Talk:Criticism of SUVs

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was closed without action.

ESC[edit]

ESC reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle rollovers by 75 percent for SUVs (Farmer, C.M. 2010. Effects of electronic stability control on fatal crash risk. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)

But the article implies that 95% of SUV rollovers involve "tripping" that cannot be mitigated by ESC. This very much contra-indicated by the field data on rollover mitigation.

ESC is now standard on all new vehicles as of the 2012 model year. And, ESC was standard on many SUVs before the 2012 model year with increasing penetration in over the decade prior to 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.55.75 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps note current trends/improvements?[edit]

SUVs Began small and reasonably fuel efficient in the 60s in europe (land rover?), became HUGE and horrible on fuel in the US in the 70/80s (Suburban, wagoneer), and now with better globalization are becoming smaller and more fuel efficient. Technically, many "SUV"s are built on the same chassis as cars and minivans now (Acura MDX = honda odyssey, PT cruiser = dodge neon, etc). It's common now to see full size trucks reaching beyond 20mpg, and mid size vehicles reaching beyond 30, which is comparable to MANY normal passenger cars. Hating SUVs is fine (I drive one, but I'm a redneck), but noting the improvements over the years may ease the bias here without distracting from the issues. (I learned to drive a manual in a 3 cylinder suzuki, so yeah, I know 30mpg is not that great, but it's getting better)

Also, to whoever wrote the visibility portion, nicely done. Parallel parking is one of the big reasons I got my vehicle. I'm short and can't see over the trunk/boot on many cars. Not having a trunk allows the window to be lower and me to see much better. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.85.220 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article is in fact unbalanced in favor of oposition to SUV's[edit]

However the point of the article is to express critisizm of suv's (which has a strong political bent) on a page other then the SUV main page. 1) So it can have a balanced article of it own, and 2) because it unbalances the discussion of SUV's article as it doesn't really help people understand SUV's rather it just introduces strong political viewpoints.

addition: I am also confused as to whether this article cites criticism of SUVs or the SUV owners themselves.. Many points are about how statistically drivers of SUVs are unsafe, die in accidents, are caught drunk-driving more, etc., which have nothing to do with the safety of the vehicles themselves. Also, the greater field of visibility from an SUV's height is passed over in favor of some alleged psychological misfunction 69.30.121.215 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)nightjason[reply]

The article is about the vehicle, not the driver. Some of your points about the statistical elements of the article are not quite on target. "Many points are about how statistically drivers of SUVs are unsafe, die in accidents, are caught drunk-driving more, etc., which have nothing to do with the safety of the vehicles themselves." That may very well have to do with the safety of the car. Its like having done an experiment, you have a control group (normal cars) and the SUV group; and the results are... I would agree with you on the drunk driving as there may be a third cause behind both; drunk driving and driving an SUV. Yet, everything else may have to do with the SUV itself. Brusegadi 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added external links to this page[edit]

From 1) SUV 2) Car Safty 3) 4wd

so called cnv research[edit]

The quoted cnv research study is an obvious piece of garbage. Anyone who'd actually read it can't seriously doubt it. Would you please point any specific inaccuracies in my criticism before yanking it? And: did you even read it, DeFacto?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs)

The study by CNW Marketing Research has been widely reported and widely commented upon in reliable sources - it qualifies for inclusion in an article which comments upon the CO2 emissions of SUVs. Any counter-claims about the research, are, of course, valid too. Such counter-claims though can only be ones which have been "published by a reliable source" - that is stated in the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Your own personal criticism is not allowed under that policy. Equally, any valid, published research needs to be presented using a neutral point of view - see the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. You cannot use language such as "the cited write-up is an interesting piece of Propaganda", unless you are reporting comments made in another respected source - in which case you need to cite that source so that the interpretation can be verified. -- de Facto (talk). 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the source itself is not trustworthy. It would be like me writing up a webpage and using it on wikipedia to source an outlandish statement. Thus, another source is needed, one that we can trust. Brusegadi 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "study" is commonly associated with research. The cited write-up however does not qualify as such, because it gives no sources for its claims/numbers and does not describe the methodology used; none of its claims are verifiable. As such, it is not more than a stated opinion. The term propaganda is an appropriate description of it, as the write-up satisfies the criteria from the reference article on propaganda. If you object to it, please state explicitly why. You state that "any valid, published research needs to be presented using a neutral point of view" -- again, please provide back-up for your claim that the CNW write-up qualifies as research. You discount my claims about the contents of the "study", claiming that I provide no reliable source. What I stated can directly recognized as contents of the study itself; thus, my representations are properly backed up by your own standards. Again, if you object, be specific, and don't make vague and non-verifiable claims. -- anonymous coward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2007 January 15 (UTC)

