-
It says not just that urban car use is rational but that it's highly desirable - the bigger, more powerful and more dominant the vehicle the better.
I think this does rather play into the prevailing narrative that climate activists are smelly hippies who hate success, and that their actions can be dismissed as a manifestation of their envy for your large, tall, powerful car (that keeps the kids safe!), that you got a fantastic lease deal on (had to take the 2 litre diesel but it still shifts).
i.e. singling out cars that are sold on their aspirational appeal for the greatest opprobrium is counter productive - talking about cars in general (somewhat) resists the argument being derailed easily.
Dammit-
My point is that even in a city where it is easy and convenient for many people (obvs not all) to live day to day without cars, the cultural desirability of cars remains a problem underlying their excessive use. I'm sure it could be done in different, more effective, less smelly hippies ways, but it's valid that that idea needs countering and deflating. And the oversized power car - even if it actually doesn't use that much fuel - is a particular display of excess.
hoefla
Agreed. There are a few enormous cars in the neighbourhood. I assume, knowing little about cars, that they're SUVs - oversized, tall so you have to kind of climb into them, big tyres. I hate them.
Yes I understand that the general dependence and acceptance of motor car use is more problematic overall, but I do think the symbolism of these cars is significant. It says not just that urban car use is rational but that it's highly desirable - the bigger, more powerful and more dominant the vehicle the better.
Countering the cultural status of cars is as valid as activism towards better urban transport/mobility - especially in London where so much car use is already "unnecessary". (I actually hate these cars less than the incredibly loud motors but it's a close run thing.)