Posted by Nicholas at April 16, 2006 10:57 AM[Michael] Adams' method was established in Fire and Ice: he notes at one point that in the U.S. SUVs outsell minivans by two-to-one, whereas in Canada it's vice versa. That's a fact. The fancy is in the meaning he appends to it. "This is a stark difference," he writes, "whose roots can be traced directly to the differing values of our two countries." This assertion seems to have no basis other than a casual assumption that Canadians are more environmentally responsible and thus more concerned with "excessive gasoline consumption, pollution and safety violations."
Isn't there a more obvious correlation? Minivans are cheaper than SUVs, and Canadians have less disposable income than Americans. It's easy to be "socially responsible" if you've got no choice in the matter.
Mark Steyn, "Science as sound as the Orgasmatron", Macleans, 2006-03-13
I thought self-employed Americans got huge tax credits for buying SUVs because they weigh more that 6000 pounds and therefore count as light trucks.
Yeah, there's some weird and perverse tax incentive there, probably only applying to American-made vehicles.
Besides which, minivans are safer, aren't they?
When did safety become a reason to buy a vehicle? What are you, some sort of Volvo-driving foreigner?? The purpose of driving an Urban Assault Vehicle is to intimidate other drivers, and impress the neighbours. Nobody is impressed or intimidated by a freakin' minivan!
Posted by: Nicholas at April 17, 2006 02:17 PM
Visitors since 17 August, 2004