Trucks and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs)

The rapidly growing use of heavy-duty vehicles by the general population threatens the sustainability of the planet and rapidly depletes valuable energy resources.

Congress has allowed a huge disparity in the standards for trucks and cars to continue far too long.  These loopholes in the law compromise safety, economy and the environment.   The historical reasons for these exceptions are no longer valid.  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this disparity causes:

• 1.8 million additional tons of smog-forming pollutants.
• 237 million additional tons of global-warming pollution.
• 18.4 billion additional gallons of gasoline use.
• $21 billion in extra fuel costs to their drivers! (much more now that gas prices are up.)

Read the latest sorry statistics about the cost in time and money of traffic congestion in America, by the Texas Transportation Institute.

These figures cover only one year, and only the USA.

In the old days, trucks and four-wheel-drive vehicles were the sole province of farmers, ranchers, builders and tradesmen.  When confined to this relatively small segment of the population, the environmental destruction of these "light trucks" was tolerable, even necessary.  Safety standards placed on personal automobiles were largely inappropriate. 

The rise of the recreation class started the truck trend.  Sailboats and canoes morphed into jet skis and ski boats; all of the sudden ordinary passenger cars could no longer tow them. Horses, once the preferred mode of transportation in the American West, were soon hitching rides in trailers.  Ditto for motorcycles, snowmobiles etc.

Please share your thoughts on this subject. (Read others' thoughts on this subject)

Today, trucks are driven by every one for every thing.  Suburban soccer moms tote children and groceries.  Testosterone-charged boys go out for brews and then some environmentally devastating off-road wheelin'.  Homeowners trek to the dump to drop off some junk or buy a yard of compost.

Four-wheel drive, formerly the province of tractors and snowplows, now hoes the path to a burger-joint or pick up some ice at the supermarket.  Four-wheel drive always increases weight and decreases gas mileage.  

The meteoric rise in popularity of the "light truck" has enormous down-sides for the planet and everything on it.   However, common-sense, low-cost policies can reverse this trend.  Public policy should politely, but firmly discourage those who don't need trucks and SUVs from buying them, while ensuring trucks remain available to people who need them, even people with occasional truck needs.  Some of these policies have been on the table for a long time.  Action is needed immediately; the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is one group which is taking action.

Auto manufacturers have spent years studying the traits of SUV drivers, and comparing them to mini-van drivers.  They base million-dollar design decisions on this research.  No surprise to us, it reveals that many SUV drivers are self-centered, aggressive and yet, insecure.  Read about it, and then check out the rest of this great new site.

Please share your thoughts on this subject. (Read others' thoughts on this subject)

The problems and solutions include:

• Increased fossil fuel consumption.  Many of today's suburban trucks weigh 8,000 pounds and get 12 miles to the gallon... downhill, with a tailwind.  A perfectly adequate passenger vehicle can get 30 miles to the gallon.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that overall fleet mileage is actually declining for major automobile manufacturers, due to the proliferation of trucks and SUVs.  Manufacturers could easily build cars which get 50 mpg, if it were a priority.  According to the UCS, if SUVs were as efficient as today's cars, in less than three years the USA would save more gasoline than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will ever produce. Solution:  Higher gas taxes.  Higher annual fleet mileage requirements for manufacturers.
• Increased air pollution.  Heavy, powerful vehicles burn more pollutants per mile per pound. Solutions:  Higher gas taxes.  High-polluter annual registration surcharge. Tougher annual fleet mileage requirements for manufacturers.
• Tire troubles. Heavy vehicles wear out tires faster, and are more likely to cause dangerous blow-outs.  Although Bridgestone/Firestone was largely blamed for the tire failures plaguing Ford Explorer vehicles, Ford should bear some or much of that blame.  The Explorer is top-heavy and rolls much easier than an ordinary passenger vehicle, especially during tire blow outs.  To offset this, Ford recommended running the tire pressure at 26 pounds per square inch (psi).  Bridgestone/Firestone recommended 30 psi.  Many cars and light trucks run at 35 psi.  This reduced gas mileage, and quite possibly set the stage for blowouts.  Bigger tires also mean more dangerous tire particulates, and are more expensive. Solution: Base tire disposal fees on the weight of the tire.
• Dangerous accidents for SUV drivers.  Many SUVs are based on truck chassis, and because of this, roll easy.  Despite their enormous weight advantage, SUV drivers and passengers often do not enjoy the same level of safety as passenger car drivers when involved in accidents, especially solo accidents. SUVs also offer a false sense of security; just because you have four-wheel drive, doesn't mean you can drive as fast as you want on a slippery highway, but people think they can! Solution: Special, extra licensing requirements to drive vehicles over 5,000 pounds. SUV insurance surcharge; proceeds going to victims relief fund.  Much tougher federal SUV safety standards to protect truck drivers and passengers.
• Dangerous accidents for those hit by SUVs.  In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of a conventional passenger car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV. In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die, according to a report by the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety.  This is unfair to motorists who choose to drive environmentally conscious light vehicles.  This is not only due to the SUVs enormous weight, but also to the fact that they ride an average of 8 inches higher.   Solution: Special licensing requirements to drive vehicles over 5,000 pounds. SUV insurance surcharge; proceeds going to victims relief fund.  Much tougher federal SUV safety standards to protect truck drivers and passengers.
• Increased property damage.  Bigger vehicles thrash more stuff, and thrash it worse, whether that's a guardrail or your Lexus.  Bigger vehicles require more skillful drivers, especially in tight parking lots.  Inept SUV drivers do a lot of damage with little mistakes. We all pay for all of this with increased insurance premiums.  Solution: SUV insurance surcharge.
• More road damage.  Big vehicles pound pavement harder, breaking it down faster.  Road maintenance must increase to cope with the trauma. Solution: Annual road repair surcharge based on vehicle weight.
• Impervious drivers.  Many drivers of large SUVs simply do not realize the enormous power in their hands when they drive an 8,000-pound, 300-horsepower vehicle.  They tailgate, run lights, scare pedestrians and squeeze cyclists. This can be even more true for meek or physically weak SUV drivers.  The 6'4, 280-pound male knows how to intimidate people, he's done it his whole life;  the 50-year-old, 50-pound overweight housewife can't even imagine how frightening her giant vehicle might be. Add to this mix a cell-phone, a fast-food grease patty, or a car load of screaming kids, and you have a rolling time-bomb.  Solution: Include sensitivity training in those special, extra licensing requirements to drive vehicles over 5,000 pounds.

Please share your thoughts on this subject. (Read others' thoughts on this subject)

Automobile manufacturers have done a fantastic job of building and marketing these vehicles.  Today's trucks are stronger, lighter and more comfortable than their predecessors.  They are every bit as attractive and luxurious as a passenger car.  They contain far more computing power than the Apollo spacecrafts.  Small wonder why people want to drive them. If only they had put some of that effort into making the trucks more efficient and safer. 

Manufacturers can greatly help the situation by simply changing their emphasis on trucks toward sustainability.  Steps in the right direction include:

• Decrease size and power
• Increase gas mileage
• Increase pollution control devices
• Increase safety features
• Promote responsible use
• Engineer component recyclability.
• Use more recycled materials in production
• Develop fuel-cell technology

The Union of Concerned Scientists recently rebuilt a Ford Explorer for optional efficiency. They were able to increase gas mileage by 50 percent, and decrease emissions by 75 percent.  You can read about their efforts to build a greener SUV at their site.  They currently do not permit direct links to their specific pages.  

Another idea

A community truck pool is one option to relieve the need to own a heavier-duty vehicle for many people.  Such a program would offer sound, modern trucks at low cost to residents.   The trucks are owned by a community agency and rented to local residents.  You can get one once a week or once a year; for two hours or two weeks.  Use it to haul that yard of compost to your garden or that boat to the marina. 

