Last year, before the horrific winter weather, it was getting quite popular to bash SUVs as gas-guzzling, anti-social, terrorism-supporting monstrosities. The criticism was muted during the snow storms, when local governments appealed to SUV-owners to help transport doctors, nurses, and other essential personnel to work. Many journalists were ferried to work by 4x4s, perhaps increasing their appreciation of the SUV. But with the onset of Spring, amid strident accusations of "WAR FOR OIL!!!!!", some will also dust off their anti-SUV rhetoric. So I'd like to take this opportunity to lay out some basic facts and arguments regarding the current cigarettes of the road, SUVs. You may already understand that the SUV is essentially a government-created vehicle and market. In case not, I'll briefly explain. Before CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy, I think) standards were implemented, families/individuals with need for larger vehicles typically used the station wagon or a very large sedan (think 1970's Chevy), which have the characteristics of other cars but use more fuel because they weigh more. Passing mileage limitations did not alleviate people’s desire or need for more vehicle space. While some very naive environmentalists may have envisioned more efficient station wagons, history demonstrates that the SUV market was created instead. SUVs don't have the same fuel requirements as cars because they are classified as light trucks by the government. Before CAFE standards, light trucks were typically only used by those who wanted or needed the functionality - either 4-wheel drive, towing capacity, or a flatbed (pickup truck). Suburbanites did not often use them, nowhere near like we do today. But thanks to the "environmental" regulations, to get additional space today, one can not use an inexpensive car - they have to use a gas guzzling light truck, either a minivan or an SUV. Minivan sales are through the roof, but criticizing young families is not an argument anyone wants to make. Thus, they take aim at the SUV. While there is more to this argument, it should be agreed at this point that SUVs are more popular, and larger cars such as station wagons are less popular, because of government regulations, not market economics. SUVs are more dangerous than car-height vehicles (including minivans), as they are more likely to roll over and they are more likely to injure others in an accident. But it is not consumers seeking additional vehicle space who should be subject to blame for owning them - consumers can be expected to purchase the most efficient vehicle, in terms of price and features, that fits their needs. Government regulations make SUVs the best solution for a large percentage of the population. Even my wife and I were considering getting one when looking for a family vehicle, and I am very anti-SUV (for the record, I am anti-SUV for the safety reasons, not the gas guzzling). We love our new Jetta Wagon. That is, station wagon. However we're lucky to be in the position to purchase one - many people either can not or choose not to pay the premium required to buy a wagon today. That's too bad, but we know who to thank. It's not greed, it's do-gooderism gone wrong. Unintended consequences, and all of that. I pull short of laying responsibility for SUV-related deaths upon those supporting CAFE, but that is a (weakly) defensible view. Those who choose to study the subject are aware of the above arguments, but many ignore them and espouse a simplistic view of SUVs as evil. SUVs may indeed be a negative aspect of society, but it is not through the fault of citizens - it is through the fault of well-intentioned but misguided regulations. Hopefully, sometime soon, environmentalists and politicians will eschew the silly SUV polemics and unproductive CAFE-type regulations. Then, we can have a serious debate regarding automobile standards, safety, and efficiency.