I strongly agree. Frankly, I would support any idea that would discourage people from driving SUVs and other large vehicles when it isn't necessary. Their not only dangerous, they use more gas, create more pollution, make city streets more crowded, and make it difficult for drivers of regular cars to see the rest of the traffic well. People shouldn't drive large vehicles unless they actually need the size for some legitimate reason.

Speeding fines scaled to potential crash energy... I like that. A one ton car going 60 mph has roughly the same potential energy as a two ton truck going 30 mph and many drivers of large vehicles don't understand this (or any application of simple physics for that matter). A friend of mine suggested making a vehicle physics course mandatory in order to receive a driver's license. I find it disturbing that so many people are operating machines they don't understand.

Also, I think it's amusing that the same data from which SUV.org derived the "81% deadly to others" figure, the SUV manufacturers have derived a "19% deadly to us" figure. By choosing an SUV, considering the above, a driver is sacrificing the safety of others for an increase in personal safety. In contrast, a person trying to discourage the use of SUVs seems to be sacrificing the free will of others for, again, an increase in personal safety. So it seems we have another sticky battle of freedom versus security.

Thanks for the comments guys!

This idea isn't so much "trying to discourage the use of SUVs" by "sacrificing the free will of others". It's more about discouraging the mis-use of SUVs. I don't have any problem with people having the right to choose what they drive. It's all about responsibility and accountability for their choices. A responsible SUV driver should have no problem with a law like this. I just hate it when I see a see an SUV flying through traffic weaving in and out of lanes knowing that they won't be able to stop very well if they have to, and if they get in a wreck it's the car that they hit that's going to pay the real price.

There's a lot of instances in our legal system that determine penalty based on threat level. If you shoot someone with a BB gun you will receive a lesser penalty than if you shoot someone with a .22 calibur pistol. Why? Because the .22 is more dangerous. So why not with driving? I'm pretty sure more people get killed in car accidents than by gunshots, yet there is no difference in penalties that is based on threat level.

CDugan, sorry to nitpick, but a 2 ton vehicle at 30 MPH does not have as much energy as a 1 ton vehicle at 60 MPH. Kinetic energy increases as a square of the velocity, so the 1 ton car in this case would still have twice the energy of the 2 ton truck. However, the 2 ton vehicle would still have twice the energy of the 1 ton if they were going the same speed, which is the argument being made by the original poster.

johnnyblista, I know you were not advocating discouraging SUV driving. I was just spouting off my own opinion. BTW the law doesn't provide any greater penalty for shooting someone with a .44 magnum than a .22 rimfire. Do you think they should?

Good point/question Dwane.

One could go so far as to ask, should an assailant with good aim be greater penalized because they are more dangerous than someone who has bad aim? (Sniper vs. Drunk)

There are certain thresholds that when you're past them there are severe consequences. (If you're dead you're dead.) I think that a person who puts a BB gun to another person's temple and shoots them, should face the same charges as an attacker with a .44 magnum. Attempted Murder ...because they both can easily pass the "Death Threshold".

With SUVs being "81% deadly to others", there's an easily crossed threshold level in that 81%. You needn't charge them with attempted manslaughter for going 55mph in a 35, but they should be penalized on a steeper scale.

(...and i personally agree with your "spouting off".)

Johnnyblista, I just reread your original post and I found an issue that needs to be addressed. The statistics you post show that it is safer to be in the SUV than the car in an accident, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is more dangerous for the car occupants to be hit by an SUV than to be hit by another car. I realize that it probably is, but the statistics you quote don't necessarily prove that.

I see what you are saying...

If you go through the original link, http://www.suv.org/safety.html, and look under Crash Compatibility, it says;

"SUVs simply are not compatible in accidents with smaller-sized cars. It is natural to think that SUVs would cause more damage in accidents, because they tend to be heavier than other cars. However, the danger from SUVs appears to be caused by more than just their weight. ...The increased damage results in large part from the design of these vehicles. On average, light trucks and SUVs are designed to ride eight inches higher than a car. SUVs also have a more rigid frame - usually consisting of two steel rails. Most cars only use one rail. These two design factors greatly increase the damage caused in a crash with a passenger car."

That should better resolve that, "it is more dangerous for the car occupants to be hit by an SUV than to be hit by another car."

Thanks for addressing that loophole. I like this website because it helps you see your ideas from every angle, and ya don't always have the best vantage point to see everything.

