Criticism of SUVs

SUVs are generally safer to their occupants and more dangerous to other road users than mid-size cars. A 2021 study by the University of Illinois Springfield[3] showed, for example, that SUVs are 8-times more likely to kill children in an accident than passenger cars, and multiple times more lethal to adult pedestrians and cyclists.

When it comes to mortality for vehicle occupants, four-door minicars have a death rate (per 100,000 registration years rather than mileage) of 82, compared with 46 for very large four-doors.[4] This survey reflects the effects of both vehicle design and driving behaviour. Drivers of SUVs, minivans, and large cars may drive differently from the drivers of small or mid-size cars, and this may affect the survey result.

Risk to other road users

Ford Escort (North America) after a head-on collision with an SUV, showing the raised point of impact

Because of greater height and weight and rigid frames, it is contended by Malcolm Gladwell, writing in The New Yorker magazine,[2] that SUVs can affect traffic safety. This height and weight, while potentially giving an advantage to occupants of the vehicle, may pose a risk to drivers of smaller vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents, particularly side impacts.[13]

The initial tests of the Ford Excursion were "horrifying" for its ability to vault over the hood of a Ford Taurus. The big SUV was modified to include a type of blocker bar suggested by the French transportation ministry in 1971, a kind of under-vehicle roll bar designed to keep the large Ford Excursion from rolling over cars that were hit by it.[14] The problem is "impact incompatibility", where the "hard points" of the end of chassis rails of SUVs are higher than the "hard points" of cars, causing the SUV to override the engine compartment and crumple zone of the car.[15] There have been few regulations covering designs of SUVs to address the safety issue.[16] The heavy weight is a risk factor with very large passenger cars, not only with SUVs.[16] The typically higher SUV bumper heights and those built using stiff truck-based frames, also increases risks in crashes with passenger cars.[16] The Mercedes ML320 was designed with bumpers at the same height as required for passenger cars.[17]

In parts of Europe, effective 2006, the fitting of metal bullbars, also known as grille guards, brush guards, and push bars, to vehicles such as 4x4s and SUVs are only legal if pedestrian-safe plastic bars and grilles are used. Bullbars are often used in Australia, South Africa, and parts of the United States to protect the vehicle from being disabled should it collide with wildlife.

Safety improvements during the 2010s to the present led automobile manufacturers to make design changes to align the energy-absorbing structures of SUVs with those of cars. As a result, car occupants were only 28 percent more likely to die in collisions with SUVs than with cars between 2013 and 2016, compared with 59 percent between 2009 and 2012, according to the IIHS.[18]

The marketing techniques used to sell SUVs have been under criticism. Advertisers and manufacturers alike have been assailed for greenwashing. Critics have cited SUV commercials that show the product being driven through a wilderness area, even though relatively few SUVs are ever driven off-road.[30][31]

The recent growth of SUVs is sometimes given as one reason why the population has begun to consume more gasoline than in previous years.[32] SUVs generally use more fuel than passenger vehicles or minivans with the same number of seats.[32] Additionally, SUVs up to 8,500 pounds GVWR are classified by the US government as light trucks, and thus are subject to the less strict light truck standard under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations, and SUVs which exceed 8,500 pounds GVWR have been entirely exempt from CAFE standards. This provides less incentive for US manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient models.

As a result of their off-road design SUVs may have fuel-inefficient features. High profile increases wind resistance and greater mass require heavier suspensions and larger drivetrains, which both contribute to increased vehicle weight. Some SUVs come with tires designed for off-road traction rather than low rolling resistance.

Fuel economy factors include:

• High masses (compared to the average load) causing high energy demand in transitional operation (in the cities) ${\displaystyle {P_{accel}=m_{vehicle}\cdot a\cdot v}}$ where ${\displaystyle P_{accel}\,\!}$ stands for power, ${\displaystyle m_{vehicle}\,\!}$ for the vehicle mass, ${\displaystyle {a}\,\!}$ for acceleration and ${\displaystyle {v}\,\!}$ for the vehicle velocity.
• High cross-sectional area causing very high drag losses especially when driven at high speed ${\displaystyle {P_{drag}=A_{cross}\cdot cw_{vehicle}\cdot {\frac {v_{air}^{3}\rho _{air}}{2}}}}$ where ${\displaystyle P_{drag}\,\!}$ stands for the power, ${\displaystyle {A_{cross}}\,\!}$ for the cross-sectional area of the vehicle, ${\displaystyle {\rho _{air}}\,\!}$ for the density of the air and ${\displaystyle v_{air}\,\!}$ for the relative velocity of the air (incl. wind).
• High rolling resistance due to all-terrain tires (even worse if low pressure is needed offroad) and high vehicle mass driving the rolling resistance ${\displaystyle {P_{roll}=\mu _{roll}\cdot m_{vehicle}\cdot v}}$ where ${\displaystyle \mu _{roll}\,\!}$ stands for the rolling resistance factor and ${\displaystyle m_{vehicle}\,\!}$ for the vehicle mass.

Average data for vehicle types sold in the US:[33]

Drag resistance (assuming the same drag coefficient which is not a safe assumption) for SUVs may be 30% higher and the acceleration force has to be 35% larger for the same acceleration, which again is not a safe assumption, than family sedans if we use the figures from the above table.

