The Poor Safety Record of SUVs on the US Economy - Case Study Example

The impact of poor safety record of SUVs on the U.S. Economy When determining whether to purchase a particular type of car or truck, consumers will often look to the safety record of the vehicle prior to buying it for their own family’s well-being. What most don’t notice, however, is that poor safety performance such as that of the popular Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV) can have a direct effect on not only their personal lives, but can also negatively impact the economy at large. The purpose of this paper is to discern just how Sports Utility Vehicles’ (SUV) poor safety records negatively impact the economy. By examining the safety record to demonstrate how SUVs are indeed responsible for more deaths and injuries than passenger cars and how these excess injuries in turn influence losses in wages and productivity while increasing police, medical and insurance costs, attention throughout the paper is focused on how poor safety ratings resulting from the use of these vehicles adversely impact the economy. The physical size of an SUV mistakenly provides drivers with a feeling of security, but the facts show that these vehicles actually place drivers and passengers in much greater danger of death, whiplash, and spinal injuries. The illusion of bigger is better has been proven to be a dangerous myth. The impression that SUVs are safer is driven more on the perception that they are bigger and can therefore provide more protection, but accident studies show this is not the case. Mid-sized and smaller SUVs such as the Nissan Pathfinder, Suzuki Sidekick, and Jeep Wrangler had driver death-rates significantly higher than the average vehicle. In examining deaths per million passengers, SUVs had nearly the same death rates in accidents as small cars, but substantially more fatalities than mid-sized or large cars (“SUVs: Risks”, n.d.). Still, the perception of bigger is safer abounds. Mothers with the best of intentions for their family decide to purchase SUVs sacrificing the added expense for gas for what they believe is a safer vehicle for their children. SUVs, because of their high center-of-gravity, are much more likely to roll over than smaller vehicles or mini vans in all circumstances. Studies have shown the high profile of these vehicles contributes to this inclination especially as the result of an accident. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization for the insurance industry, tested SUVs to show how well these vehicles protect the driver and passengers in a collision. Midsized SUVs were rated on a basis of “good”, “acceptable,” “marginal” or “poor.”  None of the 13 SUVs tested reached as high as a “good” rating.  Five were rated as “acceptable,” three as “marginal” and five as “poor” (“SUVs: Risks”, n.d.) According to a study conducted in 1996, SUV’s are three times more likely to roll over in a collision than normal passenger cars and four times more likely to roll over during high speed maneuvers (United States, 1997). According to NHTSA, SUVs rollover in 37 percent of fatal crashes, compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger cars.  Rollover crashes accounted for 53 percent of all SUV occupant deaths in single vehicle crashes in 1996. Only 19 percent of occupant fatalities in passenger cars occurred in similar crashes (United States, 1997). The SUV, with its higher center of gravity, is also much less proficient at avoiding accidents because of the less proficient steering systems and the safety features of the roads themselves that were designed to protect drivers in smaller (or shorter) vehicles. Even if the driver is quick-thinking and adept at driving an SUV, a split-second maneuver could lead to a tip-over. SUVs are designed to be driven for work, hauling, and off-road purposes.  They were not designed to be people movers, and don't handle nearly as well as passenger cars or minivans. Freeway guardrails, designed to increase public safety, were and are not designed for SUVs. They are intended to return cars back onto the road when they veer off. For SUVs with their higher profile, guardrails have the undesirable outcome of contributing to a rollover upon contact. The ability to brake properly may be the single most important safety feature on any type of vehicle yet the manufacturers of SUVs have failed to include this concept in the design process. Most SUV manufacturers utilize the drum brake systems of light trucks instead of the disk brakes usually used in passenger cars. Disc brakes, because of their design, are far superior to the performance of drum brakes. Drum brakes allow heat to build up inside the drum during heavy braking, causing them to overheat and lose function. In a disc brake, the rotor is exposed to outside air. This works to constantly cool the rotor, greatly reducing its tendency to overheat, making this braking system much more reliable in high stress situations. It was under racing circumstances that the weaknesses of drum brakes as opposed to the strengths of disc brakes were first illustrated (Brauer, 1995). The performance of the archaic braking systems of SUVs is made worse when one takes into consideration the stopping distances of SUVs, which are lengthened by their excessive weight as compared to passenger cars. Added to this alarming condition, SUVs have inferior crash-test requirements and do not require safety features like airbags, side impact beams, and impact absorbing bumpers like their smaller passenger car counterparts. The reason for this is that they are subject only to U.S. standards for trucks instead of passenger cars.  