I agree. Brusegadi 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CNW "study" is a self publishes source, which according to the rules governing Wikipedia:Verifiability is not acceptable. You have also not made an attempt to provide any Reliable_sources referencing it. Accordingly, I have removed the reference from the SUV criticism page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2007 January 15 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns and cited a report of the CNW investigation. -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the report rather sketchy. I will see what I can find in terms of research. Brusegadi 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some reading about WP:RS and it seems like this source is not reliable, "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." It does not mean that we have to remove it right away, so I will not, but we should definitely discuss it. I will try to find something similar from a more trustworthy source, if I cant, I will be tempted to remove it thought.Brusegadi 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hybridcars.com/environment-stories/dust-to-dust-energy-costs.html http://www.toyota.com/html/hybridsynergyview/2006/summer/ecovas.html http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/news/enviroreport.html http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

and the biggie:

https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf

RMI, as opposed to CNW research, has a wikipage, thus, it is more prominent, older, has more at stakes when making claims, thus, I think it is more reliable. Brusegadi 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with the principle that just because someone has a wikipage and been around a while makes their claims more reliable. However, I do agree that the CMW report does not provide detailed and substatiated data that have been made publically available for review (and within the report state they are not intending to). The RMI link points to research using a different model for environmental impact so it could be claimed the differences are in the models used (for example the CNW report states they have used a wider model which includes the outsourced manufacturing costs as well as the main vehicle manufacturers costs). Kourgath (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Market influence to make SUV's worse in terms of offroad prefomance[edit]

perhaps someone could add something about how the market is forcing traditional desighns such as the landcruiser to evlove into people movers which have reduced offroad preformance.

eg

prado - lower clearance and reduced attack angle; 79 series - coil suspension instead of leaf on the front

if people who bought 4wd if they actually were going to use then there would be less therfore environ benifits and people who use 4wds would be happy.

I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say, as alot of what you wrote reads as incoherent rambling. One thing I would like to correct you on, is that coil springs are prefered to leaf springs for offroad applications. Coil springs give greater wheel articulation, which is a key feature of offroad performance. Leaf springs are chosen mostly for load bearing, so they are popular for truck suspensions.--Evilbred (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology section poorly written[edit]

I read through the safety - psychology section a few times and the third paragraph and the final paragraph in there are extremely poor quality. I'm not even sure what information is trying to be communicated there, can someone help? Pnevares 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of a muddle.

First, there is the problem of what is there, that, as you point out, makes very little sense. Also, there is the problem of what is not there that obviously should be. These two problems are related, since this section basically talks around what needs to be said, and end up talking in circles instead.

Now, part of the problem is, that Wikipedia loves experts, loves a good quote. But, with an issue as *blunt* as very large SUVs-- and, implicitly, *and yet, in reality*, very very rude people who drive these very large SUVs.... you should have to be a little blunt. Either you end up being a little blunt, or else you end up saying so much of nothing at all-- totally talking around the issue and ending up with a certain number of vapid words, and nothing more.

Now, what you are dealing with when facing the psychology of the SUV, and especially the very large, giant sort, is essentially this:

'I drive this big-ass SUV, and you drive a Camry, therefore, I can beat the shit out of you, therefore, I can do as I please, and you need to just know when to get the hell out of my way, and be glad that I just honk my horn and violate traffic laws and *zoom on by yah*, instead of actually ramming straight into you and beating the crap out of you.'

Now, I don't know how to translate that into Wikipedia English, so to speak-- I guess that that needs to be translated into Wikipedia.

But it's also obvious to me that the article isn't fully written until that's in there-- there's just no point writing this article about 'criticism of the SUV', (and including all this *cute stuff* about Swedish vandals that Wikipedia got from the news feeds or something), without *actually* including the reasons why people don't like them, *or even, not, including ~the major reason~ why people don't like them and why people make fun of them*, i.e., "criticism of SUVs" in the actual-world, and not just of some Shakespeare guy who had deigned to speak of it, for a few brief spins of the hour glass, as long as he doesn't put himself out on the cliff or anything.

In other words, yeah, a description of 'criticisms' that elide over the single most obvious criticism, (babying them, basically), just because.... it's easier, on some level, to paint swish-y clouds, rather than blotches of mud, or, something.

Obviously you also have to consider the problem of making these edits *stick*, as it were, since this is Wikipedia, and any moron can just hit, 'Revert', just because he *doesn't like* what you've written, even if he's a semi-literate who has no other reasoning, really.

It's a bit like the problem with discussing the history of German car companies-- *it's a matter of fact* that they supported Hitler, but it is extremely difficult to put this on the screen, as it were, without some semi-literate fascist just reverting it, just because he don't like it none.... I mean, it's a matter of *fact* that Mercedes-Benz (= Daimler-Benz) designed the Panzer III (!), and the guys who write the panzer articles are proud that they know all this sort of thing, but, then, if you want to remind them of this on the history section of the company's article, all of a sudden this is inconvenient, and so they'll shout you down because they'll little bullies and hypocrites.

But to ignore the issue.... is basically to leave the article unwritten, in my opinion.

But to *organize* an approach to this topic which "fits" into Wikipedia, and then *defend* it from vandalism and loud-mouthed semi-literates who think that they can press "revert" every time that somebody mentions some fact that "doesn't fit" into how the world works because they own the world, etc.--

to do that would be to make the article something that's actually worth reading.

