# The SUV saga.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2000, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897 "2000-03-29T16:54:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![racekarl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6bbea6/32.png) [@racekarl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racekarl)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/41 "2002-12-17T18:45:14Z")
There are couple of misconceptions floating around here: This quote: > [@](#): > > two small cars collide, both of them have a better chance of killing their occupants than if two SUVs collide. And basically all of Centerline’s post e.g. > [@](#): > > Since Mack Trucks are impractical, some SUVs are a good alternative. Besides, the “real” SUVs are truck based with solid axiles, chasis frames, etc that I consider will make the vehicle last much longer than “light” car-like SUVs with just the addition of 4X4. In any case, I consider many small vehicles to be death traps by design, with undersized tires and brakes, and delicately balanced unibodies that crush like a thin tin-can. are not backed up by the current facts. A study by Lawrence Berkley and UofM found that SUVs pose a greater danger to their _own_ occupants than small cars do. Centerline your idea about unibody vs body on frame cars is basically reversed. Unibody cars have their structual stength in the part of the car that is getting hit in an accident. They are better able to route collision forces around the passenger compartment than frame based cars are. Furthermore, it is SUVs that are more likely to have undersized brakes for their weight compared to passenger cars. One look at the absolute stopping distances of these vehicles points that out fairly quickly. The LBL/UM study found that the inferior handling and braking ability of SUVs makes them more likely to get in an accident in the first place, and more likey that the accident will involve a roll over. Here are some quotes from the report: > [@](#): > > Most cars are safer than the average sports utility vehicle > [@](#): > > Those who think that driving big is driving safe, or that lightweight, fuel-efficient vehicles are inherently more dangerous than their heavyweight counterparts, need to think again. A researcher with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (Berkeley Lab) has teamed with a researcher from the University of Michigan in a unique risk analysis study which shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, vehicle quality is a much more important safety factor than weight for the drivers of vehicles involved in a crash. [LBL study](http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety.html) ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/42 "2002-12-17T18:55:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by QuickSilver \* > \*\* > They collectively observe (accross the US) that a great majority of the time these huge gas sucking beast are occupied by a single driver who is more often than not on the phone and is either puttering along in the left lane or leaning on their rear bumper. \*\* So what if they’re occupied by only one person? > [@](#): > > \*\* > There have been plenty of studies showing that these trucks do not handle as well as an average sedan/coupe. Nor do they stop as well. \*\* I find this absolutely shocking! Next thing you’ll tell us is that these trucks have more cargo room, carry more passengers, and can haul larger trailers. > [@](#): > > \*\* > On the whole, the large SUV is a danger to almost every car on the road because in an accident the sheer mass and elevated bumper height becomes a huge problem for all but similarly sized vehicles. \*\* Of course this is coming from the guy who presents a danger to others on the road because of his speeding. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m not as vehemently opposed to these vehicles as some of my fellow enthusiasts but I have been the victim of a large tailgating truck on several occasions and when possible I prefer to give them room to pass instead of trying to match wits with the witless driver there-of. \*\* I typically drive a Saturn but on occasion I take out my wife’s Chevy pickup. I get tail gated by sedans just as often as other vehicles. They get so close to my rear that I can’t see them in any of my three mirrors. It can be pretty annoying. > [@](#): > > \*\* > My main objection to the SUV (of any size) is the limited visibility it affords me of traffic around and ahead of me. Following one in heavy traffic the SUV effectively blinds one from any clues about the traffic situation ahead. \*\* If you experience this problem then you are following to close. I don’t experience this problem in my Saturn. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’m specifically wondering about the “soccer mom/dad” class of drivers who would be hard pressed to justify their vehicle choice beyond the highly questionable utility aspect of it. \*\* Please justify your vehicle. You don’t need to drive that fast. Marc ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/43 "2002-12-17T20:07:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by QuickSilver \* > \*\*I’m specifically wondering about the “soccer mom/dad” class of drivers who would be hard pressed to justify their vehicle choice beyond the highly questionable utility aspect of it. > \*\* I’m not a soccer Mom/or Dad. Nor is my wife. No kids. The primary reason we own them is deep snow. Lots of it. Don’t discount the utility of an SUV. They work very well for people that need a larger flat area to haul things. Sure a pick-up is good (or better) for that as well. But The U in SUV also means I can haul people when I need to. Or lock my stuff up in back. > [@](#): > > \*\*Why? Well, I’m what some would call an automobile enthusiast. I love to drive competent, well engineered sport sedans (of the Teutonic persuasion please > Often you will find me driving rather quickly (but not in school zones) and I pay my speeding fines without complaining (much). I’ve got an accident free record dating back to when I first got my license, 20 years ago. \*\* I prefer to drive a practical vehicle that suites my needs. They too are well engineered. I’m not sure what your accident free record has to do with your anti-SUV rant. I guess you are trying to justify your desire to drive fast/speed. I also have an accident free record. For 27 years. I drive my Pathfinder because it works best for me. Not because I want to speed, intimidate or otherwise endanger other people. