[Wiretrip]

Yes true, but I was really referring more to SUVs. Worldwide there is a real problem with this trend, and it is nearly all marketing. Certainly the average school run in the UK does not benefit form the extensive use of SUVs.

[shitgoose]

What about vans? Do people benefit from them?

[Wiretrip]

Yes of course. But nobody would ever argue that a van is a better vehicle than a normal sized car for moving people around (unless you have a massive family). SUVs are a profitable marketing trend for car companies and nothing more. We are literally burning the planet and people's insecurities are being exploited to persuade them into oversized and (thus poorly performing) vehicles.

[shitgoose]

VW Jetta does 30MPG in the city, Jeep Wrangler does 22MPG, i.e. 36% more emission. In the winter conditions (e.g. Toronto where I live) Jeep wins hands down. I don't even have winter tires. If you drive kids, the higher and stronger vehicle provides much more safety. Is it worth an extra 36% of pollution? I don't know. But the view that SUVs are just a gas-guzzling marketing ploy is a stretch.

[Wiretrip]

They may be slightly safer for the occupants of the car, but the height factor kills 30% more pedestrians and in actual fact accident fatalities are up as a result of SUVs as they incite risk-taking behaviour and roll over in accidents much more readliy. Additionally, they only have to accede to truck safety regulations with are less stringent than those for cars. I can point you to loads of papers and articles on this. They purely are a marketing ploy as they are more profitable vehicles for the manufacturers. BTW those MPG ratings are shit by today's standards; most cars do 45MPG+.