If the medium is the message, the SUV communicates that there is only space for the nuclear family members, speed and comfort is of the essence, and the road is the only acceptable avenue for transportation. The sidewalks are for homeless people, jogging athletes, and eccentrics.
Oh good grief, parents with SUVs aren't that complex, and they are often purchased to carry around their kids' friends as well (negating your first point).
People do what works for them within their budget, which often is a larger vehicle when you have kids. If you want to translate that as "speed and comfort is of the essence", then fine. I could say the same about someone with no kids who prefers living in a highly urbanized area because their definition of speed and comfort is different.
And virtually no one is thinking "I need to demonstrate my belief that traveling on foot is only for weirdos OR exercising" when purchasing a vehicle, both because not many (to be generous) people think that in an area with sidewalks and because it's just not relevant.
> they are often purchased to carry around their kids' friends as well
but it requires an adult to drive that SUV. Car culture has made it so kids don't have autonomy to move themselves around anymore. When I was 8 I used to be able to walk/bike around the neighborhood to see my friends. Then we moved to car-dependent suburbia and things were so much worse. Having to depend on adults to go places added a lot of friction. The end result is that we'd usually just spend a lot of time inside the house.
Just look at the dystopia we live in right now: some parents literally drive a Chevy Tahoe or equivalent SUV to school to drop their kids off. How many school-aged children can you fit into the blindspot of a car like that? Are we at all surprised that parents don't want their kids walking to school alone?
I literally have to tell my son to hold his breath as we bike by long lines of SUVs idling right next to a school
> People do what works for them within their budget, which often is a larger vehicle when you have kids
It's funny that I don't drive and I transport my 3 kids around almost exclusively by bike. Yet people who live in my neighborhood with kids insist that they need an SUV for all trips. (yes, I can afford any car if I wanted one).
I even organize bike trips so other parents can bring their kids to events by bike so we don't need to get cars involved.
I think we've fooled ourselves into thinking we need cars far more than we actually do.
Yes, there are dystopian places that are completely car-dependent and don't even have sidewalks, but even in places that aren't like that people still insist that they need cars for everything.
> but it requires an adult to drive that SUV. Car culture has made it so kids don't have autonomy to move themselves around anymore. When I was 8 I used to be able to walk/bike around the neighborhood to see my friends. Then we moved to car-dependent suburbia and things were so much worse. Having to depend on adults to go places added a lot of friction. The end result is that we'd usually just spend a lot of time inside the house.
My kids can (and do) walk around our neighborhood. You chose to live somewhere that didn't support that and lament it, for reasons that are not clear to me.
We also drive our SUV when the number of passengers exceeds 5, which is not uncommon at all in our household. Occasionally, we drive it solo or with less than 5 passengers, because it makes sense to do so.
> Just look at the dystopia we live in right now: some parents literally drive a Chevy Tahoe or equivalent SUV to school to drop their kids off. How many school-aged children can you fit into the blindspot of a car like that? Are we at all surprised that parents don't want their kids walking to school alone?
Large vehicles are "dystopia"? There are plenty cruising around my town yet a kid has literally never been hit in the 20 years I've lived there.
And kids walk to school alone or in small groups on the sidewalks, with crossing guards protecting them at intersections.
> I literally have to tell my son to hold his breath as we bike by long lines of SUVs idling right next to a school
Okay. Are these cars all from the 1970s, before any modern emission standards were enacted?
> It's funny that I don't drive and I transport my 3 kids around almost exclusively by bike. Yet people who live in my neighborhood with kids insist that they need an SUV for all trips. (yes, I can afford any car if I wanted one).
Good for you. I have zero interest in spending an hour plus biking my kids to and from the grocery store, so we just drive and then play in our yard when we get back. Or we just walk if we have the time and interest.
> I even organize bike trips so other parents can bring their kids to events by bike so we don't need to get cars involved.
Sounds great. We have these too, without the irrational fear of cars included.
> I think we've fooled ourselves into thinking we need cars far more than we actually do.
"Need" is a relative term. I don't "need" indoor plumbing to survive, yet it's nice to have and most people would consider it a need (including my wife and kids).
I see no reason to reduce my standard of living by basically taking up cycling as an unpaid part time job. If you enjoy it or just feel like it's time well spent, again, good for you.
> Yes, there are dystopian places that are completely car-dependent and don't even have sidewalks, but even in places that aren't like that people still insist that they need cars for everything.
