Talk:Criticism of SUVs

message: ESC reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle rollovers by 75 percent for SUVs (Farmer, C.M. 2010. Effects of electronic stability control on fatal crash risk. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.)
But the article implies that 95% of SUV rollovers involve "tripping" that cannot be mitigated by ESC.  This very much contra-indicated by the field data on rollover mitigation.
ESC is now standard on all new vehicles as of the 2012 model year.  And, ESC was standard on many SUVs before the 2012 model year with increasing penetration in over the decade prior to 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.55.75 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ESC

message: SUVs Began small and reasonably fuel efficient in the 60s in europe (land rover?), became HUGE and horrible on fuel in the US in the 70/80s (Suburban, wagoneer), and now with better globalization are becoming smaller and more fuel efficient. Technically, many "SUV"s are built on the same chassis as cars and minivans now (Acura MDX = honda odyssey, PT cruiser = dodge neon, etc). It's common now to see full size trucks reaching beyond 20mpg, and mid size vehicles reaching beyond 30, which is comparable to MANY normal passenger cars. Hating SUVs is fine (I drive one, but I'm a redneck), but noting the improvements over the years may ease the bias here without distracting from the issues. (I learned to drive a manual in a 3 cylinder suzuki, so yeah, I know 30mpg is not that great, but it's getting better)
Also, to whoever wrote the visibility portion, nicely done. Parallel parking is one of the big reasons I got my vehicle. I'm short and can't see over the trunk/boot on many cars. Not having a trunk allows the window to be lower and me to see much better. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.85.220 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps note current trends/improvements?

message: However the point of the article is to express critisizm of suv's (which has a strong political bent) on a page other then the SUV main page.  1) So it can have a balanced article of it own, and 2) because it unbalances the discussion of SUV's article as it doesn't really help people understand SUV's rather it just introduces strong political viewpoints.
addition:  I am also confused as to whether this article cites criticism of SUVs or the SUV owners themselves..  Many points are about how statistically drivers of SUVs are unsafe, die in accidents, are caught drunk-driving more, etc., which have nothing to do with the safety of the vehicles themselves.  Also, the greater field of visibility from an SUV's height is passed over in favor of some alleged psychological misfunction 69.30.121.215 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the vehicle, not the driver.  Some of your points about the statistical elements of the article are not quite on target.  "Many points are about how statistically drivers of SUVs are unsafe, die in accidents, are caught drunk-driving more, etc., which have nothing to do with the safety of the vehicles themselves." That may very well have to do with the safety of the car.  Its like having done an experiment, you have a control group (normal cars) and the SUV group; and the results are...  I would agree with you on the drunk driving as there may be a third cause behind both; drunk driving and driving an SUV. Yet, everything else may have to do with the SUV itself. Brusegadi 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the article is in fact unbalanced in favor of oposition to SUV's 

message: perhaps someone could add something about how the market is forcing traditional desighns such as the landcruiser to evlove into people movers which have reduced offroad preformance.
eg 
prado - lower clearance and reduced attack angle; 79 series - coil suspension instead of leaf on the front
if people who bought 4wd if they actually were going to use then there would be less therfore environ benifits and people who use 4wds would be happy.
I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say, as alot of what you wrote reads as incoherent rambling. One thing I would like to correct you on, is that coil springs are prefered to leaf springs for offroad applications. Coil springs give greater wheel articulation, which is a key feature of offroad performance. Leaf springs are chosen mostly for load bearing, so they are popular for truck suspensions.--Evilbred (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market influence to make SUV's worse in terms of offroad prefomance 

message: I read through the safety - psychology section a few times and the third paragraph and the final paragraph in there are extremely poor quality. I'm not even sure what information is trying to be communicated there, can someone help? Pnevares 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. One day you'll meet some real people. Greglocock (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology section poorly written 

message: I made some fixes to the article.  Mainly, the format of inline refs and removing the name of specific SUVs since it makes it seem like advertisement. Brusegadi 02:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen fixes 

