Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________THE BULLY ON THE BLOCK BY ROS DAVIDSON (12/08/97)

I take exception to your news piece on sport utility vehicles. As I read "The bully on the block," it became clear to me that the person asking the questions probably drove a Geo Metro or an aluminum can (probably safer than the Metro). Although I question the motives of some who buy sport utility vehicles, I don't question their right to. I own an SUV -- yes, I do take it off road -- and I like the safer nature of them. Some buy them because they prefer the look, some because SUVs are safer, others (maybe most) because they shy away from the stigma of owning a minivan (I don't blame them).
But why punish the safer people on the road? Shouldn't people who drive Geos and other micro-cars, where an accident with almost any larger car can be potentially lethal, be the ones to pay the extra insurance premium? Long before SUVs were so prevalent, the road was full of full-sized pickup trucks: Chevys, GMCs, Fords, Dodges, etc. These trucks are built the same way, and I never heard the same whining I'm hearing now about SUVs.
I was once rear-ended in a Chevy pickup by a Geo Storm (The accident was his fault); The Geo was totaled -- shredded like ground beef -- when he drove up underneath my truck; my bumper was barely bent. Should I have had to pay for the damage done to his car because 1.) it was a small, light, easily mangled car and 2.) he rear-ended me? Charge those who drive small, unsafe cars -- there are plenty of medium-sized and very safe cars that get great gas mileage.
On the Chevy Suburban/Ford Expedition issue and Ford's proposed 8,500-pound SUV: The Expedition is just an oversized Explorer that costs too much, and the Suburban is not clogging the road. The Suburban has its uses -- large families, towing, etc. Ford does not need to build an 8,500-pound SUV. It's unnecessary. They are only doing it to spite GM. This SUV would be too big; I don't want to have to maneuver around it on the highway.
Maybe too many people choose SUVs for the wrong reasons, but do not penalize them for driving a safer car. Get the dangerous micro-cars off the road.
-- Christopher K. Eaton

One of the reasons I bought my '97 Ford F-150 4x4 was because it's large. I owned two Ford Escorts before the truck, and didn't feel safe in traffic. With the truck, I can see much more of what's going on around me. Granted, the gas mileage isn't the best (about 17 mpg overall), but that's what comes with owning a larger vehicle.
I find the issue about raising insurance rates for vehicles like mine totally asinine. The auto manufacturers made these vehicles appealing to the general public. They give them this, "I'm a yuppy, and yuppies gotta have one" image. Because of this I have to pay higher insurance rates? Give me a break. I use my truck for the purpose it was intended for. Why don't we go deeper into the issue here. Make the insurance companies determine whose rates increase by where they live. If you live in some high-dollar neighborhood where there are more BMWs and pretty wooden fences, then raise their insurance. As for those that live out in the country who USE these vehicles, give them a break. Why not? I'll vote yes for it.
-- Brian Glaser

THANK YOU for running the article on SUVs. As you pointed out, Americans answer on polls that we should do all kinds of things about environmental issues, but they rarely follow with PERSONAL action, such as driving a vehicle that gets good gas mileage, carpooling, taking public transport, etc. It's always "Yeah, 'we' should do that," which translates to "OTHER people should do that." And the issue of "mismatch" accidents is very scary indeed. I don't think that manufacturers should make ANYTHING as big as a Chevy Blazer nor a Ford Explorer. It's insane for a variety of reasons, and people need to wake up to that.
This whole issue calls for the old slogan: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
-- DeWitt Henderson
I can't say I'm surprised at anything that emerges from the insurance industry. However, Kim Hazelbaker's reasoning about SUVs is bizarre. I particularly love the assumption that people who can afford to spend large sums of money are stupid dummies whose motivation is the lemminglike pursuit of someone else's goals.
There are plenty of rational reasons why people are buying SUVs, and I'll be glad to supply you with a list. What's really disturbing in this interview is the way conventional reasoning is being twisted on its head, starting with the fact that, contrary to the representations made in the interview, many insurers (mine, for example) charge the same premium for insuring an SUV that they do for a sports car. I'd be interested to see the data supporting the claim that SUV owners are getting an insurance rate break.
I hate to sound paranoid, but I would suggest that the basic reasoning here is a lot simpler: More and more people are buying SUVs, and they've stopped buying certain categories of cars that, since they were more expensive, commanded higher premiums. So the industry is busily figuring out some way of justifying charging SUV drivers more, using the same reasoning that a lot of state and local governments have used with respect to cellular phones. The overriding aim is to tap a new revenue stream.
The real scandal in our society is not SUVs whacking Hyundais. The real scandal is an essentially unregulated industry with a captive audience. If the insurance industry was really concerned about safety, they would go into states like Louisiana, where I live, and try to force the state to enforce its own traffic laws. Penalizing all SUV owners for the antics of teenage drivers is basically the same logic that we see being applied to current discussions about the Internet: It's easier to punish both the object and the legitimate users (both of whom are sitting ducks) rather than try to enforce social responsibility.
-- John Mosier
Professor of English
Loyola University
SALON | Dec. 11, 1997