Again, using "dystopian" to describe a place that is car dependent is a pretty fringe view. It's not surprising that not many people agree.
>Oh good grief, parents with SUVs aren't that complex, and they are often purchased to carry around their kids' friends as well (negating your first point).
If the goal was to carry more people, a minivan would have been bought, as they are more spacious and comfortable.
An SUV's goal is to use up more space and have the passengers sit higher up, to project more "power" or "status".
Nothing like a thread on vehicle preferences to rouse the extremely vocal and judgmental fuckcars crowd on here.
You may be shocked to hear this, but not all SUVs are less spacious than minivans and comfort is very subjective.
You have to define SUV to determine its goals. Most "SUVs" are basically cars that are slightly lifted and extended. The ones I assume you take most issue with are significantly larger than minivans, have 4WD (which is actually useful where I live), and also are seen as more luxurious.
I would say the primary goal, especially for parents, is occupant safety, which does come at the cost of the safety of others. Good luck convincing anyone to change with your attacks though.
Yes, we can be critical of ourselves. I guess your description of SUV-drivers looking at pedestrians with disdain and buying a car with room for more passengers to intentionally exclude potential passengers is an accurate reflection of your own opinion?
As I said, I don't believe those are very widely held and they certainly don't reflect my thoughts, so my criticisms would be quite different.
The majority of the SUVs I see driving have exactly 1 person in them. It's ok to admit that.
We can also look at the facts, which do imply a more recent disregard (if not disdain) for pedestrians:
> Drivers hit and killed 3,304 people walking in the United States in the first half of 2024, down 2.6% from the year before but a staggering 48% above a decade ago, according to a new analysis from GHSA. [0]
> The majority of the SUVs I see driving have exactly 1 person in them. It's ok to admit that.
I don't need to "admit" that, because I agree it's true.
In your rush to prove a point, you completely missed mine, which was: At least 99% of families buying SUVs to transport kids around instead of a car or minivan (which is why single occupant use didn't come up, as it wasn't really relevant) aren't intentionally firing a shot in an ideological war, they're just picking a car that works for them, they can afford, and they like.
Obviously a lot of that is subjective and has been shaped by regulation, marketing, and an interest in conformity with peers, but what will definitely not change anyone's mind is endless hostility over what is a generally benign decision.
You seem to have completely dismissed the factual data I provided that vehicle deaths of pedestrians have increased 48% in the past 10 years. This certainly implies that something has changed in how Americans drive and interact with pedestrians. It also perfectly correlates with a time period where SUVs went from 30% to 60% of vehicles on the road.
There is research on how car cost (with SUVs being the most expensive vehicle type) impacts driver yielding behavior [0]. There is also research on how being in a car changes your perspective of pedestrians and others not in the car [1][2][3].
Yea, it sure seems like we are talking about different things. I've re-read the exchange and can't find the disconnect or where the hostility came from. Maybe you thought I was another poster from a different exchange?
You clearly stated your opinion that "SUV-drivers looking at pedestrians with disdain" isn't widely held. I then provided actual data and studies that disagrees with that opinion. I'm not sure why that was so upsetting.
The data you provided isn't upsetting, other than it's sad that people are being needlessly killed.
Interacting with insufferable transit "enthusiasts" is exhausting though, especially when they jump into discussions without reading the entire thread (as you did here apparently).
You and your peers seem incapable of doing anything other than attacking, insulting, and looking down upon anyone who isn't as "enlightened" as you, making you zealots, which is why I want absolutely nothing to do with any of you even if I agree with many of your positions.
If you all ever figure out that the first step to improving a situation isn't "try to make everyone who disagrees with me feel bad about themselves via hostility" let me know. I won't be holding my breath.
> the first step to improving a situation isn't "try to make everyone who disagrees with me feel bad about themselves via hostility" let me know.
Is an eye-opening comment from a person who called me "insufferable", "incapable of doing anything other than attacking", and a "zealot" just in this one comment. Further up thread are plenty of other insults you have lobbed at anyone who dares to challenge you. All while continuing to claim that everyone else is attacking, insulting, and looking down at you.
This conversation is over, you can project on someone else.
This conversation was over before it started, because you saw a need to interject (without reading everything that was written beforehand) with a challenge to get me to "admit" to something (that I already agree with by the way because it is a fact) and I'm not going to participate.
You're the one who chose hostility, and of course you fall back on a display of offense when you get it back in kind.
