Simms and O'Neill warn of increasing death and injury from sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and conclude that consumers should be warned of potential risk to pedestrians through notices on these vehicles (See C 34237 fo) This solution fails to consider the psychology of SUV drivers, most of whom do not need four wheel drive off-road capability. There are few hill farms in Chelsea. Ownership of such a vehicle represents the conspicuous display of wealth and a deliberate attempt to look down on, both physically and metaphorically, poorer, less important people such as public transport users and pedestrians. In the United States to drive an SUV is seen as a fundamental freedom like the other lethal freedom, gun ownership. Some have tried to curb use by invoking other belief systems: WWJD "What would Jesus drive?" The authors cite the success of antitobacco campaigns, but there is a difference: smoking mostly damages the smoker and SUV driving damages others. SUV ownership will only reduce if the cost of the vehicle truly reflects the cost to the environment through pollution and pedestrians through impact. While consumers have the "I'll give up my SUV when you prise it from my dead fingers" mentality, health professionals will have to carry on prising dead pedestrians from the front of SUVs. (Author/publisher)
Abstract