R E C E N T L Y+| SNEAK PEEKS: GAY PORN BOOKS BY DANIEL REITZ

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________THE BULLY ON THE BLOCK BY ROS DAVIDSON (12/08/97)
	I take exception to your news piece on sport utility vehicles. As I read "The bully on the block," it became clear to me that the person asking the questions probably drove a Geo Metro or an aluminum can (probably safer than the Metro). Although I question the motives of some who buy sport utility vehicles, I don't question their right to. I own an SUV -- yes, I do take it off road -- and I like the safer nature of them. Some buy them because they prefer the look, some because SUVs are safer, others (maybe most) because they shy away from the stigma of owning a minivan (I don't blame them). But why punish the safer people on the road? Shouldn't people who drive Geos and other micro-cars, where an accident with almost any larger car can be potentially lethal, be the ones to pay the extra insurance premium? Long before SUVs were so prevalent, the road was full of full-sized pickup trucks: Chevys, GMCs, Fords, Dodges, etc. These trucks are built the same way, and I never heard the same whining I'm hearing now about SUVs. I was once rear-ended in a Chevy pickup by a Geo Storm (The accident was his fault); The Geo was totaled -- shredded like ground beef -- when he drove up underneath my truck; my bumper was barely bent. Should I have had to pay for the damage done to his car because 1.) it was a small, light, easily mangled car and 2.) he rear-ended me? Charge those who drive small, unsafe cars -- there are plenty of medium-sized and very safe cars that get great gas mileage. On the Chevy Suburban/Ford Expedition issue and Ford's proposed 8,500-pound SUV: The Expedition is just an oversized Explorer that costs too much, and the Suburban is not clogging the road. The Suburban has its uses -- large families, towing, etc. Ford does not need to build an 8,500-pound SUV. It's unnecessary. They are only doing it to spite GM. This SUV would be too big; I don't want to have to maneuver around it on the highway. Maybe too many people choose SUVs for the wrong reasons, but do not penalize them for driving a safer car. Get the dangerous micro-cars off the road. -- Christopher K. Eaton One of the reasons I bought my '97 Ford F-150 4x4 was because it's large. I owned two Ford Escorts before the truck, and didn't feel safe in traffic. With the truck, I can see much more of what's going on around me. Granted, the gas mileage isn't the best (about 17 mpg overall), but that's what comes with owning a larger vehicle. I find the issue about raising insurance rates for vehicles like mine totally asinine. The auto manufacturers made these vehicles appealing to the general public. They give them this, "I'm a yuppy, and yuppies gotta have one" image. Because of this I have to pay higher insurance rates? Give me a break. I use my truck for the purpose it was intended for. Why don't we go deeper into the issue here. Make the insurance companies determine whose rates increase by where they live. If you live in some high-dollar neighborhood where there are more BMWs and pretty wooden fences, then raise their insurance. As for those that live out in the country who USE these vehicles, give them a break. Why not? I'll vote yes for it. -- Brian Glaser THANK YOU for running the article on SUVs. As you pointed out, Americans answer on polls that we should do all kinds of things about environmental issues, but they rarely follow with PERSONAL action, such as driving a vehicle that gets good gas mileage, carpooling, taking public transport, etc. It's always "Yeah, 'we' should do that," which translates to "OTHER people should do that." And the issue of "mismatch" accidents is very scary indeed. I don't think that manufacturers should make ANYTHING as big as a Chevy Blazer nor a Ford Explorer. It's insane for a variety of reasons, and people need to wake up to that. This whole issue calls for the old slogan: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." -- DeWitt Henderson I can't say I'm surprised at anything that emerges from the insurance industry. However, Kim Hazelbaker's reasoning about SUVs is bizarre. I particularly love the assumption that people who can afford to spend large sums of money are stupid dummies whose motivation is the lemminglike pursuit of someone else's goals. There are plenty of rational reasons why people are buying SUVs, and I'll be glad to supply you with a list. What's really disturbing in this interview is the way conventional reasoning is being twisted on its head, starting with the fact that, contrary to the representations made in the interview, many insurers (mine, for example) charge the same premium for insuring an SUV that they do for a sports car. I'd be interested to see the data supporting the claim that SUV owners are getting an insurance rate break. I hate to sound paranoid, but I would suggest that the basic reasoning here is a lot simpler: More and more people are buying SUVs, and they've stopped buying certain categories of cars that, since they were more expensive, commanded higher premiums. So the industry is busily figuring out some way of justifying charging SUV drivers more, using the same reasoning that a lot of state and local governments have used with respect to cellular phones. The overriding aim is to tap a new revenue stream. The real scandal in our society is not SUVs whacking Hyundais. The real scandal is an essentially unregulated industry with a captive audience. If the insurance industry was really concerned about safety, they would go into states like Louisiana, where I live, and try to force the state to enforce its own traffic laws. Penalizing all SUV owners for the antics of teenage drivers is basically the same logic that we see being applied to current discussions about the Internet: It's easier to punish both the object and the legitimate users (both of whom are sitting ducks) rather than try to enforce social responsibility. -- John Mosier Professor of English Loyola University SALON \| Dec. 11, 1997