Madam, - In the absence of any published support for my position and having read all the "factual" letters from your readers (SUV drivers drive aggressively, park poorly, are dangerous, pollute more, etc) I have had Damascene conversion.
I intend to form a support group called SUV Anon. We will meet regularly and go through a 10-step programme, beginning with an admission of our problem. Self flagellation will be encouraged, if not in fact compulsory. For those unable to administer this we will allow visiting cyclists to do it for them. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - The points made by Stephen Gleeson (January 30th) are well put. My SUV, with an engine capacity of under two litres, uses less fuel than many large-engined saloon or executive cars.
The critics of SUVs are in fact chasing a red herring which is greener than they think. It would be of far greater benefit to the environment if they directed their whinging against the owners and users of private jets and helicopters, large motorboats and private heated swimming-pools. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL GAVIN, Boreenmanna Road, Cork.
Madam - Stephen Gleeson's letter defending SUVs is misguided. The main problem is that if an SUV hits a pedestrian the high bonnet profile injures their upper body and hence their vital body organs. You are more likely to roll over a saloon bonnet. The risk of serious injury or death if struck by an SUV as opposed to a saloon car is two or three times greater (US statistics).
There is also an increased rate of injury and death among children while being carried as passengers in SUVs compared with saloons, due to the four-times higher rate of rollover in crashes.
SUV owners have to learn that their motoring choice comes at a cost to the rest of the community and the environment. In my opinion, the S in SUV stands for selfish. - Yours, etc,
DEREK PEPPARD, Howth Road, Raheny, Dublin 5.