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. One day you'll meet some real people. Greglocock (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I take it. Kwiataprilensis (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gen fixes[edit]

I made some fixes to the article. Mainly, the format of inline refs and removing the name of specific SUVs since it makes it seem like advertisement. Brusegadi 02:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

Just a small fix - the original page stated that the CNW report was for cars available in the UK, this is incorrect as stated within the CNW report as being for the North American market. (Page 360 of the original report make this very clear [[1]] Kourgath (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it off[edit]

I dont know how but this should be put up as criteria for speedy deletion. It seems more of a campaign than an informational article to me. Most of the information is unfounded, entirely opinionated. Very biased. Gives a bad impression of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.53.24 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" implies "a group of people expressing a common, negative opinion". 207.210.29.71 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned items that needed a citation[edit]

There were several items here that needed to be refrenced that have been up here for between 5 and 11 months. I believe any reasonable person would agree that an Item that needs a citation shouldn't go 5-11 months before this need is filled.--65.107.88.154 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Anons have expressed their opinions that the article is biased against SUVs (title...) Brusegadi (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, article has no "Criticism" section[edit]

I added this comment yesterday, but it was removed by somebody. Fair enough, because I started ranting during my comment. Here's what I wrote (minus the ranting bit).

"The article is biased. It kind of tries to present itself as an innocent encyclopedic bit of information, but it is clearly grinding it's own axe. There seems to be a serious lack of counter arguments put forward."

Now how about somebody - perhaps one of you Wikipedia club members - fixing this? 86.162.70.68 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies in advance for not signing in; I'm not on my own compy and I can't be bothered.) Nevertheless, you are perfectly free to add a referenced counter argument, with sources and all. Be bold. Further, I do not understand why someone has deleted your comment on the discussion page. To the person(s) that did that; FYIO, this is the discussion page, this is not the article, nor is this China.

On the other hand, the article is already a counter argument article to the ownership of vanity cars. While I do not agree with your POV (personally I have zero tolerance for selfish, arrogant, damaging, ignorant, egoistic vanity, meaning I have pretty much zero tolerance for US Americans in general) you are naturally free to express it, but please do so with referenced and quotable material. Original research tends to be deleted in a matter of seconds. Also, before you add material to an article please make sure such an article doesn't already exist on the Wiki. Thank you and have a nice day. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various Biases[edit]

- The phrase 'Ecotage' glamourises illegal damage inflicted on other peoples property. The correct phrase is motivated vandalism.

Perhaps. But that point belongs on the ecotage page. peterl (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- London does not have any restrictions on 4x4 usage. The only perceivable restriction could be the now abandoned proposal to increase the Congestion Charge for 'high polluting vehicles' from the standard £8 to £25. However, it should be noticed that this £25 charge would have affected anything from Sports Cars to MPVs and even vehicles such as higher spec family cars such as Ford Mondeos or Vauxhall Vectras, NOT simply 4x4's.

- There is little or no balanced argument against the Anti-4x4 movement. Various inflammatory figures and statements are quoted with only minimal qualification or retort. For example there is an entire section devoted to higher crash statistics with only a single sentence stating that the figures aren't weighted against demographic of ownership such as age, gender, or conditions of vehicle usage. Additionally, the driver death figures are laid out in a misleading fashion. For example, the 232 deaths per million vehicle peak figure for mid-size SUV's indicates an inherently unsafe model (presumably the Ford Explorer), rather than an issue with the actual type of vehicle. The rest of the figures are broadly equivalent and in some cases the minima are lower.

- There is no mention of the assertion that outside of the USA, numbers of 4x4's simply aren't high enough to warrant the amount of criticism levelled at them. A previous study by Autocar magazine discovered that even if every 4x4 in the whole of the UK were scrapped and replaced with a Toyota Prius (using questionable manufacturer's economy figures), it would represent a 3-5% drop in overall private vehicle emissions.

- There is a whole paragraph criticising the 'psychology' of 4x4 drivers based on driving position, while there is only a short qualified statement of the benefits of increased visibility. It should be noted that the psychological examples given are subjective at best, while the benefits of improved visibility are measurable. It should also be noted that the ADAC has started taking into account vehicle visibility, primarily in obstruction caused by large A-Pillars. Criticism is usually extended towards normal family cars and MPVs, which can obscure an oncoming car. 4x4's tend to be perceived well in these tests.

