It is a strongly written and interesting article which I suggest reading. It really illustrates a lot of irrationality in consumer car-purchasing decisions, though one particular example (the cupholders thing) has been chewed over here before and I disagree with the author of the article’s opinions on that one specific point. It also suggests at least some level of mystical thinking by the auto industry.
For those without the time, a short summary is provided:
It suggests that according to some statistics, the drivers of midsized cars are among the safest because the decreased ‘passive’ safety in driving smaller vehicles is compensated for by better ‘active’ safety in terms of better performance in accelerating, stopping, and especially turning to avoid problems—and that this second active safety effect is larger than the passive safety gains by switching . The safest of all is extremely large things like minivans because of details of their design and construction—being designed from the ground up for safety with e.g. crumple zones and so forth, but midsized cars are rather towards the safe end of things in terms of fatalities per millions of drivers. Finally, it suggests that the SUV is extremely unsafe but bought anyways for psychological reasons—people like to feel ‘big’ and ‘high up’ even if that is objectively safe. This works to the extent that at one time automakers made a back window smaller to make drivers feel like others couldn’t see in, and thus feel safer even though larger windows are objectively safer.
I know that I personally think it is less safe for me to be driving an SUV or truck compared to a smaller car; The giant mass feels great psychologically, but after driving a smaller car a lot, the larger ones I have driven feel too sluggish and slow to avoid things.
I read a long time ago the following article about car safety:
Malcolm Gladwell’s article Big and Bad
It is a strongly written and interesting article which I suggest reading. It really illustrates a lot of irrationality in consumer car-purchasing decisions, though one particular example (the cupholders thing) has been chewed over here before and I disagree with the author of the article’s opinions on that one specific point. It also suggests at least some level of mystical thinking by the auto industry.
For those without the time, a short summary is provided:
It suggests that according to some statistics, the drivers of midsized cars are among the safest because the decreased ‘passive’ safety in driving smaller vehicles is compensated for by better ‘active’ safety in terms of better performance in accelerating, stopping, and especially turning to avoid problems—and that this second active safety effect is larger than the passive safety gains by switching . The safest of all is extremely large things like minivans because of details of their design and construction—being designed from the ground up for safety with e.g. crumple zones and so forth, but midsized cars are rather towards the safe end of things in terms of fatalities per millions of drivers. Finally, it suggests that the SUV is extremely unsafe but bought anyways for psychological reasons—people like to feel ‘big’ and ‘high up’ even if that is objectively safe. This works to the extent that at one time automakers made a back window smaller to make drivers feel like others couldn’t see in, and thus feel safer even though larger windows are objectively safer.
I know that I personally think it is less safe for me to be driving an SUV or truck compared to a smaller car; The giant mass feels great psychologically, but after driving a smaller car a lot, the larger ones I have driven feel too sluggish and slow to avoid things.