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/44 "2002-12-17T20:16:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by QuickSilver \* > **My main objection to the SUV (of any size) is the limited visibility it affords me of traffic around and ahead of me. Following one in heavy traffic the SUV effectively blinds one from any clues about the traffic situation ahead. Following a sedan in a sedan, I can usually see 3-4 cars ahead and evaluate the changes of traffic motion much better.** Fortunately, those SUV drivers are higher off the ground and can see farther than you could if the SUV wasn’t in the way. If you keep a proper following distance and slow down when the SUV does, you’re actually better off following an SUV. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/45 "2002-12-17T20:50:02Z")
First off, I like SUVs. I plan to have once I start having kids. Why? Two reasons. First of all, practicality. I can fit more crap, including people, into an SUV than into a sedan. I can go on road-trips and carry all my luggage, with no sacrifices to comfort. When moving, I can haul larger quantities of breakable stuff that I don’t trust to moving vans than I could in my Honda Civic. Secondly, I like 'em. They look cool (some of them - some of them are ass-ugly), and the sportier ones are fun to drive - given the choice, I’d go for the BMW X-5. Now, as far as relative safety, they may very well be less safe to drive than small cars. They may be less safe to drive than medium cars. They may be the least safe car to drive of all cars in production. So? That’s irrelevant. Given all the cars out there, there will necessarily be a class that is the least safe. If you get rid of it, then there will just be another class of cars that is least safe. Arguing that SUVs are less safe than most cars is fine and dandy, but not much of a reason to dislike them, and certainly not a reason to hate them and demand the automakers do something about them. The question is, are they UNsafe? Do they fail to adhere to some logically placed baseline of auto safety? Are the supposed risks they create for the small-car folks so great as to justify eliminating or modifying them? So far, I’ve failed to see anybody address this question in a satisfactory manner. So, to all of you SUV-hatahs out there: Can you provide a convincing argument that SUVs are categorically unsafe, by some objective standard? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![racekarl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6bbea6/32.png) [@racekarl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racekarl)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/46 "2002-12-17T21:17:34Z")
ElJeffe, As a matter of fact, there are levels of safety standards that passenger cars must meet that SUVs are exempt from. [NHTSA vehicle regulations](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/standards/safstan2.htm) As someone who plans on putting your children in your vehicle, how can you say that safety does not matter to you at all? The answer to your “so what” question about eliminiating the least safe class of vehicles is that if you do that, the average safetly of all vehicles rises. It is immaterial that there will be another “least safe” car; it will still be safer than what it replaces as titleholder. For your convincing answer that SUVs are demonstrably less safe than other vehicles, read the link I posted in the other thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/47 "2002-12-17T21:19:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > **So, to all of you SUV-hatahs out there: Can you provide a convincing argument that SUVs are categorically unsafe, by some objective standard?** Unfortunately you need to register with [ConsumerReports.com](http://ConsumerReports.com) in order to see their testing results, but in the past couple years I’ve read CR they’ve done collision tests on SUVs and have shown that they do not perform as well as cars. [According to the NHTSA](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/), SUVs are a lot more prone to rollover than cars are- no car I saw had a rollover rating of less than 4 stars (out of 5), whereas barely any SUVs even received 4 stars (the Pontiac Aztek- ewwwww- being one of the two SUVs that got 4 stars). I didn’t sift through the [braking data](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/brakes/), but you can check it out for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/48 "2002-12-17T21:29:14Z")
