07-18-2022, 03:11 PM
(07-18-2022, 02:30 PM)jamincan Wrote:(07-18-2022, 02:03 PM)Bytor Wrote: While I don't agree with their mischief (legal definition which includes property damage), it's not "for some reason" as if the negative externalities of SUVs were unknown.
* greater risk to pedestrians and cyclists in collisions
* greater likelihood of mot seeing those pedestrians and cyclists in the first place
* higher emissions & pollution
* greater wear and tear to roads
I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.
It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?
A lot of modern "SUVs" (which has become quite a large umbrella term) are very similar to modern cars, as a result of manufacturers simplifying their platforms and having the two styles meet in the middle. The fuel consumption and visibility issues (aside from height) are quite close these days, and from my understanding a lot of the visibility issues are a result of crash safety standards anyways. There are of course some monstrous SUVs though, which are incomparable to cars.
In other words, just targeting SUVs instead of all motor vehicles is about as naive as deflating tires.
But hey, putting potentially 240 tires in the landfill and forcing the production of another 240 is a net environmental benefit?