Criticism of SUVs
Thus, this loophole has led to the mass upselling and marketing of SUVs, with many viewing it as a corporate scam designed to increase profit margins for the auto industry, particularly for the Big Three in the United States.
[2][3] SUVs generally have poorer fuel efficiency and require more resources to manufacture than smaller vehicles, thus contributing more to climate change and environmental degradation.
A 2021 study by the University of Illinois Springfield[7] showed, for example, that SUVs are 8-times more likely to kill children in an accident than passenger cars, and multiple times more lethal to adult pedestrians and cyclists.
This is due to the combination of a vastly higher center of gravity and excessive weight severely affecting the cornering ability of SUVs with rollovers much more likely than cars or minivans, even at low speeds.
[14] The British television programme Fifth Gear staged a 40 mph (64 km/h) crash between a first generation (1989–98) Land Rover Discovery with a separate chassis and body, and a modern Renault Espace IV with monocoque (unit) design.
[16] Because of greater height and weight and rigid frames, it is contended by Malcolm Gladwell, writing in The New Yorker magazine,[6] that SUVs can affect traffic safety.
[20] The typically higher SUV bumper heights and those built using stiff truck-based frames, also increases risks in crashes with passenger cars.
Bullbars are often used in Australia, South Africa, and parts of the United States to protect the vehicle from being disabled should it collide with wildlife.
Safety improvements during the 2010s to the present led automobile manufacturers to make design changes to align the energy-absorbing structures of SUVs with those of cars.
Poor rearward vision has led to many "backover deaths" where vehicles have run over small children when backing out of driveways.
The problem of backover deaths has become so widespread that reversing cameras are being installed on some vehicles to improve rearward vision.
[24] Australia's NRMA motoring organisation found that regular passenger cars commonly provided inferior rearward vision compared to SUVs, both because of the prevalence of reversing cameras on modern SUVs and the shape of many popular passenger cars, with their high rear window lines and boots (trunks) obstructing rearward vision.
[27] According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers, many consumers feel safer in SUVs simply because their ride height makes "[their passengers] higher and dominate and look down [sic].
To support Gladwell's argument, he mentioned that automotive engineer David Champion noted that in his previous driving experience with Range Rover, his vehicle slid across a four-lane road because he did not perceive the slipping that others had experienced.
[28][29] In 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released results of a study that indicated that drivers of SUVs were 11% more likely to die in an accident than people in cars.
[34][35] For example: At 22 November 2023, the ASA (Advertising Standard Authority), banned ads for Toyota Hilux in the UK, for being displayed as being driven on a wilderness area[36] The recent growth of SUVs is sometimes given as one reason why the population has begun to consume more gasoline than in previous years.
[37] Additionally, SUVs up to 8,500 pounds GVWR are classified by the US government as light trucks, and thus are subject to the less strict light truck standard under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations, and SUVs which exceed 8,500 pounds GVWR have been entirely exempt from CAFE standards.
Fuel economy factors include: Average data for vehicle types sold in the US:[38] Drag resistance (assuming the same drag coefficient which is not a safe assumption) for SUVs may be 30% higher and the acceleration force has to be 35% larger for the same acceleration, which again is not a safe assumption, than family sedans if we use the figures from the above table.
This has been confirmed by LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) studies,[41] which quantify the environmental impacts of products such as cars, often from the time they are produced until they are recycled.
"[42] Another study found that family size internal combustion vehicles still produced fewer emissions than a hybrid SUV.
[46] The British national newspaper The Independent reported on a study carried out by CNW Marketing Research which suggested that CO2 emissions alone do not reflect the true environmental costs of a car.
The newspaper reported that: "CNW moves beyond the usual CO2 emissions figures and uses a "dust-to-dust" calculation of a car's environmental impact, from its creation to its ultimate destruction."
When Oregon radio station KATU asked for comment on the CNW report, Professor John Heywood (with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)) saw merit in the study saying, "It raises...some good questions" but "I can only guess at how they did the detailed arithmetic....
The vehicle at the top of his environmentally-friendly list is the Scion xB because it is easy to build, cheap to run and recycle, and carries a cost of 49 cents a mile over its lifetime.
[62] Siân Berry was a founder of the Alliance against Urban 4×4s, which began in Camden in 2003 and became a national campaign demanding measures to stop 4×4s (or sport utility vehicles) "taking over our cities".
[63][failed verification] The campaign was known for its "theatrical demonstrations" and mock parking tickets, credited to Berry (although now adapted by numerous local groups).
