That claim is far from proven. Look, obviously the government should mandate certain things once there is sufficient evidence to show there is a public safety issue.
But first of all, there isn’t enough evidence, and second of all, what I was trying to point out was that he based his arguments partially on his own PERSONAL OPINIONS of the PSYCHOLOGY of SUV drivers!
That’s not science! It’s hysteria! Just like I said before! But now with more exclamation points so you don’t miss my point again!
I’m more than willing to debate the merits of the vehicles and the possibility for legislation, but I categorically refuse to do it based on emotion and speculation.[/quote]
Who’s the one using caps-lock?
First of all, he isn’t just making accusations about the psychology of people who drive SUVs: he’s citing auto industry research about the psychology of people who drive SUVs. I think the legal principle is “character of the defendant.” Do you think the people who market SUVs don’t understand their market?
For example:
Bradsher cites an SUV marketing specialist explaining that part of the sell line is, “If there is a crash, I want the other guy to die.”
“They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self- centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors.” This is Bradsher’s summary of the auto industry’s own marketing research about SUV buyers, and he adduces numerous on-the-record comments from auto-marketing gurus to back this up. One such wise man, named Clotaire Rapaille, tells the Big Three that people buy SUVs “because they want to look as menacing as possible.” It is perhaps not startling that rather than trying to alter these buyer proclivities, the manufacturers of SUVs have tried to encourage them. There are lots of self-centered and self-absorbed people with little interest in their neighbors. Somebody finally made a class of vehicles designed to bring out the worst in them.
Many SUVs, such as the Durango, have been consciously engineered to look as threatening as possible, with auto companies using focus groups and other techniques documented in High and Mighty to determine which features and styling cues suggest an anti-social message and then zeroing in on them. The styling goal for the oversized Dodge Ram mega-pickup was “a vehicle that would make other motorists want to get out of your way.” Cadillac markets the Escalade with photography staged to make it appear to be an armored combat vehicle, over the huge-type sell line Yield.
In other words, if these statements are wrong, take it up with the market execs in Detriot, then Bradshaw, the author of the book, and finally Easterbrook, the author of the article. The author’s conclusions are pretty tame compared to that of the people on the inside, aren’t they?
Of course, character of the defendant only matters in sentencing, so if you think the conclusion from data that “SUVs are more dangerous both to themselves and everyone else on the road” is wrong, it’s irrelevant. I haven’t seen a serious refutation of the numbers, however; everything’s unsupported character assassination and statistical crimes, like that NRO article.
Edit: And it’s not like “SUVs are safe for the driver, but not for everyone else” is true, either. They’re a net loss for everyone.
