said causes 1,000 extra deaths per year due to respiratory illnesses.
• SUVs are much more prone to be involved in single-vehicle accidents. Most of these are rollovers not caused by inexperienced driving but merely by striking curbs or turning quickly to avoid things in the road.
• While riding up high allows drivers of SUVs to see the road better, their height actually restricts the visibility of other drivers causing an unsafe situation.
• Big SUVs are allowed to emit up to 1.1 grams per mile of smog-causing nitrogen oxides, which is less than the 3 to 4 grams a mile from cars of the early 1960s but still a lot worse than today's cars, which are only allowed to emit up to 0.2 grams per mile.
• The average SUV gets 8 to 15 miles to the gallon, while the average hybrid vehicle gets 51 miles to the gallon. Regular cars get close to 30 miles to the gallon.
• If every noncommercial driver in the United States owned a vehicle that got at least 27 miles to the gallon, our country would no longer need to import oil from the Middle East.
• Experts from Public Citizen state that raising fuel efficiency does not necessarily translate to a reduction in vehicle safety.
• SUVs are commonly advertised on MTV and VH1 while hybrids are not.
• The Ford Explorer averages 10.8 mpg; Lincoln Navigator, 12 mpg; Toyota Land Cruiser, 12 mpg; Mercedes M-class, 14 mpg. The Subaru Legacy gets 24 mpg. The Ford Taurus gets 23 mpg.

Sources:
"High and Mighty: SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way," by Keith Bradsher.
The National Resources Defense Council
The Detroit Project
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Public Citizen

(March 28, 2003)

© Copyright 1999-2003 The Aesthetic