**ElJeffe,** have you considerd a six-cylinder, AWD station wagon? It’s going to be able to do most of the things you listed in your goals. ---
**Author:** ![fatmac98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ec8ea/32.png) [@fatmac98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fatmac98)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/49 "2002-12-17T21:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > \*\* > > My '99 Jeep Cherokee does! 😃 It’s swell for camping too. > \*\* So does my '98. I will never drive a car again. It is well worth whatever higher gas usage or prices I pay. I love my SUV. When Houston was underwater in June of 2001, I was ferrying my friends home in my Jeep. Before I had it, I had an Integra GSR. An enthusiasts dream, a rival for any of the OP’s teutonic sports sedans. Got 5 tickets in 5 months at one point in time. Since I have gotten an SUV, ZERO tickets in 4 years. Why do car drivers insist on riding SUV owners for their preference in vehicles. This burns me to no end. Until Detroit, or Tokyo, or Munich STOP making cars and only produce SUVs leave us alone. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2002, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/50 "2002-12-17T23:44:31Z")
**racekarl** and **mojo** : No, what you are arguing is that SUVs are less safe, categorically speaking, than cars, to which I repeat: so what? Imagine that somehow, all SUVs were magically made to be as safe as cars, and that the safety of cars were increased beyond what it is now. SUVs would still be less safe. Would you continue to argue that they were UNsafe, given that they would then be just as safe as the cars you currently thing (I assume) are perfectly acceptable? Or what if they were made more safe than cars? Would you then argue to get rid of cars, because now SUVs were safer? Do you see the difference between less safe and unsafe? Or is your argument just that whatever is the least safe vehicle class out there, regardless of the absolute value of that safety rating, should systematically be eliminated, by virtue of the fact that it’s the least safe? And **Ethilrist** , I’m aware of the station wagons out there. I just think they’re ugly. I would probably never consider a station wagon, for aesthetic purposes. Eh, I’m shallow that way. 🙂 Jeff ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/51 "2002-12-18T00:00:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > Again, see this 2-year-old _Wall Street Journal_ article: [http://www.junkscience.com/news/kazman.htm](http://www.junkscience.com/news/kazman.htm) Good God, that’s not an **article** , tracer. That’s an opinion piece…written by someone from the libertarian/industry-organ Competitive Enterprise Institute no less! News flash: “The competitive enterprise institute thinks it is government regulation in the form of CAFE standards rather than SUVs that are to blame for safety issues.” Well, who would have thunk it!?! By the way, for a more intelligent view on the relation between CAFE standards and accidents, you can see [this](http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076013/html/index.html) recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) ]report on CAFE standards. While they did worry about the effect of downsizing on safety, their conclusions were much more mild than our friend at CEI…and they also noted that if the standards were modified so as to reduce the variance in sizes (e.g., by making things stricter on SUVs) then any negative effects on safety might be averted…or it could even become a net plus for safety. [It was also interesting that even their rather mild concerns about the relation of CAFE standards and safety prompted two of the committee members to write a dissent in one of the appendices arguing that what the rest of the committee had said was still too strong and they did not believe there was a convincing link of any kind between downsizing and reduction in safety.] By the way, one thing you are correct on is the fact that automobile death rates (per passenger mile) have fairly steadily decreased over time. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/52 "2002-12-18T00:27:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by racekarl \* > \*\*A study by Lawrence Berkley and UofM found that SUVs pose a greater danger to their _own_ occupants than small cars do. > […] > [LBL study](http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-SUV-Safety.html) \*\* Bull. That study says **no such thing.** From the very article you linked to: “Wenzel and Ross determined that SUVs are no safer for their drivers than the average midsize or large car and not much safer than many of the most popular compact and subcompact car models.” ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/53 "2002-12-18T00:31:50Z")
It’s also worth noting that, according to the above-linked article, the monstrous Chevy Suburban was determined to be the **safest** SUV, both in terms of safety to its occupants and in terms of safety to other vehicles. Admittedly, it was still rated as less safe overall than a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord, but it’s interesting to note that a behemoth like the Suburban is safer (for both occupants and other traffic) than little SUVs like the Rav-4. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/54 "2002-12-18T02:23:39Z")
The LBL study talks about combined risk. Risk to all occupants involved in a crash. And – From the title page of the study: “ **This work was supported by the Energy Foundation**. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under LBL **Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098. Report Number LBNL-49675. ©American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy** , 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 801, Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429-8873 phone, (202) 429-2248 fax, [http://aceee.org](http://aceee.org) website.” Bolding mine. I don’t know what kind of contract that may be. Or if it was requested by the DOE. The report was supported by the ‘Energy Foundation’ and the contract names the ACEEE. Draw your own conclusions. It doesn’t appear that the report is available from the DOE. You have to get it from the ACEEE. Also. SUV’s are said to be deathtraps in rollovers, but most rollover fatalities occur in single vehicle accidents when the passengers are not belted up. Hardly the fault of the vehicle. It’s a moot point. The first thing a person generally looks for in a vehicle is it’s ability to do what that person needs. Then you look at safety, cost, mpg. YMMV. 😉 * * * I don’t live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here. ---
