I read an article today in the printed version of the New York Times about a large new Sports-Utility Vehicle called the Ford Excursion. It was a very interesting article to me and mentioned various sorely needed safety improvements. When I happened to read the same article on the web a bit later, I noticed that one paragraph had a very interesting modification : it had been edited to remove some details about just how dangerous the unmodified Excursion would have been in collision with a Ford Taurus.

Read the following two versions for yourself and decide for yourself. If you think that the Times has censored some information that Ford doesn't want you to know, you might like to consider writing to the paper (letters@nytimes.com) and telling them what you think of them. Personally I am very disturbed that informative information that may be disturbing for the general public to know about Ford's products was withdrawn when a print article was converted to the web.

The printed version of the paragraph in question is as follows (my emphasis) :

The horizontal steel beams hang down six inches from the high-riding steel frame of the vehicle, which is called the Ford Excursion and stands nearly 7 feet tall and weighs more than three tons. Priya Prasad, Ford's top safety researcher, said that if an Excursion without the steel beams collided with the front of a Ford Taurus with both vehicles traveling at 30 miles an hour, the Excursion would ride up over the Taurus' hood, crushing it. The Excursion's grille would then strike the base of the Taurus's windshield, causing tremendous damage to the passenger compartment, as Mr. Prasad illustrated with a videotape of a computer simulation of such a crash.

Whereas the on-line version has the following shorter version omitting much of the detail :

The horizontal steel beams hang down six inches from the high-riding steel frame of the vehicle, which is called the Ford Excursion and stands nearly 7 feet tall and weighs more than three tons. Priya Prasad, Ford's top safety researcher, said that if an Excursion without the steel beams collided with the front of a Ford Taurus with both vehicles traveling at 30 miles an hour, the Excursion would ride up over the Taurus' hood.

I kept of the copy of the on-line article as I saw it this afternoon here just in case they do revert the article or it goes away entirely. All versions are (c) The New York Times.

Update March 6th 1999

Two people wrote to me and didn't like what I had written. In both cases they were SUV owners and believed this to increase their safety at the admitted risk of crushing other vehicles if the worst came to the worst. Nobody wrote anything saying they agreed with me and the Times couldn't be bothered to write back either when I wrote to them. Nevertheless I still think the series of articles by Keith Bradsher on this topic should be required reasding for anyone considering buying an SUV.

My correspondents also thought I had missed the point entirely since the product being launched does contain the safety modifications. I hadn't missed this point in the least, but clearly people thought I had. I will try to write more clearly the next time I get the urge to sound off.

Update March 15th 1999

Someone else wrote to say they liked what I had written. He pointed out that one possible reason for the gigantic size and weight of the new Excursion is so that it still qualifies as a truck and not a passenger car (the new limit is 8500 pounds apparently which the new Ford just exceeds). To get an idea of his point of view check out his web site especially "Why Gas is Too Cheap".

Created 27 February 1999