This further helps the community by helping people who need a truck but can't really afford to operate one.  These people tend to have older vehicles which pollute disproportionately more.

Please share your thoughts on this subject. (Read others' thoughts on this subject)

Response to this page from the Sustainable Enterprises community:

• While you raise many good points on the fuel efficiency and pollution problems associated with larger SUVs, the validity of your solutions is questionable. Since large SUVs already get poor gas mileage and cost their owners a small fortune to keep running, what would higher gas prices for everyone do to reduce emmisions and increase fuel consumption? It would penalize everyone who owned a vehicle, not just those who drive SUVs. However, since the technology exists to increase gas mileage and reduce emmisions why not advocate that more strongly? It would make the larger SUVs more expensive to buy, but cheaper and greener to operate. In addition, you seem to be ignoring the a very prevelant reason for people to own an SUV weighing over 6,000 lbs, they can get a sizable tax break from the government. Many companies, or individuals who own their own business, take advantage of the huge savings meant for commercial vehicles by buying a huge SUV for their company use when a smaller truck, or even a car, would have sufficed. Changing the tax break from vehicle weight to vehicle use would disuade many people from taking this route. Many of your solution suggest penalizing the people who own an SUV, no matter their need or lack thereof. Instead, why not address the source of the problem instead of the symptom. How about focusing on the vehicle manufacturers to design and build vehicles in a responsible manner. An 8,000 lb SUV in the hands of your "50-year-old, 50-pound overweight housewife" talking on the cell phone and drinking her latte is not unlike a loaded gun in the hands of a two-year old. Is it really the two-year olds fault that they are allowed to play with such a dangerous object? While the typical driver needs to be more responsible than that, most people fall for the advertisements by the dealers and purchase more vehicle then they either need or can handle. By the way, I own an SUV. I shopped around, compared size, power, gas mileage, safety, and price to find the vehicle that fit my and my wife's needs for our family. While I wish it got better gas mileage, it is not that much worse than her compact car (5 MPG difference), while supplying us with the room to haul all those things you need to take along with an infant overnight or for the weekend. I personally would not want to be penalized just because I drive a mid-sized SUV when I get better gas mileage and have lower emmisions than many of the luxury vehicles on the road today that you seem to completely ignore as if you had a personal vendetta instead of a reasonable complaint. When you have actually researched you data, for all SUVs and not just the worst cases, and have become more informed about solutions rather than punishments, rewrite your page. Because, if all you can do is complain without supplying VIABLE and REASONABLE solutions, you're wasting valuable non-replenishable energy, your own.
• "I think people no matter what car they drive are self centered and aggressive. Driving a big car makes defensive driving for many something they don't think about. Many in small cars drive the same way its just that the big car is easier to notice. Many shouldn't be driving such a huge vehicle. As an F150 owner, I believe in driving with humility. I need a truck, a soccer mom doesn't. The solution is to make cars with as much interior room and a smaller footprint. An SUV should NOT be a truck, it should be a minivan. This falls on the auto manufacturer and how they build the vehicle. Higher energy prices and taxes in NOT the solution, its an easy cop out. Don't be lazy, be creative with the solution. A law limiting the type of vehicle with a truck type frame to open bed vehicles would solve this problem."
• "I think you are impractical. While some may not require an SUV or truck, there are people and situations that do require such vehicles. I once hauled 800 pounds of fertilizer in a Toyota Corolla - but today prefer to do that in a pickup truck rated to carry that degree of weight. I also haul hundreds of pounds of construction materials. You seem to believe that what would work for you (small car) will work for everyone else. You seem very myopic in your view of the rest of the world. Not everyone lives in a high density urban area with no need for trucks and SUVs. Not everyone has 1.9 children. When younger, I always drove a compact car. With kids, a larger vehicle is required. The rise of the SUV largely follows the baby-boom generation having families - without the benefit of earlier large family-sized cards. The baby boom generation is very large (there were 6 million more people aged 20 to 29 in the 1980s than there were in the 1990s, which also explains why unemployment was lower in the 90s). As the baby boom kids move out, many baby boom households will return to smaller cars. Today, we have a "big truck" and also a compact Honda for commuting. The mix will change over time. The main point is that the SUV was a response to mileage standards that created small cars just as baby boom families came of age.