message: I dont know how but this should be put up as criteria for speedy deletion. It seems more of a campaign than an informational article to me. Most of the information is unfounded, entirely opinionated. Very biased. Gives a bad impression of Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.53.24 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take it off 

message: There were several items here that needed to be refrenced that have been up here for between 5 and 11 months.  I believe any reasonable person would agree that an Item that needs a citation shouldn't go 5-11 months before this need is filled.--65.107.88.154 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned items that needed a citation 

message: Anons have expressed their opinions that the article is biased against SUVs (title...) Brusegadi (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: - The phrase 'Ecotage' glamourises illegal damage inflicted on other peoples property. The correct phrase is motivated vandalism.
:Perhaps. But that point belongs on the ecotage page. peterl (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Many people regard the BBC as a substantiated reference. And sprayonmud gets over 2,000 hits on Google. And it was also referred to at The Guardian. peterl (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The article page links to a webpage from South Africa which reports a BBC article []. If there are no objections then I think the link needs to be changed.  Spray on Mud is a product from a business consultant called Colin Dowse and was intended as both a commentary on SUV's in London and as a bit of a joke. [] He says that it is selling well but there are no sales figures to back this up.  There is a comment about someone buying it as a joke for their friend. There is a Guardian blog [] that Google removed sprayonmud.com after the page may have been deemed to have search engine optimisation on it.  The website is again available but not the product. Kourgath (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've pulled the spray on mud sentence, not defensible. All coverage dates from 2005. Even if was used then, it is not clear it is now. 
Overall this is a poor article with absolutely no educational benefit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.184.2 (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: true, we need more citable data. Over in [] Bristol Traffic, they have some fairly good evidence that Range-Rovers mostly appear in the streets of Bristol parked illegally in some form or other. But is there any consistent dataset that really audits the entire car/SUV parking decisions of a city, such as data from city parking authorities comparing the percentage of illegally parked vehicles with their percentage in the city's motr vehicle fleet? SteveLoughran (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree with your assertion 'absolutely no educational benefit'. The article has enough references (although it could do with more) to support its case. peterl (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I find the article interesting and feel it does provide some 'educational benefit' by giving the criticism of SUV's a place to record their data. I agree that the criticism is biased against SUV's but then that is clearly the purpose of the page, though it fails to mention the similarity of the average SUV to the average Minivan. I am also concerned about the mixup of various datasets used in the statistics. Some of the data is based upon the single classification of 'SUV, Minivans and Light Trucks' and some of the data seems to discuss only SUV's. Kourgath (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Minivans have less flaws. There is less marketing of the myth-of-off-road-sporting-joy on a minivan, less "your vehicle will cope with a snow emergency on your commute". They tend to be less prone to flipping (lower CofG), can have better fuel economy (no need for a 4WD), and their fenders are the same height as other road users (so less hazardous to others in cars). Yet their market share has fallen relative to SUVs -possibly because of the different image that SUV's present over minivans, since all the latter has to sell is dull but practical school runs. And yes, I do own a minivan, so I am talking from experience here. SteveLoughran (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the CoG and most of the other points you make. I think that SUV's are evolving like minivans have i.e. minivans used to be converted commercial vans - particlularly in the European markets (in a similar manner to early SUV's being 4x4 utility vehicles with leather and AC) whereas now they are more car-like monocoque construction etc.  The article has sections on width and smaller roads and parking spaces but from the table there is little difference in the roadspace taken up by SUV's and minivans.  Also the table shows that minivans and SUV's have similar fuel usage. The article uses data which includes all three SUV, Minivans and Light Trucks to say that SUV's are more dangerous without fully stating the issues of relative volumes of each within the published data.  The 2009 IIHS Top safety picks 'Winners include 8 large cars, 13 midsize cars, 6 small cars, 1 minicar, 3 midsize convertibles, and 3 minivans. Among SUVs, 19 are midsize, 10 are small, and 5 are large.'  So safety is clearly something the manufacturers are working hard on. Kourgath (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have searched for similar critical articles on sport cars, supercars and mini-vans but cannot find such articles.  The Chrysler Voyager (2007) has a 1.5 star EuroNcap rating whereas the Land Rover Discovery (2006) has 4 star rating.  The issues over environmental damage would be similar for any large vehicle with a large engine.  Issues of irresponsible driving are to do with the driver not the vehicle. Drink driving is driver related so if more of the drunk drivers drive SUV's is that the SUV's fault? Kourgath (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we in the UK cycling and road safety community would be happy with criticisms of sports/supercars, indeed, the whole bias of much of the EU -especially German- car industry to design vehicles "for the autobahn", a design that is then marketed worldwide. This results in vehicles with engines designed for use way above the target countries' speed limits, and a marketing of speed-is-good. I look forward to you starting the article. SteveLoughran (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Biases 

