The law of unintended consequences, example #7,442,381
Legislating people into buying SUVs.
Actually, sometimes I wonder if these things aren’t some sort of thinly-veiled disapproval of people who breed; after all, if we take away your ability to transport your family, you’ll have to stop having kids, right?
Heh. That’ll work about as well as not building roads in an attempt to keep people from going where you don’t want them to go. Or, say, restricting the housing supply with weird zoning to keep people from moving to town. Proven winners, those.
And yes, the bulk of this post is a thinly-veiled attempt not to go off on my normal rant about government mandated safety devices threatening the lives of your children should you attempt to decide for yourself where in the car they should sit.
I love my little SUV (we have an Escape) but I could never drive big one. There’s no way I could get more than two little ones in the backseat of my SUV, it’s about the same size as a Ford Escort back there (Escape is on a Ranger chassis). Don’t get me started on kids in the front seat, airbags, car seats, etc. I think that a rear facing car seat in the fromt without an airbag is a hell of a lot safer for a tiny one as Mom or Dad can get to them more quickly if there’s a problem. If you’re driving with a small baby in the back, you can’t even see them in a rear facing car seat. Is that any safer? I mean really?
Posted by caltechgirl on 12/28 at 05:28 PMactually jimmy carter invented suv’s because he
slapped mileage targets on cars leading to the death of the great american station wagon.did i mention i could lay a 4x8 sheet of plywood in the back of my ford wagon.
Posted by on 12/28 at 10:04 PM