Trolleys Are Not Model T's Are Not SUV's

I was listening to the most recent RadioLab on my commute to work this morning. They revisit a philosophical/moral dilemma that is very interesting to me. They ask, as the self-driving car inches toward reality, how will we decide to program driving computers to cause fewer vs. more casualties/fatalities. (For the tl;dl version, skip ahead to the 27:14 mark.) An example of such a decision proffered in the episode was that a car should be programmed to crash into a brick wall, killing the lone passenger, rather than careen into a crowd, maiming and killing several. The general conclusion of many is that this would be unworkable. Most recognized in general that it was logical to do this, but few would be willing to ride in such vehicles, and few would want to sell such vehicles.

My observation is this: we are already making such decisions! People regularly make choices regarding transportation that, on the whole, value their own safety at the expense of others. People, for example, often cite "safety" as a reason for buying SUV's, but what people mean by "safety," whether they recognize it or not, is safe for themselves (or their loved ones) even if that means making pedestrians and people in other cars less safe. I have written about this before. Science fiction has long been recognized as an effective tool for understanding complicated current social circumstances. Too often when that science fiction is projected as near and inevitable, we fail to get the same messages.

Autonomous Cars and Alcohol Consumption

Drunk driving laws, their rigorous enforcement, and a changing culture that is increasingly intolerant of driving under the influence have not only made people safer on the road, but they have arguably made many people healthier by giving them a reason to drink less and to monitor their alcohol consumption when they do drink. If the promise of self-driving cars pays off, people will have one less reason to limit their drinking. After all, the car is driving itself so I might as well get plastered! Hell, bring along a few roadies, too! As self-driving cars become viable and then common, it will be interesting to measure this and other unintended adverse health outcomes.

Trading Legroom for Lives: SUV's and the Other Guy

I caught an interesting piece online recently about how automobile fatality rates are higher for those who are economically disadvantaged. Even more, the rates are increasing. Those with lower levels of education were about 2.5 times more likely to die in 1995 and 4.3 times in 2010. The authors point to several discrepancies as possible explanations for this, including older/newer cars, proximity of a trauma centers, road conditions, and safety infrastructure. What the authors don't address, however, is the possibility that the cars' size might also be a factor, a topic that I've been haranguing on for years. Here is my case for this.

Here are some data from the Kelley Blue Book. The most popular SUV in 2015 was the Jeep Wrangler, which sells new for about $24,500 and gets about 18 MPG. The most popular pickup in 2015 was the Toyota Tacoma Access Cab, which sells new for about $21,300 and gets about 21 MPG. The most fuel efficient (non-hybrid/non-electric) sedan in 2015 was the Honda Civic, which sells new for about $17,500 and gets about 33 MPG. Smaller cars are greener.[1] Smaller cars are cheaper.

When I speak out against big vehicles, people assume that I am going to make the pro-environmental argument. That, however, is only part of the issue. If smaller cars tend to cost less, it stands to reason that they are more likely to be purchased by those with lower levels of income; larger vehicles are only affordable to the relatively affluent. One rationalization for purchasing larger vehicles is that they are "safer." On this point, people are generally correct that larger vehicles tend to rate better in crash tests, but an important question is, safer for whom? While SUV's are safer for those in the SUV, SUV's are more likely to cause fatalities in the other vehicle, with car drivers 7.6 times more likely to die than SUV drivers in such collisions.[2] Those who are economically advantaged enough to be able to choose to purchase a larger vehicle make a choice to value their own individual safety, comfort, and convenience (and that of their immediate family) over those who are relatively economically disadvantaged and, moreover, to externalize the safety risks inherent to automobile travel onto the economically disadvantaged.

In the absence of regulation and in a system where (some) people have a "choice" over what type of vehicle to purchase, consumers have several ethical questions with which to wrestle:

• Does the extra legroom in your big vehicle justify the reality that you're more likely to kill someone else on the road?
• Does the extra luggage and cargo that you're able to haul around really justify risking other's lives?
• Are there no low-profile vehicles, like station wagons, that might offer a safer alternative to your SUV?
• Should one's safety be at all related to her socioeconomic status?
• Is your life more valuable than the other guy's?

--
[1] In general, larger cars are fuel inefficient compared to smaller cars. Basic physics should be enough to convince us of this: it takes more energy to accelerate a larger mass, and since mass and volume are generally directly related for cars (i.e. heavier cars are also bigger), it also takes more energy to overcome the increased friction that moving mass encounters. If you question this, here are some data to support the claim. I think that most people accept this, that SUV's and pickup trucks are less than green.

[2] See Mayrose, James and Dietrich Jehle. 2002. "Vehicle Weight and Fatality Risk for Sport Utility Vehicle—versus—Passenger Car Crashes" Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care 53(4):751-753. Additional coverage here and here.

UPDATE (10/19/2015): A related read: The Geography of Car Deaths in America: The U.S. is a nation divided not just by how people get around, but by how fast they drive.

Running List of Pet Peeves: #8 Slowing for RR Xings

Granted, some railroad crossing are rough. Increasingly, though, they are quite smooth. Few things bother me more than when drivers--particularly local drivers who should know better--slow down at railroad crossings when they could easily maintain their speed. Some, I know, argue that crossing rails at full speed is bad for their car's suspensions, but I challenge this. Modern suspension systems in cars are made for exactly these situations, and while I don't have evidence for this, I hypothesize that it's actually worse for one's car to take such bumps slowly. There is one crossing near my home that becomes quite a bottleneck. If only folks would be courteous and keep it going, much of this would be alleviated.