- The statement that owners of 'Chelsea Tractors' spread fake mud over their vehicles is unsubstantiated. There is such a product for sale, but people hardly flock to buy it. I personally have never heard of or seen a vehicle so applied. The fact that this information stems from an internet news source of questionable value on the other side of the world should set enough alarm bells ringing, but the fact that they denote Shropshire as a county 'north west of London' virtually eliminates any notion of balanced opinion. Shropshire is in fact nearly 200 miles north west of London, and is in fact on the border with Wales, where 4x4 ownership may be considered a necessity. Thus this may be considered a piece of 'Anti-British' media, rather than anti 4x4

I disagree. Many people regard the BBC as a substantiated reference. And sprayonmud gets over 2,000 hits on Google. And it was also referred to at The Guardian. peterl (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article page links to a webpage from South Africa which reports a BBC article [[2]]. If there are no objections then I think the link needs to be changed. Spray on Mud is a product from a business consultant called Colin Dowse and was intended as both a commentary on SUV's in London and as a bit of a joke. [[3]] He says that it is selling well but there are no sales figures to back this up. There is a comment about someone buying it as a joke for their friend. There is a Guardian blog [[4]] that Google removed sprayonmud.com after the page may have been deemed to have search engine optimisation on it. The website is again available but not the product. Kourgath (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the spray on mud sentence, not defensible. All coverage dates from 2005. Even if was used then, it is not clear it is now.

Overall this is a poor article with absolutely no educational benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.184.2 (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

true, we need more citable data. Over in [[5]] Bristol Traffic, they have some fairly good evidence that Range-Rovers mostly appear in the streets of Bristol parked illegally in some form or other. But is there any consistent dataset that really audits the entire car/SUV parking decisions of a city, such as data from city parking authorities comparing the percentage of illegally parked vehicles with their percentage in the city's motr vehicle fleet? SteveLoughran (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your assertion 'absolutely no educational benefit'. The article has enough references (although it could do with more) to support its case. peterl (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article interesting and feel it does provide some 'educational benefit' by giving the criticism of SUV's a place to record their data. I agree that the criticism is biased against SUV's but then that is clearly the purpose of the page, though it fails to mention the similarity of the average SUV to the average Minivan. I am also concerned about the mixup of various datasets used in the statistics. Some of the data is based upon the single classification of 'SUV, Minivans and Light Trucks' and some of the data seems to discuss only SUV's. Kourgath (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minivans have less flaws. There is less marketing of the myth-of-off-road-sporting-joy on a minivan, less "your vehicle will cope with a snow emergency on your commute". They tend to be less prone to flipping (lower CofG), can have better fuel economy (no need for a 4WD), and their fenders are the same height as other road users (so less hazardous to others in cars). Yet their market share has fallen relative to SUVs -possibly because of the different image that SUV's present over minivans, since all the latter has to sell is dull but practical school runs. And yes, I do own a minivan, so I am talking from experience here. SteveLoughran (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the CoG and most of the other points you make. I think that SUV's are evolving like minivans have i.e. minivans used to be converted commercial vans - particlularly in the European markets (in a similar manner to early SUV's being 4x4 utility vehicles with leather and AC) whereas now they are more car-like monocoque construction etc. The article has sections on width and smaller roads and parking spaces but from the table there is little difference in the roadspace taken up by SUV's and minivans. Also the table shows that minivans and SUV's have similar fuel usage. The article uses data which includes all three SUV, Minivans and Light Trucks to say that SUV's are more dangerous without fully stating the issues of relative volumes of each within the published data. The 2009 IIHS Top safety picks 'Winners include 8 large cars, 13 midsize cars, 6 small cars, 1 minicar, 3 midsize convertibles, and 3 minivans. Among SUVs, 19 are midsize, 10 are small, and 5 are large.' So safety is clearly something the manufacturers are working hard on. Kourgath (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for similar critical articles on sport cars, supercars and mini-vans but cannot find such articles. The Chrysler Voyager (2007) has a 1.5 star EuroNcap rating whereas the Land Rover Discovery (2006) has 4 star rating. The issues over environmental damage would be similar for any large vehicle with a large engine. Issues of irresponsible driving are to do with the driver not the vehicle. Drink driving is driver related so if more of the drunk drivers drive SUV's is that the SUV's fault? Kourgath (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we in the UK cycling and road safety community would be happy with criticisms of sports/supercars, indeed, the whole bias of much of the EU -especially German- car industry to design vehicles "for the autobahn", a design that is then marketed worldwide. This results in vehicles with engines designed for use way above the target countries' speed limits, and a marketing of speed-is-good. I look forward to you starting the article. SteveLoughran (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table data is incorrect[edit]

The tabe of average data for US sold vehicles contains errors in the conversion of inches to cm. It is not clear if the original data was imperial or metric. If the data is imperial then the average SUV is only 0.2 inches wider than the average sedan. This will affect the cross sectional area calculations used to show the increased fuel consumption due to drag and if so then minivans have a larger CSA. Kourgath (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede/delete[edit]

The lede made a claim that has been challenged for a few months. Nobody has attempted to find a ref for it, therefore I removed it. Since it is the raison d'etre for the entire article I suggets we delete the whole thing. Greglocock (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