message: The tabe of average data for US sold vehicles contains errors in the conversion of inches to cm.  It is not clear if the original data was imperial or metric.  If the data is imperial then the average SUV is only 0.2 inches wider than the average sedan.  This will affect the cross sectional area calculations used to show the increased fuel consumption due to drag and if so then minivans have a larger CSA. Kourgath (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Table data is incorrect

message: The lede made a claim that has been challenged for a few months. Nobody has attempted to find a ref for it, therefore I removed it. Since it is the raison d'etre for the entire article I suggets we delete the whole thing.  Greglocock (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede/delete

message: I've reverted the redirect placed here. I consider there is enough material here for its own page. There is too much material here to be included in the SUV page. Yes, the info here does need some work but I don't agree on removing 70% of it. peterl (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Grand Wagoneer made a very good attempt at getting rid of the irrlevant trivia in this page. I don't this article should exist, it is basically an attack page. Do we have or need a "Criticisim of Electric Vehicles " page? "Criticism of Wind Power"? Both would be very easy to write based on RS, in comparison to this rather idiotic page. Does the fact that some people refer to them as Toorak Tractors really belong in an encyclopedia? etc. I would propose that we should redo GW's edits to this and the SUV page.Greglocock (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is 52 references on this page; most of those are relevant. I agree this page has some material that is irrelevant, but not all of it. The reason there is no 'Criticism of Electric vehicles' page is that there is not a lot of criticism of Electric vehicles. I don't agree it's an attack page. The references are substantial and not trivial at all. I do agree this page needs work. peterl (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, criticism of Wind power would be good, there's a big anti-wind power movement in some places where they don't want windmills over their countryside, or out to sea. Similarly. Electric Vehicles also have problems -last week GM were telling NYC transport that they should be encouraged by allowing them to park for less, or use HOV lanes when just one vehicle, only to get told that for a lot of the city, congestion and parking are the problems and electric vehicles only move pollution problems (in the absence of solar/wind electricity sources). SteveLoughran (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Multiple dead links in this article resulting in unsourceable statements. Post them here.
31 is a dead link. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: This article is very clearly biased in both its world view, and some of the information provided - 
A good portion of "sourced" information appears to stem from a few articles in news periodicals or popular newsmagzine television shows - which not only presents an Ameri-centric or Brit-centric perspective of the topic, but also lacks more or less any scientific basis (sorry, The New Yorker and the BBC are not scientific authorities when it comes to automotive safety unless they're citing a substantiated study (in which case they are secondary sources at best, and the original study should be referenced directly) - IIHS, NHSTA, etc data would be far more appropriate, in some cases this data is present however it isn't presented clearly and is subjectively dismissed, the Fifth Gear "test" is in no way an accurate representation of the entire topic, they were simply crashing a Rover into an MPV for better ratings, there are SUVs that have received high marks from American safety/regulatory organizations (unfortunately I can't comment on the equivalent European organizations) - one test of one model of vehicle should not be indicative of an entire type of vehicle)
The article also seems to present information primarily from the perspective of British or American users/vehicle owners/drivers - not a worldwide perspective - which further colors the article (the information could be presented as a political issue in those regions, however in other regions of the world this simply isn't the case). 
Two specific sections that I had particular issue with:
1) Marketing practices - this is entirely unfounded and irrelevant - it doesn't matter *how* the product is marketed as a form of criticism, unless the product is marketed to do something it clearly cannot do; many sedans and coupes are advertised performing amazing feats on a closed track or making high speed maneuvers in a busy urban environment, and it could be argued just as well that "these vehicles will never do this". Generally speaking the advertisement and naming of the vehicles isn't valid criticism - unless there is some sort of objective source to support this, or the section is worded as "opponents feel that such naming is bad". I don't think any SUV manufacturer advertises their products as "environmentally friendly" - aside from a few hybrid models (which could very well be its own section) - positioning of the product in a rainforest, field, etc is simply showing something the vehicle could theoretically do (and again, without some sort of objective basis for claiming the vehicles are used for paved driving, take it out - it's just a subjective rant)
2) The Psychology section is not rooted in any peer reviewed or objective psychology, it is one person's published opinions in a newsmagazine - regardless of that magazine's quality or circulation this does not validate those claims or opinions as accepted science or factual information. Until some more substantial information is available to prove or disprove that point, that also reads like a subjective rant. 
The rest of the article still reads like a biased rant, but there is a reasonable amount of information from credible sources between the lines - removal of the weasel words, arguments about SUV owners (and in response to an earlier comment about this: an established relationship does not denote a causal relationship, just because people who own SUVs may drive under the influence more often, does not mean that owning the SUV is the deciding factor in that relationship (perhaps the lifestyle that leads to an individual purchasing a vehicle as a status symbol contributes to that psychology? regardless of what that vehicle may be)), and commentary from pundits/newsmagazines could lead the article to be a more accurate representation of current criticisms of SUVs (in other words, explain what the complaints are and why they exist, don't directly levy them though).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obobskivich (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of bias 

