Weird phrasing, yes. Probably makes more sense in the original.

I live on a hilly dirt road in Vermont and we get by fine with a Toyota Yaris and a 2007 GMC canyon with 4wd. There's maybe 2 or 3 cumulative weeks a year when the Yaris can't handle the road conditions, and on those days, it'd be better if everyone who could stayed home anyway.

Even my truck, which gets used for lots of construction and farm chores, is smaller and has a lower clearance than most modern SUVs. I challenge any SUV or truck owner who claims they need something bigger than I do to compare our vehicle usage. I moved a baby cow in the Yaris just yesterday. In fact, I literally bought the smallest used truck I could find. I'd buy a smaller truck tomorrow if I could.

Also, while I'm here, my tiny town of a few thousand people has a train station with service to NYC and even DC, but it takes way, way longer than driving, and it only runs once or twice a day. All these little towns in Vermont ALREADY HAVE TRAIN STATIONS but no one can use them because the service is worthless. If the train was even somewhat regular and as fast as driving, I would use it all the goddamn time.

My sister used to live in a rural area with a very bad dirt road. She had 2 SUVs and insisted it was the only way to drive there.

I visited her often with my estate and countless tradies would reach the area with vans

Fun fact…both the death of wagons and the birth of CUVs, in the US, are due to CAFE.

Station wagons drag down the fleet average MPG for passenger cars. Crossovers, though, benefit the fleet average MPG for trucks. Even though they are just tall unibody vehicles.

IMO, that should be the delineation for CAFE (unibody vs. body-on-frame), instead of wheelbase.

Now that the SUV has been invented, the settlers can finally move into these harsh landscapes, which were unaccessible before.

This also explains why this phenomenon emerged in the US, because other continents simply don't have hilly or mountainous regions.

Sarcasm aside, most of these vehicles are used for short trips on well-maintained city roads, to get to office and buy groceries. They aren't even very useful for offroad tasks, no improvement on existing vehicles. Even worse, they are not useful to get around in cities.

Perhaps. But he is writing in Swedish.

Yeah I find it hilarious that rather than work to lose some weight (for their health, but also their dignity) these same folks go and buy SUVs to maintain their dignity and comfort.

Unless you are genetically predisposed to such things, obesity is a choice (or a long line of poor ones).

I am the first my family has seen that isn't borderline obese(in generations) the only difference is I eat a balanced diet and exercise.

I'm absolutely disgusted that the obesity rates have been climbing to a shocking degree for decades, the fatdemic has even begun to spread to Australia.

I can understand and empathize with the elderly aspect of SUVs, however regarding obesity it's just an enabler. The amount of times I've nearly died on the road here, to some fucking SUV with a fat fuck driving (while eating no less, also a crime here as it counts as distracted driving) are incalculable.

99% of SUV owners do not, no. His point is not that no one needs a car with high ground clearance because of course some people do. His point is that the vast majority of people do not. He lives in an area where people often claim they "need" SUV:s, but he does not own an SUV and it works out fine.

Worse aerodynamics, worse stability, more prone to roll over, will more likely kill the driver of another car in a crash, will more likely kill a pedestrian. Etc etc.

It comes with a cost.