I've reverted the redirect placed here. I consider there is enough material here for its own page. There is too much material here to be included in the SUV page. Yes, the info here does need some work but I don't agree on removing 70% of it. peterl (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Grand Wagoneer made a very good attempt at getting rid of the irrlevant trivia in this page. I don't this article should exist, it is basically an attack page. Do we have or need a "Criticisim of Electric Vehicles " page? "Criticism of Wind Power"? Both would be very easy to write based on RS, in comparison to this rather idiotic page. Does the fact that some people refer to them as Toorak Tractors really belong in an encyclopedia? etc. I would propose that we should redo GW's edits to this and the SUV page.Greglocock (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is 52 references on this page; most of those are relevant. I agree this page has some material that is irrelevant, but not all of it. The reason there is no 'Criticism of Electric vehicles' page is that there is not a lot of criticism of Electric vehicles. I don't agree it's an attack page. The references are substantial and not trivial at all. I do agree this page needs work. peterl (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, criticism of Wind power would be good, there's a big anti-wind power movement in some places where they don't want windmills over their countryside, or out to sea. Similarly. Electric Vehicles also have problems -last week GM were telling NYC transport that they should be encouraged by allowing them to park for less, or use HOV lanes when just one vehicle, only to get told that for a lot of the city, congestion and parking are the problems and electric vehicles only move pollution problems (in the absence of solar/wind electricity sources). SteveLoughran (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links[edit]

Multiple dead links in this article resulting in unsourceable statements. Post them here.

31 is a dead link. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 -2 is unreachable
 -7 is unreachable
 -21 is unreachable
 -23 is irrelevant/doesn't link to specific content
 -27 seems too biased to be relevant (one manufacturer bashing another/defending itself against an already linked source)
 -29 is unreachable
 -30 appears to be a repeat of 27
 -31 is unreachable
 -37 leads to a landing page - similar to 23, not sure what the original specified content was
 -40 is unavailable free/online
 -44 is unreachable
 -46 seems unreachable but it may just be a slow loading page
 -47 is unreachable
 -48 is unreachable
 -50 is unreachable

 Everything labeled as unreachable either yielded a 404 or similar "content not available" or "page not found" error Obobskivich (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Points of bias[edit]

This article is very clearly biased in both its world view, and some of the information provided -

A good portion of "sourced" information appears to stem from a few articles in news periodicals or popular newsmagzine television shows - which not only presents an Ameri-centric or Brit-centric perspective of the topic, but also lacks more or less any scientific basis (sorry, The New Yorker and the BBC are not scientific authorities when it comes to automotive safety unless they're citing a substantiated study (in which case they are secondary sources at best, and the original study should be referenced directly) - IIHS, NHSTA, etc data would be far more appropriate, in some cases this data is present however it isn't presented clearly and is subjectively dismissed, the Fifth Gear "test" is in no way an accurate representation of the entire topic, they were simply crashing a Rover into an MPV for better ratings, there are SUVs that have received high marks from American safety/regulatory organizations (unfortunately I can't comment on the equivalent European organizations) - one test of one model of vehicle should not be indicative of an entire type of vehicle)

The article also seems to present information primarily from the perspective of British or American users/vehicle owners/drivers - not a worldwide perspective - which further colors the article (the information could be presented as a political issue in those regions, however in other regions of the world this simply isn't the case).

Two specific sections that I had particular issue with:

1) Marketing practices - this is entirely unfounded and irrelevant - it doesn't matter *how* the product is marketed as a form of criticism, unless the product is marketed to do something it clearly cannot do; many sedans and coupes are advertised performing amazing feats on a closed track or making high speed maneuvers in a busy urban environment, and it could be argued just as well that "these vehicles will never do this". Generally speaking the advertisement and naming of the vehicles isn't valid criticism - unless there is some sort of objective source to support this, or the section is worded as "opponents feel that such naming is bad". I don't think any SUV manufacturer advertises their products as "environmentally friendly" - aside from a few hybrid models (which could very well be its own section) - positioning of the product in a rainforest, field, etc is simply showing something the vehicle could theoretically do (and again, without some sort of objective basis for claiming the vehicles are used for paved driving, take it out - it's just a subjective rant)

2) The Psychology section is not rooted in any peer reviewed or objective psychology, it is one person's published opinions in a newsmagazine - regardless of that magazine's quality or circulation this does not validate those claims or opinions as accepted science or factual information. Until some more substantial information is available to prove or disprove that point, that also reads like a subjective rant.

The rest of the article still reads like a biased rant, but there is a reasonable amount of information from credible sources between the lines - removal of the weasel words, arguments about SUV owners (and in response to an earlier comment about this: an established relationship does not denote a causal relationship, just because people who own SUVs may drive under the influence more often, does not mean that owning the SUV is the deciding factor in that relationship (perhaps the lifestyle that leads to an individual purchasing a vehicle as a status symbol contributes to that psychology? regardless of what that vehicle may be)), and commentary from pundits/newsmagazines could lead the article to be a more accurate representation of current criticisms of SUVs (in other words, explain what the complaints are and why they exist, don't directly levy them though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obobskivich (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slang section, hey how about some fart jokes?[edit]

