|
Dave Leggett from Just-auto.com commentary on the anti-SUV campaigns:
Let's get something absolutely clear. I'm no big fan of
SUVs. Brick-like aerodynamics and the fact that they tend
to be big and heavy is almost enough for me. But what
really kills them in my eyes is the simple fact that the
people buying them, in the main, don't use them off-road.
Now I know there's a safety aspect with 4WD that people
understandably buy into, but there's also the not entirely
lost fact that your big mass will obliterate anything of
substantially smaller mass in a collision - slightly
uncomfortable territory in my personal view.
People find all kinds of justifications for owning SUVs
('it was great on the beach on vacation last year') but
deep down they're a bit of a con. Over engineered for what
they do means wasteful to me. The lifestyle marketing
guff fishes people in of course, but that's human nature
and they're free to buy one if they want to. Hey, you know
the arguments for and against.
But something in the news today has put me in alliance with
SUV drivers everywhere. They'll be indignant when they hear
about it and rightly so. Certain religious groups in the
US are planning a campaign against SUVs saying that your
choice of vehicle is a moral issue and that SUVs are
anti-social. This strikes me as a can of worms of immense
magnitude that they would do well to steer clear of.
'What vehicle would Jesus drive?' Are they serious? I would
guess that today he would have a bicycle and would be a
keen supporter of public transport. If he had to have a
vehicle then maybe he'd plump for a gasoline-electric
hybrid like the Toyota Prius. Okay, if he has to have a
pure gasoline ICE, then something modest surely - Perodua
Nippa? Suzuki Alto?
But my real gripe is this: if your choice of vehicle is
really a 'moral issue', then what about luxury cars and
performance cars? They're not exactly eco-friendly and if
you trade down to something more basic, the money saved
can surely be diverted to morally good causes. And what
about other areas of discretionary spending on luxury or
non-essential goods? Should we all live the lives of
monks?
No, your SUV, should you choose to have one, should not be
lambasted on purely moral grounds in this way. The vehicles
are perfectly legal and in terms of the wider picture, no
morally - or environmentally - worse than many other types
of vehicle. Some SUVs are better than others of course and
I'm not saying that there is not a case for discouraging
the worst excesses via the regulatory environment. But
SUVs - or their drivers - should not be singled out as
wrong on moral grounds in my view.
I'm reminded of Beatrice Hall's line about free speech:
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
death you're right to say it.' (The friends of Voltaire,
1906) For 'say' substitute 'drive'.
The fact that there is still massive poverty in the world
is a serious and complicated question for all of us who
live in comparable luxury - and this isn't really the place
for dwelling on that. But picking on SUV drivers seems to
me to be a little ill advised in this context, as well as
missing the point (unless the point is simply to stir
things up).
__________________
*Retired.
|