The inherent dangers of SUVs are a threat not just to themselves, their drivers and their passengers, but also to other vehicles sharing the roadways. The shear weight of these vehicles causes horrific carnage to smaller vehicles and their passengers in the event of an accident. SUV-to-car collisions are six times more likely to kill the occupants of the smaller vehicle when compared to a car-to-car collision. In a side-impact collision with an SUV, studies indicate car occupants are 27 times more likely to die (Nauss, 1998). Purchasers of SUV’s believe from these studies that their chances of survival in a collision are increased and find themselves compelled to buy one without considering the greater danger they will then pose to people traveling in smaller vehicles. In addition, federal studies have shown that although light trucks account for one-third of all vehicles currently using America’s roadways, traffic accidents between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the passenger car (Gabler, Hollowell, 1998). SUVs, by design, sit eight inches higher than a car and are constructed of a heavier and more abundant steel frame. These features significantly increase the damage caused in a crash with a passenger car. According to the HHTSA, SUV-to-car collisions are six times more likely to kill the occupants of the smaller vehicle when compared to a normal car-to-car collision. The size and design of SUVs raises other safety issues. The placement of headlights on SUVs is a nuisance to the smaller passenger cars and is also a potential safety problem.  SUVs have headlights mounted 36 to 39 inches above the ground, about the same height as the side mirror on a car. The glare from SUVs' headlights can appear to other drivers as bright as high beams. Glare can be 10 to 20 times worse than recommended levels when headlights are at the height of a driver's eyes or side mirror, according to a study by the Society of Automotive Engineers (Bradsher, 1998). Conclusively, people who drive SUVs for daily city/suburban use increase the potential road danger for themselves, their children and others using the roadways as well. This affects the lives of everyone, but these human health and safety concerns have an equally large impact on the pocketbook as well. The excess injuries derived from a public frenzied with the SUV are a drain on the economy of the entire country. Accidents causing injuries or death inevitability cause somebody something, but for the purposes of this discussion, only traffic accidents will be considered in relation to the impact on the economy as a whole. The 1999 WHO publication "Injury: A Leading Cause of the Global Burden of Disease," reports that the leading injury-related cause of death among people aged 15-44 years is due to traffic injuries. Of the 5.8 million people who died of injuries in 1998, 1,170,694 died as a direct result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.  Worldwide, the WHO reports that 38,848,625 injuries were received by people involved in motor vehicle accidents in 1998 (1999).  Traffic injuries increase costs to businesses in the form of employee days off work and decreased production, to municipalities in the form of police expense and emergency services and finally, in hospital costs to the injured. In cases of indigence, these injuries end up increasing insurance premiums, thereby raising the cost of health insurance for everyone. Insurance companies know too well the liabilities of SUV ownership as evidenced by the difference in the way they insure SUVs as opposed to passenger cars. Farmers Insurance reports it has raised liability rates by 5 to 16 percent on SUVs and is providing passenger car owners a discount of 5 to 19 percent in some states (“Economic Costs”, n.d.). Longer than a century after the invention of the automobile, more than a million people are killed on roads worldwide every year and as many as 50 million more are injured. If this current trend continues, the number of people killed and injured on the world’s roads will rise by more than 60% between 2000 and 2020. Most of these injuries will occur in developing countries where more and more people are using motorized transport. In these countries, cyclists, motorcyclists, users of public transport, and pedestrians are especially vulnerable to road traffic injuries (“Road Safety”, 2004). According to a WHO report, "The Injury Pyramid," for every motor vehicle injury resulting in death in the U.S., 13 people sustain injuries severe enough to require hospitalization. In the United States, 42,636 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2004 (“Fatality Facts”, 2004). The costs incurred by traffic accidents are the combination of the dollars spent and income not received due to injuries and fatalities. The quantifiable costs of motor-vehicle crashes are wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, administrative expenses, motor vehicle damage and employer costs due to lack of productivity. Administrative expenses include the cost of insurance, police and legal costs. The National Safety Council makes estimates of the average costs of fatal and nonfatal unintentional injuries to illustrate their impact on the nation's