Since I just bought and SUV, I thought I would comment on this insufferable snobbery from the New Yorker.
Of course, the logic behind that argument is backward: the trip to Wal-Mart is a good deal more hazardous than fording a stream in the wilderness, and we ought to be buying cars optimized for the conditions we actually drive in.
Like carrying a month’s worth of groceries and the kids at the same time?
We have 6 inches of snow coming, please may I drive an SUV? Ground clearance is important when there’s a foot of snow. Or berms from the snow plows. And if SUVs weren’t ubiquitous, I wouldn’t be able to afford one. I would be driving a less safe vehicle, when I could get out on the roads. But getting great gas milage.
The S.U.V., on the other hand, is supposed to allow the buyer to pretend that he or she doesn?t have a family, that he or she is still a kind of rugged loner without suburban entrapments.
I don’t have any family, at least none near me, and no kids. I’m all alone, oh, so alone. So I drive that 17mpg beast all by myself. Oh, the humanity!
If every car on the road was a Mini, then the cost of an accident would be quite small: if you are in a Mini and you hit a Mini, you aren?t going to be that bad off. So, in the old days, the premium on active safety wasn?t so large. On the other hand, if every car on the road is an S.U.V., the cost of an accident grows substantially. When a Ford Explorer hits a Chevy TrailBlazer, both parties suffer enormously.
Do body shops charge less labor on smaller cars? I don’t know. It just seems odd to me.
And, if a Ford Explorer hits a Mini, the Mini driver is a dead man.
What I’m getting from that is I should have a vehicle with more metal than a tomato can to drive in.
Of course, it would be better if every car on the road was the same weight.
And you can have whatever color you want as long as it is black. So, I say 1 ton. It seems like a nice compromise.
Don’t worry, I didn’t take all the fun out of it, there’s more hilarity in the article.