Last month Automotive Fleet reported the decision of the Chicago Police Department to drop compact cars as police vehicles. The story was played as it should have been played - as a straight news story. However, several readers questioned our treatment of the story, contending that it lacked interpretation. Interpretation will come in later issues of Automotive Fleet - as it has before. Disagreement will come in this column.
While I have no desire to stir up a controversy over the merits of compact cars as police vehicles, I do feel that the Chicago indictment was a little bit too broad. One point with which I am in particular disagreement was the statement by a department official that the compacts tended to "detract from the image of the police officer as a symbol of strength and authority." This is downright silly! If a police officer needs a car for strength and authority, then nothing but Cadillacs, Imperials and Lincolns should be used. Or maybe a Rolls Royce. These are massive cars that ooze strength. If anything is detracting from the image of Chicago policemen, it certainly isn't the cars they use.
Another reason given by the department for its disenchantment with compacts was that some policemen reported "excessive fatigue" after driving the compacts for eight hours. I'll buy this, but I don't think that the blame should rest entirely with the compacts. Eight hours of city driving in any type of car is enough to tire a person.
The fact that the rooflines of some of the compacts made it difficult for policemen to wear caps as required by regulation is also a problem with some of the standard size cars. Ditto for the observation that tall policemen had to slump or slouch in compact seats. In fairness to Chicago, this was reported by George Rupprecht, director of automotive maintenance for the department.
I also must disagree with the statement that the compacts are "too bouncy," fail to hold the road properly at high speeds and tend to slip on curves at high speed. I've driven all of the compacts at high speeds on auto company test tracks and found that they handle as well as standard size cars. Granted, for heavy duty police work, a compact should be equipped with available heavy duty equipment.
My disagreement with the findings of the Chicago Police Department is by no means a blanket endorsement of compact cars over standard size autos. Rather, I feel that both compacts and standard size autos have a place in any fleet, each serving a definite purpose. The Chicago decision was based on a six-month study said to include seasonal variations. I feel that wasn't enough. Rupprecht, a highly respected fleet man who formerly managed Armour & Co.'s huge fleet, said that operational costs of the compacts were lower than for standard cars, but that the other disadvantages offset the savings.
Undoubtedly, much of the criticism came from the policemen operators. And, being human, it is only natural that they would like something a bit more luxurious, so the complaints. But luxury has no real place in a police fleet. A longer test may have eliminated some of the complaints and justified the continued use of compacts. Especially since the department is switching to one-man patrol work. Also unanswered in the Chicago study, as in most fleet studies of compacts, was the matter of resale value. Anyone want to disagree?
