Last week we reported the views of an eminent American motoring journalist on the proliferation of SUVs , sport utility vehicles, in the US - and their increasing presence on European roads. Today, in a footnote, Keith Bradsher answers our questions about how he came to see SUVs as dangerous, pollutant and fuel-thirsty
What brought about your strong views on SUVs?
As Detroit bureau chief for the New York Times from January, 1996, through August, 2001, I watched as millions of Americans switched from cars to sport utility vehicles without a full understanding of the shortcomings of SUVs.
The rollovers, weak brakes, poor handling, lousy gas mileage and unusually high pollution of SUVs make them poor substitutes for mid-size and full-size cars. But what bothered me most was the danger that they posed, often needlessly, to other motorists.
In the past three years, automakers have begun redesigning the underbodies of SUVs to make them less likely to ride over the bumpers and door sills of cars in collisions. But the fact remains that SUV occupants are at least as likely to die in a collision as car occupants - and far more likely to kill the other guy in the crash as well.
When did you decide to write a book on the issue?
I decided to write the book in late spring of 2001, after writing more than 200 articles about SUVs for the New York Times.
Surely the sheer bulk of metal makes the SUV safer if you are in a pile-up?
SUVs have less effective brakes than cars and cannot swerve as well as cars. SUVs are more likely to roll over if they strike a curb, a guard rail or a lower-riding vehicle. Many guard rails are not tall enough to keep SUVs on the road, and the design of some guard rails poses particular risks to SUV owners.
SUVs also have less effective crumple zones than cars. So, while an SUV's bulk does transfer some of the forces in a crash to other vehicles, it does not fully offset the vehicle's intrinsic safety shortcomings.
When the book was published did you come under pressure from manufacturers?
The auto industry's favorite Washington lobbying and public relations firm, a block from the White House, circulated an unsigned, no-letterhead, 15-page attack on the book to journalists and reviewers. There is a brief description of this effort in the Detroit Free Press, the hometown newspaper for the auto industry. You can read the article, which was somewhat critical of me and of the book, at www.auto.com/industry/
walsh17_20020917.htm
Have things changed since you wrote the book?
Little has changed since I wrote the book. As I describe in the book, automakers have made some changes in recent years, partly in response to my articles but also in response to their own engineers' desires to offer safer products. But SUVs still are not as safe as cars.
Do you think the current US administration is promoting the use of SUVs, considering President Bush's fondness for images of himself riding around in a large SUV with other world leaders?
SUVs were popular with the Clinton administration and are popular with many state politicians. They have become the vehicles of choice of many American politicians because they present a populist image. Images of SUVs, whether in Hollywood movies or in media coverage, at the very least have increased the public's awareness of them.
On an international scale how does Asia compare with the US in terms of SUV popularity?
SUVs are considerably less popular in Asia, but are starting to catch up. Automakers are understandably trying to recoup investment in SUVs for the American market by selling these models in as many other markets as possible.
The safety figures you refer to in the book are all US statistics. Yes/no?
No. I also cite Australian crash statistics, especially regarding bull bars - and I mention crash tests performed in Britain and Germany.
Are there similar figures for the European market?
I'm not aware of similar, national statistics for the European market. Indeed, European safety researchers commonly use American statistics because the US has a very well-developed system for gathering a lot of details on every single fatal crash anywhere in the country.
Since SUVs are still a low percentage of all registered vehicles in Europe, it's unlikely that an accurate database of crash involvements there has been developed yet.
About roll-overs - haven't some firms made moves to introduce technology to combat this problem? Is this not enough?
Many companies are introducing technology now to address rollovers. Customers who need SUVs, such as for off-road driving or towing, should look for models with electronic anti-rollover systems and with side-curtain air bags to reduce the risk of ejection during a rollover. Unfortunately, these systems are often optional instead of being standard.
There are no good crash statistics on the effectiveness of these systems because they are still installed on only a tiny percentage of all registered vehicles. But the systems appear to function very well in vehicle handling tests and crash tests.
Have they not pointed to wrong tyre pressure as being responsible for the Firestone crashes?
Inadequate tyre pressure was one of the problems in the Firestone crashes. Firestone also said that it made some tyres using poor designs and flawed manufacturing techniques. But I point out in the book that SUVs as a group, not just the Ford Explorer, have higher occupant death rates for tyre-related crashes than cars do, and this pattern has persisted for many years. It's harder to maintain control with a high centre of gravity when a tyre fails than a vehicle with a low centre of gravity.