the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/02/28/motoring.safety/index.html
this article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of driving an SUV. recently SUVs have been getting a bad rap as flashy, gas-guzzling, road hogs--which, they may indeed be--but they are also generally considered less safe in accidents, as they have been proven to roll easily. this article brings to light new data from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), an independent group that has been working to improve traffic safety for over 35 years, and other road data from the UK that big vehicles may actually be safer. one study showed that drivers of SUVs are five times less likely to hit a crash barrier.
i, personally, dislike SUVs immensely. however, looking at the article from an economic standpoint, i had a few questions:
1. will this article/these studies improve consumers' confidence in SUVs enough to affect the demand curve at all? or will the previous reports of their poor performance outweigh this study?
2. how does this affect the opportunity cost of purchasing an SUV?
3. ok, this doesn't relate to econ, but would you rather roll your SUV or crash your car?
and 4. how much more pollution, as an externality, is produced as SUV, and therefore gas, consumption goes up?
in answer to my own questions:
1. it depends on how many people read this article and what their previous experience with SUVs has been. and, as it is from an English publication and deals with data from English groups, it is more likely to influence the brits.
2. the opportunity cost goes down in the sense that buying an SUV means there is lass of a potential to be seriously injured in a car accident, which is not only painful but expensive. on the other hand, the opportunity cost goes up because you have to buy more gas.
3. i'd rather crash my car. i'm claustrophobic and the idea of the ceiling collapsing is not a pleasant one.
4. the externalities will have to increase. not only do SUVs use more gas, they also use more steel to make. in order to get the steel, as or coal must be used, releasing more pollution, etc.
anyone have anything to add/dispute?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bigger doesnt mean safer, however the statement could cause problems. For example a mother of four buys an Suv to "protect her kids." soon all mothers do. NOw if an suv gets into an accident the people in the suv will most likely be okay, however the family in the small car that the crashed in to had no chance against the montrous suv and the family may have died. so yes Suv's make their passangers safer, but puts the people who cant afford them or just dont want them at great risk, cause lets face it, crashes are inevitable.
Women's studies! Women's Studies! Does a father not buy a car to protect his kids? Or...are they bad mothers if they don't buy SUV's? Ah...the power of advertising...
I dislike the seeming US attachment to giant vehicles, too. Seriously...who needs a Hummer? When does snow/terrain/etc EVER get that bad for the average person? And the thing drives like a TANK and sucks gas like there's no tomorrow...
Sigh.
Anyway - I'm not sure if info like this really would affect the demand curve, because there's still such prestige to the idea of having an SUV. Perhaps if they try more hybrid SUV's, that might make a difference. I dunno.
Crash or roll...ummm...tough choice. I don't think I'd enjoy the rolling. I think I'd have to say crash.
Scary thought.
Post a Comment