Making the case for people-carriers — not SUVs

IN his letter (November 20), Patrick Browne asks if I was joking when I said “gas-guzzling SUVs should not carry extra taxes”?

(Letters, November 15).

In fact I never said that, and indeed my view is diametrically opposed to the opinions attributed to me by Mr Browne.

I hold no brief for SUVs. In fact I regard such vehicles as both eco-unfriendly and unsafe for pedestrians.

The case I was making was for family people-carriers (vehicles with six or more permanent seats).

Under current seating legislation, such vehicles are essential for even moderately-sized families of three or more children.

The efficient transport of all average to large-sized families (obviating the need for multiple car trips) is also a most important benefit to the environment as well as helping to reduce traffic volumes on our congested roads.

People-carriers, I believe, are not perceived by the public as “status symbols” driven by “snobs”, as Mr Browne says, but are a practical, environmentally-friendly and sustainable solution to transporting ordinary families.

While I cannot assess Mr Browne’s insight into “snobs”, I would hope it is more firmly based than his strange approach of attributing opinions to me which I did not profess or do not hold and, more significantly, an inability to distinguish between environmentally- friendly and damaging vehicles.

Much more importantly, it is to be hoped that Environment Minister John Gormley does make this distinction in the context of the forthcoming budget and the Government will support both the family and environment by encouraging the use of people-carriers.

Sean F O’Leary

Kilkerran

Ballinspittle

Co Cork