Seems like this would be more appropriate a few years ago. Sales of the Trailblazer are down 73% (last year this month to current year) and sales of other SUV lines have dropped similarly.
I don't understand that industry although I've been a C&D subscriber forever. I picked up this month issue, and again: every single new car they previewed gained inches and pounds. Every freaking time, every month, every new car. How many more inches of wheelbase and cubic inches of trunk space do we need?
Sure, SUV sales are down, but overall the total mass that today's consumers demand to be riding on, keeps increasing. Look at a freaking "mid-size" Camry or Accord parked next to 10 year old Explorer or 4Runner - they're nearly equal in size. 4-cylinder engines have all surpassed 2L displacement mark, and anything less than 220hp is considered "inadequate".
The auto industry needs their own Steve Jobs, someone who's capable of telling these fat idiots what to like, as opposed to blindly following their reptilian instincts.
According to the studies that keep track of such details, the size of car owners also keeps increasing. Perhaps the auto manufacturers are simply trying to ensure their vehicles can comfortably accommodate such trends.
Jettas are safe because they make their drivers feel unsafe. S.U.V.s are unsafe because they make their drivers feel safe. That feeling of safety isn't the solution; it's the problem.
Clotaire Rapaille's (he is mentioned in the article) book "The Culture Code" is a pretty insightful read. It is hard to come up with a gist of what is in there, but if I were to attempt summarizing it, I would say that the thesis is that cultural has a surprisingly sizable impact on most decisions, and consumers are never accurate when supposedly describing their feelings.
Interesting how people want to feel safe, instead of actually being safe. If people act irrationally, doesn't economics theory break down?
Also I think the article ignores the possibility that drivers of quick and nimble cars could be (on average) more skilled than drivers of large SUVs. This could have caused the difference in safety statistics.
Gladwell seems to be picking and choosing the data he discusses. Look at the data presented in his article, just averaging fatality rates (assuming all models are roughly equally popular): the minivans are staggeringly safer than the other classes, followed by mid-size, SUV, and large vehicles -- all roughly equivalent -- trailed by compact, sub-compact, and pickup vehicles, also roughly equivalent. This is pretty similar to the report that you linked.
Gladwell seems to be looking for data to support his thesis that SUVs feel safer but are really less safe, which overall the data doesn't seem to support; for instance, he chooses to compare the subcompact Jetta to the SUVs, instead of one of the other subcompacts, which are among the least-safe cars. He is right that we do not expect the Jetta to be more safe than the larger cars, and it would be interesting to know the reason behind it. But the reason seems unlikely to be a false sense of safety in SUVs or increased maneuverability in subcompacts, since the other subcompacts should then be roughly as safe.
On the other hand, the data does support his assertion that minivans are safer, and maybe this is because, as he says, they are driven by more experienced drivers with children on board. This would also explain why SUVs are somewhat safer than trucks, even though they are practically the same vehicles.
Interesting. The evidence doesn't seem to support his claim that small and agile is better than big and bulky:
Important characteristics of vehicles that influence their
driver death rates are type, body style, size, and weight.
Within virtually every group of vehicles, the smaller and
lighter models have the higher rates...
Among cars, for example, the smallest twodoor models had
the highest death rate at 190 per million vehicle years.
This rate is more than twice as high as the average for
all vehicles included in the study...
The vehicle group with the lowest driver death rate was
large luxury cars with 37 deaths per million vehicle years.
The next lowest rate was in large minivans and station
wagons with 42 deaths per million.
Unfortunately I think the soccer moms are not so far off the mark. Small contemporary 2 door economy vehicles get smushed and crumpled immediately upon impact with a larger, sturdier vehicle. I used to drive a grotesque, gigantic luxury vehicle from the 1980s and was rear ended twice. Both times the other cars (GEO metro, some sort of Hyundai) were totaled (from a fender bender!) and I merely ended up with additional dents on my bumper.
The argument is that you are less likely to crash when piloting a smaller vehicle, not that a smaller vehicle fares better in a crash of similar nature.
He leaves out that 3 of the top 5 cars (all of which are absent from his chart) in terms of fewest deaths per million are SUVs. The one I drive (Lexus RX) has only about half of the fatalities that the Avalon does.
Also in terms of handling, it's grossly unfair to compare a Traiblazer (built for shlepping kids and groceries around) to a Boxster. I'd be interested in knowing how a Cayenne ran the course. Or how much better than a Traiblazer a similarly priced GM sedan would.
I love how you happen to mention that you drive a Lexus.
"According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills."
In the GE transportation systems twin diesel-electric locomotive vs. Boxster crash tests, the locomotive came out ahead a remarkable 100 percent of the time. Of course, it's MPG is somewhat less than the boxster, but the soccer moms involved said that nothing was too good for their respective munchkins.
Source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C05%5C03...
The lesson for startups out of this are (1) don't chase fads, and (2) consumers really do care about total cost of ownership.