Does anybody really think that this article needs the slang section? It might be amusing but then I rather hope that wiki doesn't have a list of fart jokes, which would at least belong in an encyclopedia since they are at least referenceable from chaucer onwards. Greglocock (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the slang section (which is well ref'd) does provide some insight into the attitudes surrounding SUVs, which is what this article is about. peterl (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True they are mostly referneced. But people have pejorative names for things they like, eg seppo for US american. So don't you need to explicitly state with a referneced source exactly what insight is being provided? Greglocock (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is the attitudes surrounding (criticism about) SUVs, and the names (although generally pejorative) reflect that. peterl (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Find a ref saying that and I'll quit bitching about the list of random trivia. Until then my position is that an encyclopedia does not include naked lists of trivia and then expect the reader to decide why it has been included. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I've re-org'd the section, added more refs to make that clear, added a lead para (that could prob be expanded) and added a bit on the (strangely missing) US on why these names are here. peterl (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently deleted this section, and on balance I think that despite the improvements that had been made to it that an encyclopedic article didn't need it. I would have though those most opposed to SUVs would actually agree with this, since any hope of being taken seriously evaporated with that section. Greglocock (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SUV safety stats[edit]

Interesting paper looking at the crash protection features on the Volvo XC60 [[6]]. As well as showing this crash protection feature does appear to be "statistically significant" in terms of safety, it also shows the crash rates of other SUVs, and the rest of the volvo fleet -of which the XC90 is way above all other volvos in crash rates. Admittedly, that isn't normalised for vehicle owner or other factors, but it does show that there is a significantly higher crash rate for the XC90s -for some reason or other-

Merged to Sport utility vehicles#Criticism[edit]

I have merged this article to Sport utility vehicles#Criticism. Please see my note on that page--Aka042 (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

safety claim[edit]

the article says "However, if the analysis is relative to the cost, smaller cars are often safer.[3]" ref 3 is

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf

in which I can find no statement to that effect. One problem is comparing like with like, new small cars are safer than old SUVs, I suspect, but new SUVs are safer than new small cars.

Greglocock (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the tables in that ref directly support the main disputed assertion, the safest 10 vehicles are minivans SUVS and luxury cars, the worst are small and midsize cars. I shall alter the articleGreglocock (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced hoax[edit]

this is all unsourced hoax and so should be removed! -- Ginaferchelli (125.238.118.157 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Proposing removal[edit]

i want to propose the removal of this wiki, it serves no real purpose other than to spread mis-information. -- blackjesus - (60.234.54.157 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree. But if you want to go down that path, you'll need to specify here exactly what information is incorrect, and provide a substantial reason as to why the page should be removed. Alternatively, if there are specific points that you can show (through third-party, reliable sources) are incorrect, you are able to edit the page.

If you remove or change something though, you do need good, reliable sources to support your point.

peterl (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively put it up for deletion at WP:AFD. I'd certainly support deleting it. Greglocock (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well of course i want to go down that path because quite frankly, as far as i can see, this article serves no real purpose other than spreading mis-information and i will be satisfying myself and also all of those who see no clear substance in this article and potential argument associated with it, with its removal. this is just a waste of everybody's time. this theory along with others are made up by

<snip - removing derogatory material peterl (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)>[reply]

-- blackjesus -- (60.234.54.177 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Writing idiocy like that makes me less inclined to take you seriously. Greglocock (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Utility Vehicles as second most significant source of climate destabilizing emissions[edit]

It might be useful to incorporate information from this article in the Jan. 9, 2020 edition of the Guardian (UK) into the article:

SUV's second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal. If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions.

SUVs were the second largest contributor to the increase in global carbon emissions from 2010 to 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/25/suvs-second-biggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal

User:Charlie Lomax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.151.241 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollover Risk[edit]

There is supposedly a "10% chance of rollover while SUVs have between 14% and 23% (varying from a low of 14% for the AWD Ford Edge to a high of 23% for the FWD Ford Escape)". But in what circumstances? 10% of crashes involve rollover, or 10% of cars rollover? Or 10% of single vehicle crashes?203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old statistic, and it is rather fraudulent to compare the centre value of passenger cars vs the range for SUVs, but I've sorted it out for now. Greglocock (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be updated to reflect current trends. The IIHS issued a status report in 2011 that contradicts the majority of these criticisms and shows the results of ESC, side curtain airbags and improved SUV design.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf

The average statistically adjusted driver death rate for large cars is 55 deaths per million registered vehicle years. The average for minivans is 25 deaths per million. The average for midsize 4wd SUVs is 23 per million, The average for large 4wd SUVs is 15 per million. The average for very large 4wd SUVs is 19 per million.

Put another way, the average American large car driver was more than 3 times moer likely to die than the average American large SUV driver.

Spend any time on the IIHS website looking at charts such as these: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/passenger-vehicles/2010

And the obvious conclusion is that modern SUVs have been safer than modern cars since at least the early to mid 2000's. A lot of the data and studies referenced in this article predate that, when ESC and side curtain airbags had not yet mitigated the risk of rollover.

Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding of why ESC is so critical for SUV's: a tripped rollover accident is much more likely if the vehicle is sliding sideways (slipping/skidding, if you want to be accurate) when it is tripped. If there is no slid/skid at the time of tripping (i.e. if the vehicle is still going in the same direction that it is pointed in) than the probability of a rollover accident when the vehicle is tripped is much less.