**Author:** ![racekarl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6bbea6/32.png) [@racekarl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racekarl)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/55 "2002-12-18T02:46:38Z")
Jeff, I am in no way advocating that SUVs be eliminated. I’ve driven several both on and off road, and I certainly think they are useful and valuable. The point of my post was to specifically refute the misconception that SUVs are SAFER to their occupants than passenger cars. If your needs are such that an SUV meets them best and you are willing to accept the fact that they are less safe than a passenger car, thats perfectly OK. However, several posters wrote that the main reason they purchased an SUV was the perceived safety advantage, which is just that: perceived, with no fact to back it up. You asked for an objective measure by which SUVs are unsafe. That’s sort of a non-question as there isn’t really an “objective” measure. Do you consider a 50% chance that you will die in a 40 mph collision unacceptably safe? Maybe you don’t, so to you that vehicle is not unsafe. Perhaps your neighbor does, though, and to him that is not a safe vehicle. It’s not disputable that most SUVs on the road do not adhere to the same safety standards as cars, and do not fare as well in crash tests, so it follows that more people would consider them unsafe. That doesn’t mean YOU have to. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/56 "2002-12-18T14:42:14Z")
It’s true that according to NHTSA, an SUV is more likely to roll. It’s just common sense. But – most rollovers are single vehicle accidents, and thus avoidable. This site is kind of interesting. - > **[Smart Motorist & Michael Waltrip Racing](https://www.smartmotorist.com)** > > Our Recent Posts — From the site. > [@](#): > > What can the consumer do to reduce rollover risk? - Since most vehicle rollovers are single-vehicle crashes, they are often preventable. They are unlike non-rollover multiple-vehicle crashes involving frontal, side and rear impacts, where another driver may have been responsible for the crash. > > Always Wear Seat Belts - Regardless of vehicle choice, the consumer and his or her passengers can dramatically reduce their risk of being killed or seriously injured in a rollover crash by simply using their seat belts. Seat belt use has an even greater effect on reducing the deadliness of rollover crashes than on other crashes because so many victims of rollover crashes die as a result of being partially or completely thrown from the vehicle. NHTSA estimates that belted occupants are about 75% less likely to be killed in a rollover crash than unbelted occupants. From [http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/) > [@](#): > > Frontal ‘Star’ ratings on vehicles **should be compared only within the same weight class, or within + 250 pounds of the vehicle weight.** This is where things get scued. When it comes to a smaller car crashing into a larger car, the ‘star’ rating goes out the window. Drive responsibly, and buckle up. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/57 "2002-12-18T15:56:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by enipla \* > \*\*This is where things get scued. \*\* Thanks for the links, enipla (or is it, alpine??), but I actually had to look that word up to see what you meant. Do you mean skewed? ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/58 "2002-12-18T16:15:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RM Mentock \* > Thanks for the links, enipla ( **or is it,alpine**??), but I actually had to look that word up to see what you meant. \*\*Do you mean skewed? \*\* Yes and yes. Alpine is actually my dog’s name. Sort of reflects where I live too. Skewed :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/59 "2002-12-19T05:33:50Z")
So, if I may summarize: The pro SUV argument- 1. You can see the road better 2. They’re more macho than minivans and station wagons 3. A few people use them for off-roading 4. They’re safer (if you’re in them) 5. SUV drivers have enough money to not worry about guzzling gas 6. SUVs have more caché than cars and image is the most critical part of a vehicle choice The anti SUV argument- 1. They block the view of the road for everyone else, making them a road hazard for all car drivers 2. They pose a serious threat to the safety of others in collisions 3. They are prone to roll-overs 4. They are fuel hogs 5. They manoever poorly and brake poorly compared to cars, making them even more dangerous to others 6. They are not statistically safer than cars for the people inside them ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2002, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897/60 "2002-12-19T14:27:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dread Pirate Jimbo \* > \*\*So, if I may summarize: > The pro SUV argument- > > 1. You can see the road better > 2. They’re more macho than minivans and station wagons > 3. A few people use them for off-roading > 4. They’re safer (if you’re in them) > 5. SUV drivers have enough money to not worry about guzzling gas > 6. SUVs have more caché than cars and image is the most critical part of a vehicle choice\*\* Easier to see? Sure. I also drive cars. I don’t find them harder to drive because I can’t see. Different driving styles I guess. More macho? I suppose. It’s kind of silly to buy one for this reason. Same reason people buy sports cars. Whatever floats your boat. They also do much better in snow than cars/wagons/mini-vans. Many of us have a need for a low-range transfer case. Only available in SUV’s and trucks. They can tow more than cars/mini-vans. They are easier to get in and out of than cars. They can certainly haul more than a car, and if you don’t have to haul a lot of people, they make more sense than a mini-van (at least for me) You think that a $30,000 dollar SUV has more caché than a similar value car? And that image is the most critical part of vehicle choice? Lets just agree that we disagree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-suv-saga/17897.md?page=4)