- Another salvo in the war over America's SUVs was
fired recently when Jeffrey Runge, a doctor who just so happens to
head the Bush administration's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
declared that SUVs pose an "astounding" threat to their owners
due to their proclivity to roll over and that strict new regulations may
be in the offing.
-
- "The thing that I don't
understand is people, when they choose to buy a vehicle, they might go
sit in it and say, 'Gee, I feel safe,' " said Dr. Runge. "Well,
sorry, but you know gut instinct is great for a lot of stuff, but it's
not very good for buying a safe automobile."
-
- Well, medical doctors may be
great at a lot of stuff, but they're not necessarily very good at assessing
non-medical data. The public, in fact, is right and Dr. Runge, in fact,
is wrong.
-
- It is true that SUVs are more
dangerous to be in should they roll over than are most passenger vehicles.
But only 3 percent of all accidents involve roll-overs.
-
- If you're driving an SUV and
get into an accident, most of the time it will involve hitting (or getting
hit by) something. Accordingly, drivers are right not to worry too much
about rolling over in their vehicles, particularly because it can be avoided
simply by eschewing NASCAR racing practices when making sharp turns.
-
- The "gut instinct"
of SUV owners that increased safety in one- or two-car collisions more
than offsets the risk of roll-overs was validated last October in a remarkable
study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and authored
by University of Michigan economist Michelle White. Miss White managed
to secure data regarding each and every automotive accident reported to
the police between 1995-99. She examined three types of crashes: those
involving two vehicles, those involving a single vehicle, and those involving
a vehicle striking a pedestrian or bicyclist.
-
- Vehicles were divided into five
categories: cars, SUVs, pickups and minivans, large trucks, and buses.
She then performed a regression analysis of the data, controlling for seatbelt
use, urban and rural conditions, weather, time of day, negligence, age
of the drivers, road type, speed, and number of vehicular occupants.
-
- And what do you know? The analysis
found SUVs were saving a net of between 1,023 and 1,225 lives every single
year. Moreover, the study found no statistically significant evidence that
you are more likely to die if your passenger car got into a collision with
an SUV than if your passenger car got into a collision with another passenger
car.
-
- Interestingly enough, Professor
White found that light trucks as a class were responsible for an unnecessary
2,260 deaths on the road every single year. Apparently, it's the pickups
and minivans - not the SUVs - that are the problem.
-
- What makes this study remarkable
is that it's the first time that actual case-by-case crash data were used
to examine SUV safety. Earlier studies used aggregated data that prevented
analysts from controlling for all the relevant factors that might contaminate
the findings. Any statistician will tell you that micro data are much preferred
over macro data for this very reason. And Miss White is the first analyst
to put the relevant micro data through the paces.
-
- "Well," a skeptic
might reply, "The National Research Council of the National Academy
of Sciences concluded last July that SUVs were responsible for an unnecessary
2,000 deaths a year, and I'll believe the consensus of experts over some
(probably on the take) economist."
-
- The problem, of course, is that the
NRC study was based on a review of the published literature, and that review
did not (indeed, could not) include the White study published three months
later. The NRC simply assessed the findings of various studies that used
aggregated macro data studies that are now far less persuasive given the
far better data set used to produce the findings reported by Miss White.
-
- And not that it really matters any,
but it was the Institute of Civil Justice at Rand - not the auto industry
- that supported Miss White's study.
-
- So there you have it. The anti-SUV
jihad may continue to roll on, but it cannot credibly do so with an anti-safety
argument in tow. Dr. Runge should check the facts before he jumps on this
rickety bandwagon.
-
- Jerry Taylor is director of
natural resource studies at the Cato Institute.
- http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030219-10526760.htm
|