For example, with an old SUV without ESC, if the driver loses control and begins skidding across a snowy road, and then hits a curb, the vehicle may rollover because the lateral inertia forces the C.G. sideways over the trip hazard, causing an accident (the velocity vector is not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle). If a modern SUV with ESC hits the same curb, but with no lateral motion, the tires will either go over the curb, or be forced backwards into the crush zone of the vehicle. In other words, the angle of the trip hazard is much less important than the inertial forces acting on the vehicle.

By keeping the velocity parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the likelihood of a rollover is greatly mitigated. By equipping the vehicle with side/curtain airbags, the severity of a rollover is greatly mitigated.

This is the reason why certain SUVs (e.g. the Toyota 4Runner) saw a dramatic drop in driver death rate several years before a similar trend was observed with other SUVs (e.g. Jeep Wrangler).

Bottom line: it is accurate to state that a criticism of SUVs used to be that they increased the hazard to other road users without offering a tangible safety benefit to their drivers. It is no longer accurate to state that SUVs are not safer than cars. The added mass, larger crush zones, and greater height for occupants' vital organs outweigh the disadvantages of a high C.G., at least on currently produced SUVs.

If my family's safety was my only concern, a thorough review of IIHS statistically adjusted driver death rates, HLDI raw injury rates, and worldwide crash test data would lead me to purchase a large SUV such as the Toyota Land Cruiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.15.132 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. This attack page could do with a sensible rebuttal. Greglocock (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

driver behaviour[edit]

somebody added a couple of sentences today on driver behavior. I'd say that they are (a) obvious but (b) OR. However it is certainly true that vehicles with the same rollover characteristics can have wildly different rollover accident rates due to driver demographics. For example 4 door light truck variants of 2 door light trucks tend to be 'safer' according to the stats, whereas the chances are that the 2 doors are bought by younger drivers and driven more aggressively. Greglocock (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of SUV's[edit]

I live just west of the Rocky Mountains 15km off the paved roads. I drive a 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup that leads the way in the snow so my wife can drive the kids to school in the smaller SUV. This article is making comparisons to other vehicles that just can't do the job. The same driving conditions also apply to backwoods summer retreats, hunters, fishermen, farmers etc. Just because my vehicles seem totally overboard when I go to the city doesn't incline me to get rid of them. Perhaps the article needs a section to introduce the "always drive on pavement" folks to the "wish we had pavement" folks.Dougmcdonell (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to real smart feller[edit]

If you live 15kms from a paved road and wish you had more pavement, please relocate to a suburb or urban area. It doesn't take a doctorate to figure that one out. If needed, I can type this again more slowly for you, Doug...

Charlie Lomax] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.151.241 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070823170557/http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/EQUATIONS.pdf to http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/EQUATIONS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profitability rant[edit]

here's GM's profits

Explore more <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/General_Motors_Co_(GM)/Data/Key_Metrics?ref=chart">GM Data</a> at <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com">Wikinvest</a>

Here's ford's profits

Explore more <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Ford_Motor_Company_(F)/Data/Key_Metrics?ref=chart">F Data</a> at <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com">Wikinvest</a>

I see no sign of a dip in the early 2000s, and the late 2000s were all about the GFC surely? Greglocock (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Criticism of SUVs/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article suffers from poorly constructed sentences, but worse conveys none of the counter-arguments a balanced article should contain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.210.13 (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/AUTO01/610230304/1148
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000116103100/http://www.nhtsa.gov/ to http://www.safercar.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309072906/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Activism = criticism?[edit]

Since when does a decision by activists in one country to commit criminal mischief or vandalism over their personal viewpoints reflect on the merits of the underlying issue or product? If an activist decides to protest against watermelons by slashing them in stores, for example, how does that make buying a watermelon any better or worse of a decision than it was before? The "Activism" section has no bearing on the rest of the issues addressed by the article. If my personal opinion (rightly) isn't solid evidence or basis for a Wikipedia article, then someone else's isn't either. 135.23.43.68 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is practically a joke. Might as well have "Criticism of Brown Shoes" as this one. The bird has flown, the horse has bolted, the ice cream has melted. People in every country buy SUVs or whatever rather than sedans. It isn't an evil conspiracy foisted on them by the car companies, it is a choice they have made. Greglocock (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably take a look at vehicle purchase stats outside of North America (especially in countries where roads are designed to be narrower like most of Europe and Japan) before assuming the world followed in the footsteps of where-ever you come from. 2607:FEA8:A7DD:2C90:E4E4:979C:FC64:1421 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay![edit]

... at least as long as SUVs are relevant, which will probably only end when gas runs out. Intriguingly it hasn't yet been translated in other languages. Anyway it is the most serious piece of information to find when googling 'I hate SUVs' ... 2001:7E8:C986:6800:68EA:C722:B93B:F91B (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely biased and not at all nuanced[edit]

This article reads more like a political position than a balanced exposition of issues related to SUVs. Without greater nuance in this article, it should be taken down. It is not currently written for an encyclopedia type platform. Indeed, if this were on a more timely topic I imagine this would have already be edited.

