Unsafe at any speed

The author of "High and Mighty" explains why SUVs are not just gas-guzzling pollution machines, they're dangerous to drive.

By Suzy Hansen

Oct 24, 2002 | There are lots of reasons to hate SUVs. They're gas guzzlers, they're expensive, their size is utterly pointless and excessive in most suburban and urban terrain. Still, most SUV owners cling to one important justification for their purchase: SUVs are safe.

SUVs do feel safer than cars. You're sitting up high and you can see more of the road. Presumably, you can anticipate accidents better or see a toddler run out into the street sooner. SUVs have four-wheel drive which most people (erroneously) believe helps on slick roads during rain or snowstorms. Most important, SUVs are big. They have strong, bulky fronts that are sure to protect you in a head-on collision. They're the biggest things around (though with the release of the new Hummer, those Cherokees sure do look small), and so concerned parents buy one for the family and insist that a teenager's first car be an SUV, too. Most people don't need all that space for running errands around town, and $60,000 is a big chunk of change, but, they rationalize, the SUV's well-padded mass is necessary to protect their family from the other nuts on the road.

It might come as a surprise to many Americans that most of these beliefs are myths. But according to Keith Bradsher, that's just what they are. In "High and Mighty: SUVs, the World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way," Bradsher, former Detroit bureau chief of the New York Times, argues that SUVs pose considerable danger to American drivers. Not only are the vehicles more prone to deadly rollovers, but there's the added problem that SUV owners typically don't care what their trucks might do to another driver in an accident, a lack of concern that the auto industry has successfully exploited in its marketing campaigns.

"High and Mighty" should have the same impact that Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" did in 1965 -- either by forcing automakers to comply with stricter safety and fuel economy standards or by dissuading Americans from buying the vehicles. Concerns about the effects of America's SUV-spiked gas consumption on the environment and the nation's dependence on Mideast oil have prompted further protests. But, based on the evidence that Bradsher provides, it seems unlikely that consumers will suddenly turn to sedans and minivans.

Bradsher recently dropped by Salon's New York office to talk about why SUVs kill and injure people differently than cars, how SUVs make us dependent on foreign oil and why the most terrifying thing you can do with an SUV is give it to a teenager.

What kind of people buy SUVs according to the auto industry's own research?

The auto industry has done a lot of research about who buys SUVs and why. What they've found is that people who buy SUVs tend to be people who are especially interested in how other people see them. They are more interested in their image than even practicality. That's how you end up with people choosing a vehicle that has a fairly high floor which makes it harder for the elderly to get in or to load and unload kids. A minivan is much more practical in many ways, and yet you find that people choose these SUVs, particularly if they are self-oriented -- that's the term among the market researchers.

Which is a nicer way of saying?

Self-centered.

How do they market to these types of people?

The marketing for sport utility vehicles often emphasizes that these are aggressive, even intimidating vehicles. You see ads like the one for the Cadillac Escalade. It says, "Yield," in inch-high letters across the middle of the page. Above it you see an Escalade and it's shot from 2 feet off the ground and 5 feet in front of it. It's hurtling down toward you. Underneath the word "yield" it says, "It's good to be the Cadillac."

Of course, it's a rather cynical and self-centered view of the world to think it's good to be the Cadillac if you're clobbering the other guy in the process.

All this has made me wonder: At this point we have very safe, very efficient cars -- like Volvos, for example. I'm imagining an SUV buyer and they're wealthy and so they can choose between an SUV and, say, a Mercedes. Why are they passing up these alternatives that are now efficient and safe and pretty and everything else?

A lot of it is image. The large cars don't have the cool image that an SUV does.

Do stars and politicians have a lot to do with that?

Yes, you see lots of Hollywood stars driving these big, imposing SUVs to the point that the Oscars look like an off-road rally. Actually, it does help if you're driving through a crowd a foot at a time -- all your fans and paparazzi can see you up in your SUV. The politicians like them because it's not usually a good idea for a politician to be driving a Mercedes or a Volvo; they've tended to go for the more macho, man-of-the-people image that SUVs retained despite their steep price tags.

Next Page: How SUVs fueled the economic bubble of the '90s

• View blog reactions