In an interesting article in the latest issue of The New Yorker (January 12, 2004), Malcolm Gladwell discusses the penchant of American carbuyers to think they are safer in large vehicles (especially S.U.V.'s) than in smaller ones. According to Gladwell people who buy S.U.V.s generally think they are buying a car that will be "passively" safe--i.e., safe when in an accident--rather than think about "active" safety--i.e., being able to avoid accidents in the first place.

Gladwell cites statistics to show that there are actually fewer deaths per million drivers in midsize and subcompacts than in large cars, S.U.V.s, and pickups. The larger cars are actually engineered to give the driver a sense of distance (literally and figuratively) from the road, with the effect that drivers are lolled into a misleading sense of safety. Smaller cars with a better feel of the road are not only more manoeuverable but also constantly remind the driver that he or she is driving. These cars also generally have better stopping figures, e.g., 60-0 in 124 feet in a Porsche Boxster versus 150 feet in a Chevy Trail Blazer: a difference of two car lengths. The larger cars are not only less manoueverable, their height makes them more susceptible to rollovers.

Why would otherwise intelligent buyers succumb to the view that the larger cars are safer? Gladwell contends that the larger cars, with less of a feel for the road, with lots of comfort, lots of soft, rounded rubber on the inside finishing, and multiple convenient cup holders, give a "feeling" of safety. These features reach (and here we enter the world of speculative depth psychology) into the murky depths of the "reptilian" brain. This feeling is especially attractive to the psychological profile of S.U.V. buyers: "people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills".

The author does point out that cars like the Boxter do have an additional safety disadvantage: they encourage people to drive faster. After testing the Boxter on the Consumer Reports test track, the author got into his own car and promptly received a $271 dollar speeding ticket on the way home.

The article makes reference to Keith Bradsher's book, "High and Mighty".

There's more in the article than this. It's worth reading. Subscribers have their copies. Issues will be on the newstands for another few weeks.

Interesting.

it is always interesting to note the lengths to which some will go to attack suvs and the people driving them. there is no evidence of this just the speculative ramblings from someone in one of the softest branches of an already soft science. this is troubling especially considering the source of the article. when one thinks about the sheer number of people who take this sort of nonsense to heart without questioning motives or heaven forbid the research methods. thank you for posting this article so we can see how we who love sports cars will soon be under attack by countless, thoughtless limosine liberals. Look out they really do want every car to become a minivan. j/k seriously we should start holding media accountable for the sort of garbage they publish. keep in mind that these are businesses and are in this for profit if we complain and refuse to subscribe to their periodicals then they will have no choice but to reexamine their standards.

I once had a crazy shop teacher that told the class he thought instead of seat belts or air bags (the then "cutting edge" technology), cars needed barbed wire strung accross the inside of the windshield to remind the driver he'd be badly hurt in an accident. It seems Gladwell is conceding the point that the driver that really cares about being safe and is willing to drive accordingly is best off in the largest vehicle possible.

BTW, what's the RX-8's 60 - 0 mph distance? I'm betting its very good. I think the brakes on my car may be the absolute best mechanical system in the car... then again, I'm driving the AT.

I just thought I'd mention that the NY article is long and contains much more than the psychological speculations.

As for comparative braking distances, I see that in the R&T Guide to the RX-8, 60-0 is listed at 114 feet.

I have also seen it listed by mazda as 111ft.

I will conceed that the article may be longer and more in depth however the sort of drivel stated by the psychologist in the section you posted was exactly the sort of thing that got literally dozens of people falsely convicted of haneous crimes in the late 80's and early 90's. To allow this type of junk science any creedence would be to admit how gullible americans are becoming. please please believe that while most (insert type of driver here) are still good drivers that it only takes a few idiots asleep at the wheel to give all drivers of a certian type of vehicle or ethnicity a bad reputation. For americans to believe that any type of vehicle or driver that chooses that vehicle is to fall right back into the trap of ism's (racism, sexism, ageism etc...). All that I am asking of people is to remain cognizant of the things they are choosing to believe. I want you to understand this in no way a personal attack simply a warning to people to beware of what the media tries to sell.

I agree that the psychologist was a bit off base in his "profiling" of SUV drivers as "people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills". I will concede that in the event of an accident an SUV can be safer than a smaller vehicle due to it's greater mass and size. However it is these 2 factors, mass and size, that I believe significantly increase the probability that an SUV will be in an accident. SUV's have longer stopping distances than most smaller cars. They have much higher centers of gravity without a conpensating increase in track width, therefore they are less agile in cornering and more prone to rolling over, (many smaller cars can not be rolled unless they hit something, the tires will lose grip and slide long before they will tip over). SUV's are larger and more visable than smaller cars, however they are also bigger targets and require a bigger hole to escape from a possible accident. Many SUV drivers do not seem to be aware of the limitations of their vehicles and tend to drive them just like cars, which they are not, thus putting themselves as well as other motorists at risk.