Thanks Johnny. For what it's worth, I've long thought that it was stupid to make SUVs so tall. It makes them more dangerous for everyone, including those in the SUV due to the rollover risk, and there's really no advantage unless you drive off-road. Even off-road there really isn't much advantage to being higher and the rollover risk may outweigh the ground clearance benefit there too. I know people who argue that they can see better being higher up, but the taller vehicle makes it harder for others to see, so it may be more of a hazard than a help overall. A lower vehicle would also be more aerodynamically efficient, which would improve fuel economy. I've been predicting (and hoping) for years that the SUV would evolve into something more like an all-wheel drive station wagon.

But an SUV that gets hit by a semi-trailer truck is at the same disadvantage as the car getting hit by the SUV. Therefore a car hit by a semitrailer truck is at even more of a disadvantage.

Funny, I don't see a call to issue higher fines for semi-trailer trucks. Or a great out-pouring of support for banning semi-trailer trucks.

It seems to me that a driver of a compact car (think Mini Cooper) is similarly disadvantaged if they get whacked by my grandfather's '65 Cadillac. And I, for one, would not want to be in the rear seat of a Mini Cooper in any rear end accident with anything bigger than a shpopping cart.

What I'm trying to say is that it's all relative. You pick your mode of transportation and you weigh your risks. If you don't like the risk get something you can live with.

Please excuse my inaccurate figure. The two ton truck would have to be going about 43 mph to match the force of a one ton car going 60 mph.

To the original poster- I did not mean to imply you were trying to discourage the use of SUVs as if you had some kind of personal vendetta against them; I understand and agree with your original point. The point I wanted to make was that higher SUV fines could be misconstrued for this purpose, and that people not taking responsibility for their relatively dangerous vehicles could just as easily (and smugly) hide behind the guise of freedom of choice.

In response to Hyenuf,

"Funny, I don't see a call to issue higher fines for semi-trailer trucks. Or a great out-pouring of support for banning semi-trailer trucks."

Semi-trailer trucks DO PAY HIGHER FINES. To be sure of this I asked a friend of mine who is a police officer and he said,

"Tractor trailers do end up paying more for fines and what not due to weight issues and the possibilities of more tragic events when they get into accidents or run lights and things of that nature."

He's a cop in Ohio and I'm sure the laws vary a bit from state to state, but I know it's not just in Ohio where this is true.

And as for the Mini Cooper vs a Cadillac... If you read the post a few above this, you'd see that the 8" of frame height difference, and one rail versus two more rigid rails, are two major factors that aren't present in the Mini vs Cadillac scenario. You're still better off in a Mini vs a Cadillac than if you're in a Cadillac vs an SUV.

Of course semi-trailer rigs are fined more due to weight issues. The reason they are fined for being OVERWEIGHT is because that damages the roads. Same goes for some flatbed trucks. Cars & light trucks are not regulated as it is understood the roads are built to handle a certain weight distribution and those vehicles are not capable of exceeding that limit, regardless of how much you pack into it.

However, if the driver of a semi-trailer truck is charged simply with something like "Failure to yeild the right of way" his fine is exactly the same as the person similarly charged driving a car. If they have an accident with an overweight truck the DA may seek additional charges because it is the driver's responsibility to ensure the rig is not overwieght. Overloading any vehicle taxes the tires, axels, suspension, & brakes possibly creating unsafe conditions.

More nitpicking on my behalf... I originally meant to use "momentum" instead of "potential energy". Read: "A one ton car going 60 mph has the same momentum as a two ton truck going 30 mph..."

Just a wee bit of obtuse thinking on this one. Not sure how you got for point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ in your logic. I see you pulled up some vague stats from a website of a biased special-interest group with some outdated facts and footnotes that take you to some big name websites, but not the articles from which they are supposedly quoting. Safe driving habits determine preventability. Survivability is based on vehicle safety ratings. You have just as much ‘Power, Responsibility, and Accountability’ to get a safe vehicle. If you drive a tin-can, you’ll get smashed like a tin-can.

Side-note: I drive a Saturn.

D-

Johnnyblista, a 1965 Caddi’ does have a full dual-rail frame, not to mention All-Steel body panels and All-Steel bumpers--front and rear, and the front bumper would impact mid-way up the side of a Mini-Copper. Anyone who buys a Mini, or any other car it’s size, should be fined for being stupid enough to think they would survive a major accident. Also, SUV vs ’65 Caddi’---My money’s on the Caddi’, and I’ll give 2 to 1 odds, the SUV is a write-off and the Caddi is repairable.;) D-