• "People like you scare me. Instead of making smaller vehicles stronger, you want to eventually outlaw stronger heavier vehicles. I wonder about your logic."
• "My experience has been that people with SUVs and pickups usually drive like jerks. They tailgate, weave in and out of traffic and drive so fast. What is that all about? I think their big vehicle makes them feel superior, and they are on sort of a power trip. I also don't like following them. You can't see around them, and sometimes they will be driving at high speeds and suddenly swerve around a car that's stopped in traffic. That creates a dangerous situation for the car(s) following the SUV. In summary, an SUV is one Pig-of-a-Vehicle."
• Personally I don't know why SUV's take so much heat. I can understand there are a few people that do not need them, but there are far more larger size families that do. Then you have the principles of transporting these people. What burns more fuel, two cars or one SUV. And as for trucks, many people actually use them for their intended purpose of hauling things. Look at construction workers. Could they lug those massive amounts of equipment to work every day in a compact car? I highly doubt it, unless you are talking about an El Camino.(Well, here's proof that we don't only print comments which agree with us!  However, two reasonably efficient cars could easily use less gas than one large SUV--editors)
• For the person who has had the bad experience with driving around SUV motorists: Are SUV drivers necessarily the ONLY people with the superiority complex? What about the hot-shot in the tiny little sports car? They're the ones who are most likely to exceed the speed limit and weave in and out of traffic. And as for the fact that you can't see around SUVs and worry about your reaction time if they swerve around an obstacle ahead, you have to ask yourself: Who's the one doing the tailgating now?
• The blind spot behind an SUV is much larger than that of a car. SUVs create vision problems on the road because they are bigger and wider (the Ford Excursion is 19 feet long, 6.5 feet wide, and 7 feet tall); it is no wonder why driving a reasonable distance behind them can be dangerous. Because they are so high, with back windows tinted a great deal (at least 30%, I'm sure), it is completely impossible to see around them. The funny thing is SUV drivers say they feel safer in their SUVs because they are bigger, heavier, and higher up. Not only do SUVs roll over in 60% of SUV crashes (NHTSA, I think), more and more people are buying bigger and bigger SUVs. If everyone drove normal height, safe, fuel-efficient cars, the roads would be easier to see, and much safer, too. SUV-drivers should try walking a mile in the shoes of car- and minivan-drivers, that is, driving at the same altitude as everyone else. I can guarantee that you won’t have trouble parking.
• Based on recent studies, SUVs are roughly as safe for their passengers as cars, execpt for small, inexpensive domestic cars, which are worse. SUVs are murderous, however, to others on the road. Since people generally make decisions based on their own well-being, SUVs will continue to be popular. While your idea of a surcharge makes some sense, it won't happen. The only real cure is higher gas prices. Not likely with the current administration.
• The essential design for North American transport trucks was established decades ago, when they had the new interstates and other dual carriageways much more to themselves. Since then they have only grown larger and more powerful. Yet, they compete with far more smaller vehicles on ever more crowded roads and streets. Speeds are higher, other vehicles are smaller now, yet these road dinosaurs just keep growing bigger, faster and more numerous. Design and safety regulations have not kept pace with the North American trucking industry and they would have it no other way. Old and obsolete is also very profitable. Just ask Detroit and the trucking industry!
  Unfortunately, nobody expects the U.S. or Canadian governments to change anything, as they are very much beholden to the trucking and auto industry. They least they could do is enforce the laws and regulations they have; what they should do is force the truck industry and truck manufacturers to downsize their products for modern conditions, and harmonise all vehicle safety legislation with that of the European Community. They are decades ahead of us and we could do well to at least have a look at what they are doing.