Originally posted by selmeralto
...multiple convenient cup holders give a "feeling" of safety. This line is hilarious. Are they your words, or from the article? Btw, I believe there is great truth to the premise of the article that SUVs offer the illusion of safety, while actually offering net compromises. Like the barbed wire comment, maybe psychologically we should not focus on making drivers "feel" so safe. If they actually understand they are operating heavy, dangerous machinery maybe they would be less complacent.

naaahhh....

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
This line is hilarious. Are they your words, or from the article?

A little bit of both.

I do encourage people who are genuinely interested in these issues to read the article. One may not agree with all the points or even the general point but the article is very intelligently written. It's far from a mere exercise in pop psychology.

You posted just in time. I'm going to the dealer tomorrow to cancel my RX-8. It will encourage me to drive faster! (Yeah, baby...) And I'll unload those dangerous 4x4s. Despite the laws of physics, a large vehicle is no match in an accident for a smaller economy car. Like only itty bitty cars have crumple zones, air bags, and 40 years of auto safety engineering.

True, just the other day, I forgot I was driving, and nearly went in back to make a sandwich...

Putting aside the sarcasm, I would like you to explain the statistic more clearly: per million drivers, I believe that redheaded lion-tamers have the fewest fatal accidents-- because they are few in numbers. There is no end of bad science pumped out against politically incorrect objects. SUVs kill. You are a billion times more likely to get killed if you have a gun at home. Disposable diapers cause brain damage. I made that one up, but no doubt you'll read that soon.

I'm sorry for berating your post, but if you want to discuss science, statistics, or even cars vs. suvs, be aware that there is a political agenda driving :) many assertions and arguments put forth by the "anti" crowd that isn't based on fact. It's based on the politics of envy, and a fear and loathing of capitalism.

But all that other stuff about vain, self-centered, insecure, and so forth pretty much has me pegged. Hmm, I guess I'm in touch with my inner reptilian self.

i hate SUV's. i think they're overly expensive, wasteful, and vain expressions of wealth. then again, i'm a sports car enthusiast, and must also realise that the same principles apply, that they're wasteful and excersizes in vanity.

no one needs cars like these. but for those that want them, well, ought to be able to have them, unless they're a detrement to society, right?? that's the whole premise of our system.

but the insular nature of these (often) uselessly huge vehicles is an issue i have with them. the lack of visibility (especially out the rear, and the "i'll just use my mirrors to change lanes in by 25' blingmobile" syndrome that sets in after a while, and the way they will always give me a full view of wheel when i'm trying to turn right at a stop sign where an idiot just won't make their goddamned left turn and pulled too far out), the lack of feel through the controls (can be hard to tell where the wheels are pointing, especially in slippery stuff, when your steering is so stupidly over-boosted... never mind trying to not lock the friggin' brakes up on the limit), the lack of fun you have driving it (read: insurmountable surplus of boredom it gives you...), and the utter lack of beauty all add up to something which i can really hate, rather easily, and in my opinion, for very good reason.

i fail to see how everyone having huger, heavier vehicles is going to make everyone safer. i really see absolutely no need for the SUV. if you need a truck, get a truck.
if you need a minivan, get a minivan. if all you want is to show off how much money you make in a year, there are other ways to do it (like a pretty new Lexus SC 430).

as for "sports cars encourage you to speed", i'd definitely contend that.
people who like to speed/drive fast/enjoy their driving buy sports cars.
i've seen far more minivans, chick-driven-white-compacts, and redneck-raised-pick-ups speeding excessively, changing lanes reclessly, and doing generally stupid crap than ricers or 911 Turbos (driven by grey old men dressed like lawyers, or geeky young men dressed like lawyers).

and remember, take it all with grain of salt ;)
i can't prove that SUV's will be on the side of evil in Armageddon yet, but when i can....

Some people seem to be criticizing the use of statistics but the criticisms seem to based on the general idea of using and interpreting statistics. It would be helpful if people would discuss the specific studies cited in the article.

As for how safe it is to be in a small car when hitting or being struck by a large vehicle or object, that, too, is addressed in the article--and at some length. I might also add that two weeks ago I was involved in a serious crash on an interstate in which I was sandwiched between a van, which had stopped in front of me, and an S10 pickup, which ploughed into me at high speed. My car (my RX-8) was totaled. But the frame took the shock, the rear crumple zone did its part, and my wife and I walked away without a scratch. (There were no other serious injuries.) The NY article gives reasons why someone can survive in a crash such as this.

I realize that this is anecdotal (a sample of one) and doesn't mean much from a statistical point of view. But it is certainly consistent with the points made in the article.

As I was driving to lunch today I saw a large SUV laying on it's side in number 1 (carpool) & 2 lanes of a 5 lane freeway. On the sides that I could see there were no obvious impact marks. No other cars were near by so I don't think any other cars were invloved since the tow trucks were just showing up. An obviously distraght woman was talking to the police near the vehicle. I don't know what happened but obviously the monster got away from her.

Maybe the way to handle the SUV issue is to require a special drivers licence to operate a vechile over 6000 GVW. You would have to demostrate your driving skills in handling your Ford Excessive just like you do if you want to operate a large motorhome, tow a 5th wheel trailer or even drive a moped. Of course that might cut into sales to soccer moms slightly.