It is not that some of these critiques are necessarily untrue. Rather this article completely fails to offer any limitations or counter argument to what is laid out. For example, it is true that many SUVs get poorer gas mileage than some cars, but this is not always the case. Driving habits while in an SUV are not an inherent issue with the vehicle itself but rather human behavior. Gas efficiency and rapid movement to electrified vehicles, including SUVs, has an impact on many of these arguments. SUVs are a very diverse class of vehicle with diverse applications and users, which this article completely fails to address to any meaningful extent.

The presentation of a carefully selected set of facts that support a political argument rather than neutrally explain a set of circumstances (indeed in many political jurisdictions such as within France this is a salient political issue). This article is not befitting of Wikipedia. 67.180.248.45 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The average SUV gets worst fuel mileage than the average car, or are we now using worst-case-scenario outliers as a basis for painting SUV's in a more positive light? In a similar vein, I'm fairly certain that the average electric sedan would also be more economical than the average electric SUV. There's simply no way around the fact that (all thing's being equal) a heavier vehicle has a greater impact (both economically and environmentally) than a lighter one.

The article is about criticism of SUV, so of course the facts presented are going to be related to that. The facts I see support a public safety narrative, not a political agenda as you have somehow extrapolated. 203.59.179.14 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safety - let's prove that SUV drivers are safer drivers but also more of them drunk drive[edit]

"When it comes to mortality for vehicle occupants, four-door minicars have a death rate (per 100,000 registration years rather than mileage) of 82, compared with 46 for very large four-doors. This survey reflects the effects of both vehicle design and driving behaviour. Drivers of SUVs, minivans, and large cars may drive differently from the drivers of small or mid-size cars, and this may affect the survey result."

"For example, US SUV drivers were found to be less likely to wear their seatbelts and showed a tendency to drive more recklessly (most sensationally perhaps, in a 1996 finding that SUV drivers were more likely to drive drunk)."

So this appears to claim that drivers of large 4 doors are safer than small ones, possibly, as a way of excusing the the poor fatality performance of small cars, which actually can be explained by the laws of physics. But they also drive more recklessly and drunk.

I don't think an encyclopedic article should contain both those statements in one article. The first is frankly special pleading, if not made up holus bolus. Greglocock (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Braking and tires[edit]

Does CR test cars with summer tires, all season or what? Trucks and 4wds don't have summer tires which are optimised for dry weather. Greglocock (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what your point is. From the reference, Consumer Reports tested those vehicle's "dry braking" distance "during mild, dry weather to ensure comparable results". Since they pride themselves in consistent data so that vehicles can be compared to each other, I would assume that they had the tyres that the vehicle were sold with. If some vehicles had cheap, nasty or unsuitable tyres from the manufacturer then that would make for longer braking distances.

If trucks (do you mean pickup trucks or heavy haulage trucks?) and 4WDs (SUVs?) don't have tyres appropriate to the season then surely that would adversely affect their braking distance? Likewise, if a 4WD has mud-plugging tyres then I would expect them to have longer braking distances - which makes them more dangerous on the road. Stepho talk 11:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that CR are really testing tires as much as vehicle types. If you were to fit semi off road capable tires to a small car its braking distance would increase.Greglocock (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the manufacturers are consistently providing tyres not suitable for normal driving on normal roads for transportation of normal people then surely that would increase the braking distance. My point is that these are vehicles not meant to be used on normal roads for normal transportation by normal people - ie they are specialist vehicles. Stepho talk 07:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tires are suitable. They are legal. They are what customers want. Summer tires are not suitable for many climates. But they are legal.Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tyres are clearly not suitable if they are causing longer braking distances. Legal and what customers want are not the same thing as suitable.

But it doesn't matter. If the manufactures are selling this class of vehicle with tyres suitable for off-road rather than bitumen driving then this class of vehicle has the disadvantage of longer braking distances on bitumen. Which is what Consumer Reports tested. Stepho talk 11:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The tyres are clearly not suitable if they are causing longer braking distances" Why? Any tire is a compromise between about 15 measurable characteristics (many of which have sub characteristics) of which dry braking is one, and is in opposition to others, for example wet traction which I would argue is far more important safety wise. First Ghit A large number of studies addresses the effects of different meteorological factors on road safety [3]. A meta analysis of 34 studies addressing the effect precipitation finds an average increase in crash rates of 71% and 84% in case of rain and snowfall, respectively [8].Most tires are compromised by price. Car companies can only sell what customers will buy. An offroad tire with better dry braking could be built. It would last very few km. Customers would not be interested.Greglocock (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. SUVs were measured as having longer braking distances on normal roads - and that is a distinct disadvantage when they are used on normal roads. There may be good reasons why they have a longer braking distance or there may be bad reasons but they still have a longer braking distance.

However, I do note your point that wet braking may be different and have added "dry braking" to the article for that reference. Stepho talk 03:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]