What a great issue to talk about! It's certainly bringing out some emotions. :)

Here's a great article that presents the arguments against SUV's better than I can. I don't agree with them all, and can't vouch for their veracity, but it's an interesting summation:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14839

I think the heart of the issue is the question of where an individuals freedoms intersect with his/her responsibilities to the group. For companies, it's about where their mission to maximize shareholder value intersects with their duty to act "responsibly."

For the first question, it's important to understand that an individuals rights are basically unlimited, until they infringe upon anothers rights, both in person and property. When they do, we often make laws restricting that person's rights. For example, on your own land in the middle of nowhere, you can shoot your gun all you want. But if your property is in the middle of an urban area we restrict that right because it infringes upon your neighbors rights to use and enjoy their property due to the noise.

As this pertains to SUVs, it matters not at all if someone chooses to drive a vehicle that is prone to rolling over and killing them, but it does matter if that vehicle is more likely to kill others sharing the road with them. Their right to choose whatever vehicle they want may need to be restricted if it infringes on anothers right to live.

To what degree we balance these rights is a wide gray area that is rightly left up to the legislature and publicly placed ballot measures to decide. So long as accurate safety data is available, the public, or their representatives should be the ones to decide what is the proper trade-off between the individuals right to choose their form of transportation, and others right not to be unduly endangered by these choices.

I don't personally believe the arguments promoting safety above all else, because I don't think it serves the public good to force everyone to drive around in Nerf-mobiles at 15 miles per hour. I also don't agree with the trend to legistlate safety to minors in the form of mandatory helmet laws for skateboarders and bicyclists. My preference is more freedom and less law in this area, but it's only a preference.

The second question of companies sometimes antagonistic goals of maximizing shareholder value vs acting as a steward of the public good is even clearer. The Uniform Commercial Code sets standards for product safety and disclosure of information amongst other things. This is the product of the representative legislative process and reflects the peoples desire to regulate commerce for the common good, in compromise with businesses general desire for less regulation. "Acting repsonsibly" we're defined as meeting a certain level of expectations about safety and safety information disclosure. There is an argument that the automobile manufacturers have know of the increased safety hazards of SUVs for a long time, which seems reasonable. They do extensive safety testing, and something as simple as an increased rollover hazard and increased tendency to kill collision victims seems to be exactly the sort of thing they would find in such testing. If not, their testing needs to be improved. This raises the possibility that they have marketed these vehicles *despite* knowing about these safety issues. It certainly merits investigation. And if it is true that not only was this known, but that the vehicles were then marketed as "extra" safe, then certain inescapable ethical questions are raised.

Why would you sell a product that is more dangerous than the industry standard by telling your customers it is less dangerous?

If this seems implausible, consider the case of GM and their exploding Chevy Malibus in 1999. GM lost in court $4.8 billion in punitive damages for failure to make safety fixes to the Malibu line despite knowing about them. GM had done a cost/benefit analysis which concluded "burned deaths" would cost the company $2.40 per vehicle, while the fix cost over $8.00. So yea, these things happen. The damages were later reduced to $1.09 billion, but the point was the same.

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/tortlaw/articles.cfm?ID=570

Anyway, there are a lot more issues around the SUV debate, but I think a good place to start is with individual rights vs responsibilities, and the ethics of companies.

Personally, do I think SUVs should be banned? No. That's silly. Do I think that auto makers should disclose full safety information and be liable for negligent or malicious safety management? Yes. Should there be some discussion about mandatory roof reinforcement to increase safety in rollovers and regulated bumper heights to decrease the danger of tall vehicles to shorter ones? Yes.

Adam

RE: WSJ.com - The Scarlet SUV