message: Does anybody really think that this article needs the slang section? It might be amusing but then I rather hope that wiki doesn't have a list of fart jokes, which would at least belong in an encyclopedia since they are at least referenceable from chaucer onwards. Greglocock (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the slang section (which is well ref'd) does provide some insight into the attitudes surrounding SUVs, which is what this article is about. peterl (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True they are mostly referneced. But people have pejorative names for things they like, eg seppo for US american. So don't you need to explicitly state with a referneced source exactly what insight is being provided? Greglocock (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point here is the attitudes surrounding (criticism about) SUVs, and the names (although generally pejorative) reflect that. peterl (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Find a ref saying that and I'll quit bitching about the list of random trivia. Until then my position is that an encyclopedia does not include naked lists of trivia and then expect the reader to decide why it has been included. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I've re-org'd the section, added more refs to make that clear, added a lead para (that could prob be expanded) and added a bit on the (strangely missing) US on why these names are here. peterl (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Slang section, hey how about some fart jokes?

message: I have merged this article to Sport utility vehicles#Criticism.  Please see my note on that page--Aka042 (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged to [[Sport utility vehicles#Criticism]] 

message: the article says "However, if the analysis is relative to the cost, smaller cars are often safer.[3]" ref 3 is 
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf
in which I can find no statement to that effect. One problem is comparing like with like, new small cars are safer than old SUVs, I suspect, but new SUVs are safer than new small cars. 
Greglocock (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  safety claim

message: this is all unsourced hoax and so should be removed! -- <B>G</B>inaferchelli  (125.238.118.157 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced hoax 

message: It might be useful to incorporate information from this article in the Jan. 9, 2020 edition of the Guardian (UK) into the article:
SUV's second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal.  If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions.
SUVs were the second largest contributor to the increase in global carbon emissions from 2010 to 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/25/suvs-second-biggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal
User:Charlie Lomax  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.151.241 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport Utility Vehicles as second most significant source of climate destabilizing emissions 

message: There is supposedly a "10% chance of rollover while SUVs have between 14% and 23% (varying from a low of 14% for the AWD Ford Edge to a high of 23% for the FWD Ford Escape)". But in what circumstances?  10% of crashes involve rollover, or 10% of cars rollover? Or 10% of single vehicle crashes?203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an old statistic, and it is rather fraudulent to compare the centre value of passenger cars vs the range for SUVs, but I've sorted it out for now. Greglocock (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Good points. This attack page could do with a sensible rebuttal. Greglocock (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollover Risk 

