Times: 1 Wesleyan: 0 What Kind of Car are You Driving? by Laura Clawson The New York Times is not generally considered a bastion of radical politics; Wesleyan often is. It is, of course, not true that most Wesleyan students are radical, but we might have at least hoped to do better than the Times. On November 30, the Times ran a lengthy article on sport utility vehicles and other light trucks, which are growing in popularity despite the positively gross amounts of smog they put out and gas they use. Light trucks have much less stringent gas mileage and emissions standards than cars; according to the Times, "the emissions from 65 million trucks match those from the 125 million cars on the road." What excuse could there possibly be for this? Light trucks have historically been subject to lower environmental standards than cars because they were used for farming and other commercial purposes-for hauling and towing, for driving on dirt roads and across fields. If they had been held to the same standards as cars, the trucks would have become smaller and able to do less work. Since the original fuel-economy legislation was passed, though, cars have become significantly more fuel-efficient. Light trucks have not, largely because the auto industry and unions have lobbied against harsher legislation. At the same time, they have become popular among people who do not haul much more than their families and groceries: "only a quarter of light trucks are now used for farming and other commercial purposes." And, of course, they've become popular among college students. How many of you drive sport utility vehicles? I haven't exactly gone around counting, but it looks like a hell of a lot to me. Some of you probably would have chosen something else, but got an SUV handed down from your parents. Fine (I recognize that it's not always easy to hold your parents accountable to your politics, and that few of us question the gift of a car). What about those of you who chose them? Perhaps you chose such a big car because you feel safer. (Of course, SUVs flip much more easily than cars, but you certainly feel safe as you look down on the other cars on the road.) The price of that feeling of safety is that if you crash into a car, you're going to do it a lot of damage: "Even though there are twice as many cars in use as trucks, the trucks now kill more people in cars each year than other cars do." Or then you might be a man who wears hats a lot. If so, you'll like SUVs and pickup trucks because their passenger compartments were designed to be tall enough so you wouldn't have to take off your hat while driving. It makes them less aerodynamic and therefore still less fuel-efficient, but hey, anything to avoid having to waste 3.6 seconds taking off and putting on your hat as you get into and out of your car, right? Maybe you want four-wheel drive so you can drive in winter without worrying about slipping. Ok, but have you ever heard of snow tires? Do you feel that your SUV is necessary for transporting your stuff to and from college? Because lots of people manage to do that even without cars of their own, and it seems a little extreme to base your car choice on something you do twice a year. Why not get a smaller car and rent a trailer when you need to move? SUVs need to be powerful to tow trailers full of horses, true, but lots of cars can pull your average little UHaul trailer. Possibly, of course, you just don't care. If you get to drive a car that lets you look down on everyone else and feel safe or whatever the hell it is you think you're getting from your SUV, it doesn't matter that you're more likely to kill someone you crash into, or that you're probably emitting 75-175 percent more nitrogen oxides than cars, or that your average fuel economy is 25 percent lower than a car's. In that case, fuck you.