It is surprising, how numerous citizens refuse to be distracted from biased opinions, when it comes to scientific and statistical enlightenment about warnings of untold suffering as a result of changes in the climate and our environment, caused by reckless human behaviour.
In a time where we are motivated to purchase refrigerators, which use 60 per cent less energy than similar units did 30 years ago, we are easily persuaded to buy a vehicle which, despite technical advances, uses more fossil fuel and causes more deaths and injuries, than cars for private transportation did 30 years ago.
The dominance of SUVs as our favourite means of private transportation must come from either aggressive marketing or a desire to show increased social status, because statistics show clearly that there is no gain in our safety, or the safety of fellow road users, by driving an SUV. Emissions from SUVs are second only to power plants in North America, even ahead of heavy industry.
SUVs are exempt from standards applied to other passenger vehicles because they are modelled on trucks. They do not have to adhere to emission standards, their point of gravity is allowed to be higher, which makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes, and the lack of regulation for bonnet height makes them twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting upper body and head injuries.
I know there is an alternative fact circulating that academia does the bidding of the left in their findings, but even so, how can anyone find it acceptable to pump more gas than they did 30 years ago to go the same distance? And if you do not believe that a pedestrian is 70 per cent more likely to be killed by a 2.4 litre engine vehicle than a 1.6 litre engine vehicle, does that mean that you dispute E=mc2 as well?
Ole Nygaard, White Rock