Because SUVs tend to use more fuel (mile for mile) than cars with the same engine type,[34][35] they generate higher volumes of pollutants (particularly carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. This has been confirmed by LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) studies,[36] which quantify the environmental impacts of products such as cars, often from the time they are produced until they are recycled. One LCA study which took into account the production of greenhouse gases, carcinogens, and waste production found that exclusive cars, sports cars and SUVs were "characterized by a poor environmental performance."[37] Another study found that family size internal combustion vehicles still produced fewer emissions than a hybrid SUV.[38]

Various eco-activist groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front or Les Dégonflés have targeted SUV dealerships and privately owned SUVs due to concern over increased fuel usage.[39][40]

In the US, light trucks and SUVs are held to a less-strict pollution control standard than passenger cars. In response to the perception that a growing share of fuel consumption and emissions are attributable to these vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that by the model year 2009, emissions from all light trucks and passenger cars will be regulated equally.[41]

The British national newspaper The Independent reported on a study carried out by CNW Marketing Research which suggested that CO₂ emissions alone do not reflect the true environmental costs of a car. The newspaper reported that: "CNW moves beyond the usual CO₂ emissions figures and uses a "dust-to-dust" calculation of a car's environmental impact, from its creation to its ultimate destruction." The newspaper also reported that the CNW research put the Jeep Wrangler above the Toyota Prius and other hybrid cars as the greenest car that could be bought in the US. However, it was noted that Toyota disputed the proportion of energy used to make a car compared with how much the vehicle uses during its life; CNW said 80% of the energy a car uses is accounted for by manufacture and 20% in use. Toyota claimed the reverse.[42][43]

The report has raised controversy. When Oregon radio station KATU asked for comment on the CNW report, Professor John Heywood (with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)) saw merit in the study saying, "It raises...some good questions" but "I can only guess at how they did the detailed arithmetic.... The danger is a report like this will discourage the kind of thinking we want consumers to do – should I invest in this new technology, should I help this new technology?" [44]

The Rocky Mountain Institute alleged that even after making assumptions that would lower the environmental impact of the Hummer H3 relative to the Prius, "the Prius still has a lower impact on the environment. This indicates that the unpublished assumptions and inputs used by CNW must continue the trend of favoring the Hummer or disfavoring the Prius. Since the researchers at Argonne Labs performed a careful survey of all recent life cycle analysis of cars, especially hybrids, our research underlines the deep divide between CNW's study and all scientifically reviewed and accepted work on the same topic."[45]

A report done by the Pacific Institute alleges "serious biases and flaws" in the study published by CNW, claiming that "the report's conclusions rely on faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review."[46]

For his part, CNW's Art Spinella says environmental campaigners may be right about SUVs, but hybrids are an expensive part of the automotive picture. The vehicle at the top of his environmentally-friendly list is the Scion xB because it is easy to build, cheap to run and recycle, and carries a cost of 49 cents a mile over its lifetime. "I don't like the Hummer people using that as an example to justify the fact that they bought a Hummer," he said. "Just as it's not for Prius owners to necessarily believe that they're saving the entire globe, the environment for the entire world, that's not true either."[44]

In the June 2008 "From Dust to Dust" study, the Prius cost per lifetime-mile fell 23.5%, to $2.19 per lifetime mile, while the H3 cost rose 12.5%, to $2.33 per lifetime-mile. Actual results depend upon the distance driven during the vehicle's life.[47]

Unmodified, SUVs emit 700 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year, which causes global warming.[32] Whereas SUVs can be electrified,[48] their (manufacturing) emissions will always be larger than smaller electric cars.[49] They can also be converted to run on a variety of alternative fuels, including hydrogen.[50] That said, the vast majority of these vehicles are not converted to use alternative fuels.

The weight of a passenger vehicle has a direct statistical contribution to its driver fatality rate according to Informed for LIFE, more weight being beneficial (to the occupant).[51]

The length and especially width of large SUVs is controversial in urban areas. In areas with limited parking spaces, large SUV drivers have been criticized for parking in stalls marked for compact cars or that are too narrow for the width of larger vehicles. Critics have stated that this causes problems such as the loss of use of the adjacent space, reduced accessibility into the entry of an adjacent vehicle, blockage of driveway space, and damage inflicted, by the door, to adjacent vehicles.[52] As a backlash against the alleged space consumption of SUVs, the city of Florence, has restricted access of SUVs to the center, and Paris and Vienna have debated banning them altogether.[53][54]

Despite common perceptions, SUVs often have equivalent or less interior storage space than wagons.[55][56] While handling worse and burning more fuel due to high centre of gravity and weight respectively.[57]

Siân Berry was a founder of the Alliance against Urban 4×4s, which began in Camden in 2003 and became a national campaign demanding measures to stop 4×4s (or sport utility vehicles) "taking over our cities".[58] The campaign was known for its "theatrical demonstrations" and mock parking tickets, credited to Berry (although now adapted by numerous local groups).[59]

In Sweden, a group which called themselves "Asfaltsdjungelns indianer" (en: The Indians of the asphalt jungle), carried out actions in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and a number of smaller cities. The group, created in 2007, released the air from the tires on an estimated 300 SUVs during their first year.[60] Their mission was to highlight the high fuel consumption of SUVs, as they thought that SUV owners did not have the right to drive such big vehicles at the expense of others.[61][62] The group received some attention in media,[63] and declared a truce in December 2007.[64]

Similar activist groups, most likely inspired by the Swedish group, have carried out actions in Denmark, Scotland, and Finland.[65][66]

• Automobile safety
• Environmental impact of transport
  • Air pollution
  • Environmental aspects of the electric car
  • Gas-guzzler
• Mobile source air pollution
  • Exhaust gas – Gases emitted as a result of fuel reactions in combustion engines