economy. It reports the average economic cost per death, injury, or crash in 2003 was $1,120,000 (death), $45,500 (nonfatal disabling injury) and $8,200 (property damage crash including nondisabling injuries) (“Estimating”, 2004). Motor vehicle injuries by severity estimates are given here of the costs by severity of injuries, as defined in sections 2.3.4 through 2.3.6 of the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (Sixth Edition) ANSI Standard D16.1-1996: Average Economic Cost by Injury Severity, 2003 Incapacitating injury (A) $55,500 Nonincapacitating evident injury (B) $18,200 Possible injury (C) $10,300 (Source: “Estimating”, 2004) In addition to the economic impact listed above, wide-ranging costs also include the value of lost quality of life. This figure was obtained through studies of what people actually pay to reduce their safety and health risks. In 2003 the average total costs on a per injured person basis were: Average Comprehensive Cost by Injury Severity Death $3,610,000 Incapacitating injury $181,000 Nonincapacitating evident injury $46,200 Possible injury $22,000 No injury $2,000 (Source: “Estimating”, 2004) Of course, SUVs are not responsible for all traffic accidents but, as already shown, they add a disproportionate figure to the somber numbers and the severity of injuries on American roads everyday and those numbers are growing. Consumers demand them for misguided safety reasons and automobile manufactures are happy to oblige. One in every four new vehicles sold in America today is an SUV (“Rollover”, 2002). The SUV class is the most popular vehicle on the road and the most profitable. Manufacturers make from $10,000 to $15,000 profit on every SUV sold. The SUV is one of the auto industry’s greatest triumphs in spite of the fact that they have been proven to have a serious safety problem and a propensity to roll over. In 2002, SUV rollover fatalities jumped to more than 2,400 victims, an increase of 14% over the previous year, the government said. It did not offer a reason for the increase. Sixty-one percent of all SUV fatalities involved rollovers (“Fatal”, 2003). Rollover accidents represent about 3% of all crashes in the U.S., almost 33% of deaths on highways occurred in rollover crashes. Though not covered in depth in this paper, the economic impact is not confined to safety concerns alone. SUVs are notorious gas-guzzlers. Their use increases this country’s dependence on foreign oil thus making an embargo by Arab nations more dangerous to America’s economy and security.  A recent report from the Energy Department's Oakridge National Lab estimated that foreign oil dependence has cost the American economy $3.6 trillion since 1970.  The same report estimated oil dependence would cost the American economy $150 billion to $250 billion in 2005 alone, based on oil prices in the $35-$45/barrel range (Cantwell, 2005). Clearly, SUVs have an adverse affect on many accounts, from the personal level through local, state and national economies. The human costs are even greater, but the misperception that these vehicles offer greater safety still prevails. Perceived safety and the impulse to be considered stylish continues to fuel purchases of SUVs. The government is not likely to set standards for SUV safety as it would further cripple the profits of an already staggered U.S. auto industry, yet to reduce the disproportionate number of accidents these types of vehicles cause would require much redesign as well as stricter standards. Politicians aren’t anxious to explain decisions based on public safety concerns when those decisions cost American jobs. As in many instances, government control over our actions is not the answer, education is. Works Cited Bradsher, Keith. “Larger Vehicles are Hampering Visibility.” New York Times. November 22, 1998. Braur, Karl. “Brakes: Drum vs. Disk.” 1995. Tech Center at Edmunds.com. December 9, 2005. Babler, Hampton and William Hollowell. “The Aggressivity of Light Trucks and Vans in Traffic Crashes.” U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. March 1998, doc. 980908. Cantwell, Maria. “Cantwell: Senate Failed to Reduce American Dependence on Foreign Oil.” June 16, 2005. Senator Maria Cantwell. December 9, 2005. “Economic Costs: Owners and Taxpayers Foot the Bill for SUVs.” n.d. The SUV Info Link. December 9, 2005. “Fatal SUV Rollovers Up as Auto Deaths Rise.” July 18, 2005. USA Today. December 9, 2005. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. n.d. “Fatality Facts.” December 9, 2005. National Safety Council. “Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries, 2003.” September 23, 2004. Nauss, David. “Detroit Circles the Trucks: The Big Three Defend Sport-Utilities and Other Hot Sellers Against an Assault by Regulators and Environmentalists.” Los Angeles Times. April 5, 1998, Sec. D, p. 1. “Road Safety: A Public Health Issue.” World Health Organization report. March 29, 2004. “Rollover: The Hidden History of the SUV.” February 21, 2002. Frontline. December 9, 2005. “SUVs: Escalating Risks on the Highway.” n.d. The SUV Info Link. December 9, 2005. United States Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Traffic Safety Facts 1996: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. Washington D.C.: GPO, December 1997, Ch. 3, p. 65, table 37. World Health Organization. International Injury and Fatality Statistics. 1999. -- “Road Safety: A Public Health Issue.” March 29,2004. Read More