General Road and Highway Discussion

[bravado]

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?

This campaign is a strange move from a bunch of radicals that will only piss people off..

But SUVs are not benign due to their immense numbers:
The growth of SUVs have single-handedly stopped any emissions savings we could have had in the last 20 years due to more efficient combustion technology.
They contribute (majority) to the rising numbers of pedestrian injuries and deaths due to their worse sight lines, higher hoods, and heavier weight.
That increased weight is consuming infrastructure at a faster rate than otherwise could have been, and not being taxed appropriately for it.
They have accelerated the already growing size of cars, leading to more congestion and even more inflated parking lots.
They're obviously driving up prices and contributing to the auto financing debt "crisis" - and still using the frames and engines from smaller cars that would save people money and emissions if they just bought that!

All of these facts are true for trucks, but we kinda already knew it for them... Someone buying an SUV today has no idea the increased costs that they are incurring vs the sedan/wagon that their parents would have bought in the same stage of life.

Deflating their tires is just not going to work to convince people anyways.