United States | News & Politics

“reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash” Sounds like an arms race. Soon we will be driving armored personnel carriers.

Well, yeah. It is an arms race. I drive a "midsize" SUV, and a large part of the reason is that these trucks are going to be on the road no matter what. Statistically, in the event of a collision between a truck and a car, the truck driver will live and the car driver will die, no matter who is at fault. Is it more dangerous for drivers of small cars and pedestrians? Absolutely! But it's safer for the person in the tank. Ergo, if you want to maximize the safety of yourself and your passengers, be the one driving the tank. Am I selfish for driving my SUV? Probably--but it's hard to make a moral argument that defeats "This is more likely to keep me alive."

I live in a rural area, so walking isn't an option even if we had the infrastructure (which we don't), and I dream of a future in which we have commuter rail here. But until then, I'm going to be in the thing that's most likely to keep one of these monsters from killing me, and once my son is old enough to drive, you bet your ass I'm putting him in one too, because these things are on the road whether I like it or not. The tragedy of the commons is that everyone contributing to the calamity is rational.

All of these ridiculous trucks should be off the road, and I will cheerfully give mine up--once everyone else has, and not a moment sooner. Until then, anybody selling APCs yet? It looks like that Abrams has better sight lines than a 2500. Where do I get a road legal one of those?