Madam, - In the matter of the much-maligned SUV, I suspect we are seeing more begrudgery than common sense in the media.
We all accept that greenhouse gas emissions are a serious global issue. And equally we accept that bigger combustion engines, in general, emit more pollutants. So long as vehicles can be reliably rated according to these undesirable emissions, no sensible and responsible citizen would deny that they should contribute, proportionately, to the cost of dealing with their detritus.
Such contributions are paid by way of large premiums in VRT and road tax when we buy vehicles with larger engines. And the thirstier the engine the more we pay by way of fuel taxes. Most people buying larger cars just accept this and pay through proportionate taxes and levies for their extra "garbage".
What makes no sense is this latest obsession with the shape of the car or the ways owners use their vehicles. To listen to some people, unless you're a farmer, you should only drive a one-litre Micro - the new benchmark, according to this week's radio. Are we to feel guilty about buying a car that can carry four golfers and their equipment in safety? Or a large family on a continental holiday? Or a car that's flexible for sport, towing or occasional rough conditions?
Who in their right mind would suggest that we start limiting the functionality of our cars? If the car is large to cater for our lifestyle, it may need a larger engine for the task and for safety. And if it does - we pay at the pump, through VRT and through Road Tax. SUVs are a red herring. Their footprint is no bigger than that of the average station wagon; they fit all standard parking spaces.
And leave the SUV mothers on their school run alone. It is prejudice and sexism to imply that these women should be denied lifestyle flexibility and choice. - Yours, etc,
JOHN GRIFFIN, Bloomsbury, Kells, Co Meath.