message: somebody added a couple of sentences today on driver behavior. I'd say that they are (a) obvious but (b) OR. However it is certainly true that vehicles with the same rollover characteristics can have wildly different rollover accident rates due to driver demographics. For example 4 door light truck variants of 2 door light trucks tend to be 'safer' according to the stats, whereas the chances are that the 2 doors are bought by younger drivers and driven more aggressively.
Greglocock (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  driver behaviour 

message: I live just west of the Rocky Mountains 15km off the paved roads. I drive a 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup that leads the way in the snow so my wife can drive the kids to school in the smaller SUV. This article is making comparisons to other vehicles that just can't do the job. The same driving conditions also apply to backwoods summer retreats, hunters, fishermen, farmers etc. Just because my vehicles seem totally overboard when I go to the city doesn't incline me to get rid of them. Perhaps the article needs a section to introduce the "always drive on pavement" folks to the "wish we had pavement" folks.Dougmcdonell (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of SUV's 

message: If you live 15kms from a paved road and wish you had more pavement, please relocate to a suburb or urban area. It doesn't take a doctorate to figure that one out.  If needed, I can type this again more slowly for you, Doug...
Charlie Lomax]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.151.241 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to real smart feller 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070823170557/http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/EQUATIONS.pdf to http://www.informedforlife.org/demos/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/EQUATIONS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: here's GM's profits
<object width="330" height="220" id="WDC_I_1457380589525" ><param name="movie" value="http://charts.wikinvest.com/data/Illusion.swf" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="flashvars" value="caption=General%2520Motors%2520Co%2520%252D%2520Revenue%252C%2520Gross%2520Profit%252C%2520and%2520Gross%2520Margin%2520Trend&chartheight=220&chartwidth=330&version=3&device=zune&time=YR10%2CQQ0&y=metrics&x=time&plots=column%2Ccolumn%2Cline&metrics=137%2C125%2C12&companies=628"><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed src="http://charts.wikinvest.com/data/Illusion.swf" flashVars="caption=General%2520Motors%2520Co%2520%252D%2520Revenue%252C%2520Gross%2520Profit%252C%2520and%2520Gross%2520Margin%2520Trend&chartheight=220&chartwidth=330&version=3&device=zune&time=YR10%2CQQ0&y=metrics&x=time&plots=column%2Ccolumn%2Cline&metrics=137%2C125%2C12&companies=628" quality="high" width="330" height="220" id="WDC_I_1457380589525" name="WDC_I_1457380589525" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="opaque" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>Explore more <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/General_Motors_Co_(GM)/Data/Key_Metrics?ref=chart">GM Data</a> at <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com">Wikinvest</a>
Here's ford's profits
<object width="330" height="220" id="WDC_I_1457380218648" ><param name="movie" value="http://charts.wikinvest.com/data/Illusion.swf" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="flashvars" value="caption=Ford%2520Motor%2520Company%2520%252D%2520Revenue%252C%2520Gross%2520Profit%252C%2520and%2520Gross%2520Margin%2520Trend&chartheight=220&chartwidth=330&version=3&device=zune&time=YR0%2CQQ0&y=metrics&x=time&plots=column%2Ccolumn%2Cline&metrics=137%2C125%2C12&companies=551"><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed src="http://charts.wikinvest.com/data/Illusion.swf" flashVars="caption=Ford%2520Motor%2520Company%2520%252D%2520Revenue%252C%2520Gross%2520Profit%252C%2520and%2520Gross%2520Margin%2520Trend&chartheight=220&chartwidth=330&version=3&device=zune&time=YR0%2CQQ0&y=metrics&x=time&plots=column%2Ccolumn%2Cline&metrics=137%2C125%2C12&companies=551" quality="high" width="330" height="220" id="WDC_I_1457380218648" name="WDC_I_1457380218648" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="opaque" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>Explore more <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Ford_Motor_Company_(F)/Data/Key_Metrics?ref=chart">F Data</a> at <a href="http://www.wikinvest.com">Wikinvest</a>
I see no sign of a dip in the early 2000s, and the late 2000s were all about the GFC surely? Greglocock (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profitability rant 

