|
January 05, 2006
| La Vida |
There are, in my experience, three arguments for driving an SUV.
- I frequently haul so much crap that it's cost-efficient to do so.
- I need a vehicle that can cross the rugged outback reliably because my home is in Alice Springs and my office is in Canberra.
- My family and I are safer in our SUV than you are in your Squishimoto.
One and Two are possible, but don't really account for all the single-occupant SUVs taking Dad from the suburbs to the office.
Three has been stated to me as trumping any question of initial cost, operating cost, fuel efficiency, environmental cost, additional risk to others, the ugliness of the Aztek or basically any other reason why an SUV is not inferior to a car.
Interestingly, it's not true, for the only period for which there is data. The study in the Journal Pediatrics showed an identical rate of child injuries in both cars and SUVs. As the link mentions, this is about a specific time period and there are changes coming that may affect how this compares in the future.
But for now, don't buy that expensive to buy, expensive to operate, gas-guzzling ugly-ass Aztek. It's not any safer for your family. It just puts more metal on the road and Force = mass x deceleration.
The prisoner's dilemma game changes quite a bit when the costs change. In the expected case, it's best to buy an SUV. In the actual case, it's best to buy a car.
| Actual | | Expected |
|---|
| SUV | CAR | | | SUV | CAR |
|---|
| SUV | WORST | EQUALLY BAD | | SUV | BAD | SUV LEAST BAD
CAR WORST CASE |
| CAR | EQUALLY BAD | LEAST BAD | | CAR | CAR WORST CASE | ALMOST AS BAD AS SUV/SUV |
|
| .:Posted by Michael on January 5, 2006 10:58 AM:.
|
Three has been stated to me as trumping any question of initial cost, operating cost, fuel efficiency, environmental cost, additional risk to others, the ugliness of the Aztek or basically any other reason why an SUV is not inferior to a car.
Humans owe a moral duty to other humans beyond their immediate family. That moral duty is lessened by distance, of course,* but it does not fall off to zero as fast as all that.
It's also simple social calculus. One of the reasons we're social in the first place is that most risk is diminished both absolutely and relatively when shared. Not shouldering your fair burden of risk is cheating. (Dealing with sociality is why we evolved morality in the first place, of course.)
*If moral duty does not diminish with distance, moral analysis fails due to rampant infinities. It's akin to renormalization in gauge theory (e.g. quantum electrodynamics). People who don't renormalize moral duty become saints and bodhisattvas.
| .:Posted by Greg Morrow
( total) on January 5, 2006 2:01 PM:. |
I would say that the stated arguments are not arguments for driving an SUV but rather arguments for buying an SUV. I drive an SUV; my argument is: my dad gave me his old SUV many years ago and I am going to drive it until the engine explodes - oh wait, that already happened - I am going to drive it until the engine explodes again. At LEAST until the engine explodes again.
| .:Posted by Jason
( total) on January 5, 2006 6:12 PM:. |
Jason,
Would you agree if we added a fourth reason, the "alsihad reason", which states that one reason to drive an SUV is that you have come into posession of one?
| .:Posted by Michael
( total) on January 5, 2006 11:02 PM:. |
