Harry Pollard wrote: > Two of my daughters have SUVs and they wouldn't part with them. They love > them, perhaps because they feel safe in them and the cars behave well on > the road. ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
The safety is only perceived. SUVs aren't safe, not for their occupants and much less for other traffic participants. So SUVs don't "behave well" either, except perhaps from the perspective of a reckless bubba. See Harry, that's precisely the problem with Americanization -- the attitude that only oneself has to feel[sic!] safe, and "screw the rest". > Chris, there are plenty of alternatives to SUVs in the US. The most efficient (gas-saving) European cars are _not_ on the US market, "because they wouldn't sell anyway". > However, could it be that the SUVs are enjoyed by those who buy them? Might > they have checked with others who own them, find they are liked and decide > to look at one for themselves? Small light cars, hybrid vehicles, human-powered vehicles and bikes can be even more enjoyable (and even healthy), not only for the driver but even more for other traffic participants and the environment. But unfortunately, the presence of SUVs spoils the fun and makes the use of light vehicles very risky. (E.g. SUVs are too wide for most roads when overtaking a bicycle, but unlike trucks, SUV drivers are not trained (or don't care) to take that into account.) What kind of freedom is that when antisocial (SUV) drivers take away the freedom of social (bike) drivers? That's the US kind of "freedom". > The best form of transport for Los Angeles and many other American cities > is the automobile. I certainly wouldn't criticize people who decide to get > the best car they can afford and which will give them enjoyment while they > ride. Harry, Harry, can you spell "externalized costs" ? Chris