message: Substituted at 19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/AUTO01/610230304/1148
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000116103100/http://www.nhtsa.gov/ to http://www.safercar.gov/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309072906/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230065653/http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html to http://www.iihs.org/ratings/side_test_info.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830005931/http://www.nrma.com.au/keeping-safe-secure/car-safety/driver-visibility/reversing-visibility-tables.shtml to http://www.nrma.com.au/keeping-safe-secure/car-safety/driver-visibility/reversing-visibility-tables.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015050928/http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF05DataSummary.pdf to http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF05DataSummary.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125042033/http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=21 to http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=21
*Added  tag to http://web-archive-sources.org/RS20298.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507155738/http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/ to http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107030818/http://www.katu.com/news/7561002.html to http://www.katu.com/news/7561002.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305064054/http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/107%2008%20models%20cost%20per%20mile%20from%20low%20to%20high.xls to http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/107%2008%20Models%20Cost%20Per%20Mile%20From%20Low%20to%20High.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221080513/http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20070904140017908 to http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20070904140017908
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927043632/http://nwt.se/ArticlePages/200709/12/20070912201038_777/20070912201038_777.dbp.asp to http://nwt.se/ArticlePages/200709/12/20070912201038_777/20070912201038_777.dbp.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of sport utility vehicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206095837/http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/01/suv_safety.html to http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/01/suv_safety.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150413142355/http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/che341/Projects/Life%20cycles%20of%20fuel%20car%20systems.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/che341/Projects/Life%20cycles%20of%20fuel%20car%20systems.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604030009/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2002826921_parking26.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2002826921_parking26.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since when does a decision by activists in one country to commit criminal mischief or vandalism over their personal viewpoints reflect on the merits of the underlying issue or product?  If an activist decides to protest against watermelons by slashing them in stores, for example, how does that make buying a watermelon any better or worse of a decision than it was before?  The "Activism" section has no bearing on the rest of the issues addressed by the article.  If my personal opinion (rightly) isn't solid evidence or basis for a Wikipedia article, then someone else's isn't either.  135.23.43.68 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire article is practically a joke. Might as well have "Criticism of Brown Shoes" as this one. The bird has flown, the horse has bolted, the ice cream has melted. People in every country buy SUVs or whatever rather than sedans. It isn't an evil conspiracy foisted on them by the car companies, it is a choice they have made. Greglocock (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably take a look at vehicle purchase stats outside of North America (especially in countries where roads are designed to be narrower like most of Europe and Japan) before assuming the world followed in the footsteps of where-ever you come from. 2607:FEA8:A7DD:2C90:E4E4:979C:FC64:1421 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activism = criticism? 

message: ... at least as long as SUVs are relevant, which will probably only end when gas runs out. Intriguingly it hasn't yet been translated in other languages. Anyway it is the most serious piece of information to find when googling 'I hate SUVs' ... 2001:7E8:C986:6800:68EA:C722:B93B:F91B (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should stay! 

message: "When it comes to mortality for vehicle occupants, four-door minicars have a death rate (per 100,000 registration years rather than mileage) of 82, compared with 46 for very large four-doors. This survey reflects the effects of both vehicle design and driving behaviour. Drivers of SUVs, minivans, and large cars may drive differently from the drivers of small or mid-size cars, and this may affect the survey result."
"For example, US SUV drivers were found to be less likely to wear their seatbelts and showed a tendency to drive more recklessly (most sensationally perhaps, in a 1996 finding that SUV drivers were more likely to drive drunk)."
So this appears to claim that drivers of large 4 doors are safer than small ones, possibly, as a way of excusing the the poor fatality performance of small cars, which actually can be explained by the laws of physics. But they also drive more recklessly and drunk.
I don't think an encyclopedic article should contain both those statements in one article. The first is frankly special pleading, if not made up holus bolus. Greglocock (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety - let's prove that SUV drivers are safer drivers but also more of them drunk drive