[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 20, 8:19 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>>To take one small example: Large vehicles impose more injuries and
>>>fatalities on drivers of smaller vehicles, and on pedestrians, by
>>>virtue of their bumper heights and taller front ends.
>>
>>>Then there's the research pointing out the difference in personality
>>>traits associated with vehicle choice. SUV drivers have been shown to
>>>be more selfish and aggressive than other vehicle owners.
>>
>>I think this is nonsense.
>
> You probably mean you _guess_ this is nonsense. Read
> http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html for a few clues.
I think I already have plenty of clues. Here's some in return
for you this Christmas season.
First of all, the article you quote doesn't seem to be much more
then personal opinion. The guy doesn't like SUVs for some good
reasons. They certainly have their weaknesses.
But I'm referring as nonsense, the idea the aggressive, homicidal
types gravitate toward SUVs. Something about the vehicle perhaps
attracts such types.
There may be some risk compensation attitudes involved in driving
an SUV. They're "safe", capable vehicles and people perhaps drive
them too fast on icy roads because 4WD makes them invulnerable.
There are plenty of surveys out there that show different types
of people tend toward different types of vehicles. Detroit puts
a lot of marketing effort in promoting such images.
Women apparently are strongly attracted to SUVs (as men are attracted
to pickup/SUV driving women).
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~WS30/HKFinalProject.html. Old but
probably not obsolete. Reasons for purchases are the "go anywhere,
do anything" and safety image of the vehicle. Other reasons are
provided.
<quote>
A specific type of vehicle that has become preferred by women is the
sport-utility vehicle. Married couples with children make up half of the
sport-utility vehicle market. The sale of SUVs in general has grown from
1.5 million in 1992 to 2.8 million in 1999. (Source) The 2001 report
shown later in this page reports that 17 million SUVs were sold that year.
</quote>
I did not note any tendency to portray the SUV buying population of
women as inherent psychopaths looking to murder someone on the highway.
Perhaps the problem is too much education?
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...SUV+driver+attitudes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
From "Driver's Attitudes and Choices" paper's abstract:
<quote>
....persons of higher income and with a college education prefer
higher speeds, are more likely to use a seat belt, and are more likely
to support seat belt laws and/or higher speed limits. However, persons
with a college education also tend to drink and drive more often. Pickup
drivers are less likely to use seat belts, less likely to support seat
belt laws, yet less likely to drink and drive.
</quote>
Seems drivers of pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs actually favor lower
speed limits. Kind of wimpy for an aggressive SUV driving type!
http://www.kbb.com/kbb/MediaCenter/...tUniqueName=2003&ContentId=KBBWebContent-1614
Although from 2003, seems a Kelly BlueBook survey showed most
respondents thought the anti-SUV publicity was hype that ignored
the good qualities of the vehicle.
<quote>
IRVINE, Calif., February 11, 2003 - A New Vehicle-Buyer Attitude Study
on SUVs released today shows more than half of its respondents feel the
negative press around SUVs is hype and more than 70 percent felt that
groups criticizing SUVs ignored the vehicle's positive aspects. The
study was conducted by Kelley Blue Book (KBB), the trusted resource for
used and new car information.
</quote>
Sure it's just a survey and the public can definitely be wrong in its
attitudes. But I don't see the survey results as being any less
opinion than your anti-SUV reference.
In an actual scientific study on driver personality effecting behavior,
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10407410701290817
it seems it was not so much the personality that was significant, but
"behavioral reward" that mattered.
<quote>
This study was designed to test factors that might influence motor
vehicle drivers' judgments of passability and fit-ability affordances.
In particular, the authors tested personality and behavioral
reinforcement as factors that might influence automobile drivers'
judgments of affordances in three tasks set at various π-numbers:
driving forward through a gap, driving backward through a gap, and
fitting into a parallel-parking spot. Results across two studies suggest
that personality does not relate to judgment of driving environment
affordances, but institution of a behavioral reward system causes
drivers to judge affordances in different ways. Implications for future
research and for automobile safety intervention are discussed.
</quote>
This is from the abstract only. Access to the full paper was not
available.
So much for aggressive homicidal maniacs gravitating to SUVs it would
seem.
Here's something that might help your case, although the text of the
paper isn't available.
"Driver personality and anthropomorphic attributions of vehicle
personality relate to reported aggressive driving tendencies"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=15a24b51c40f0958a350f334c720d61b
<quote>
Results suggest that driver and vehicle personalities were related but
distinct, indicating that drivers were not just projecting their own
personality onto the vehicle. Driver and vehicle personality scores were
correlated with several indexes of aggressive driving tendencies. In
some cases, vehicle personality predicted aggressive driving better than
driver personality. However, initial decision of drivers to
anthropomorphize did not relate to differences in aggressive driving
tendencies.
</quote>
Unfortunately, we don't know what type of vehicle has an "aggressive
personality". Probably SUV, but also probably high end road sedan
(Mercedes/BMW) and sports car.
Many of the surveys I skimmed for this confirm that different types of
vehicles promote certain types of images to owners and others. The
SUV, the sport sedan, sports car or minivan all have their "personas"
It was also interesting that many surveys indicated drivers almost
universally felt *they* were good drivers while everyone else was an
idiot.
The SUV certainly is portrayed as the type vehicle for the strong,
independent, self-reliant type (as well as safety conscious). However
being safety conscious, independent or self-reliant in nature, whether
in reality or in one's self image only, does not necessarily translate
into one being an aggressive, rude, homicidal fool once inside the
vehicle.
>>>Which is, I suppose, why they argue so hard to justify an obviously
>>>dumb vehicle.
>>
>>A dumb vehicle for you is not necessarily a dumb vehicle for someone
>>else.
>
> For a certain value of "not necessarily."
>
> Fact is, the vast popularity of SUVs has _nothing_ to do with choosing
> the appropriate vehicle for the task. Pro-SUV folks have tried
> mightily to list logical reasons for their choice:
> "I have to pull a trailer."
> "I own a boat."
> "I have to take my spoiled teenage son to the ski resort."
> "I have kids."
> "What if it snows?"
> "I have to be safe on the road."
>
> I've easily handled each and every one of those problems with a Honda
> Civic - except for a large boat. But I had a friend with a large ski
> boat, who pulled it with an ordinary sedan.
I wouldn't want to buy that Honda Civic from you if you really
did frequently pull heavy loads with it over long distances.
Honda Civics *do not* tow or haul capably. They're *not designed*
for it and you were driving *irresponsibly* if you really were
using the vehicle in such a way.
> ISTM the fundamental defense of the SUV crowd is "Well, I think I need
> it, so there!" It's the same defense used by inner-city thugs driving
> drug-financed boom cars through quiet neighborhoods. And in fact, the
> two groups share many characteristics.
And the broad painting of a [very large] group of people in purely
negative terms is something one might expect from racists if based
on race, or other various "ism"s depending on the group.
It's a form of bigotry plain and simple.
SMH
