Just like fox-hunting, another pathetic jab at those seen to have something that the majority don't. Don't forget - people actually pay for these things; they don't come for free. Name and address withheld

The major issue is avoiding the accident in the first place. A responsibly driven 4x4 vehicle can be safer than a normal saloon; the extra visibility meaning that the adept driver can see potential danger earlier and therefore react faster. It depends on your height, too, as to whether a saloon or a 4x4 is more dangerous. Many adults will hit their heads on the bonnet of a 4x4 and on the windscreen of a saloon. A windscreen is much harder than a bonnet, so the risk of serious injury would be higher in this situation. The solution to safety on the roads is not "cigarette packet" warnings on some cars, nor is it speed cameras, traffic calming schemes, etc. Proper driver training, improved hazard perception, fewer distractions and higher levels of concentration are what will improve matters. Driver error is THE source of danger on the road. Any car has the capability of killing, it is wrong simply to target one type of vehicle. Peter Maddan, Leamington Spa

I completely agree that anyone who drives a large SUV exclusively in urban areas is worthy of contempt. Driving one for the express purpose of keeping your child safe is still selfish because it ignores the peril to anyone else. Comparing injuries caused by other large vehicles is rather beside the point because no one drives a bus as a recreational vehicle. However, legislating against these vehicles is too awkward because it will hit the rural dwellers who actually need them. Drivers of uneconomical vehicles already pay more tax when they fill them up with fuel. People should be free to buy SUVs, just as the rest of us should be free to call them the inconsiderate so-and-sos that they are. Chris Moore, Reading

How can we have a sensible and rational debate on the subject when words such as "egotistical, bullying no brainers, intimidate, selfish, status-seeking, speed fiends, ego-trip, bigots" are used? Seems to me that it smacks of envy or jealousy. Reading through the comments posted here there appear to be more non-SUV car drivers who defend the right to own and drive a SUV than those who rave at those who dare to drive one. Can we have some well researched and balanced statistics to clarify this issue?! Mong Lim, Radlett, Hertfordshire

I can assure you that even with the "better" infrastructure here in America, SUVs are an unnecessary plague. A good station wagon serves the purpose better and with less environmental impact. Both children and the elderly have a great deal of trouble entering and exiting these behemoths. It is time for the "greedy" to take a step back, realise the Eighties are over and develop a sense of responsibility. Must we indulge every whim and fancy? Alex Hasapis, New York

Hasn't anybody in this debate noticed that sales of SUVs are falling dramatically in the US? SUV sales have been down 30-40 per cent for the last couple of months and this trend will increase according to most projections. General Motors, which staked its future in these gas guzzlers, is now in danger of a financial meltdown. Toyota and Honda, developers of petrol-electric hybrids (market share increase approaching 20 per cent) are riding enormously higher profits than GM. This debate is therefore somewhat out of date, since SUVs are now yesterday's cars. John Stanley, Galway, Ireland

To those who think SUVs are safer because of their elevated vantage point, how about those of us driving regular-size cars? We can't see anything ahead because of the enormous SUV bumpers in our faces. Part of being a safe driver is having a clear view of the road, well past the car ahead of you. With so many SUVs on the road now, I rarely have a decent view of traffic. And the environmental recklessness of these monstrosities is sickening. SUV drivers should be taxed within an inch of their lives for being such selfish and irresponsible consumers. Maggie, California

As an owner of two SUVs and living in London, should I be classified as the scum of the earth? Why did I buy them? Not because they are cheap to run - I am definitely paying the ecological price in the poor mpg that they offer. I do not buy them for the performance - I drive slower than in the cars I had previously. I bought them because they offer a large interior space along with a commanding view of the road. I feel safer while driving because of the increased visibility and my speed has reduced to compensate the inferior handling. As a former two-seater owner I wonder why people complain about SUVs? Surely a car that can only ever take two people and barely any luggage but still occupies a similar road space to my "behemoth" is more of a problem? Alex Mack, London

Several apologists for unnecessary SUV ownership have pointed out that vans, buses, etc, have an equally potentially lethal slab like front. Such vehicles need to be designed like that for their load carrying capability (among other things). With most SUVs its just a status symbol or fashion statement. May I suggest that if SUV owners want to express their wealth or individuality that they buy an extra big Rolex or wear a novelty tie, neither of which are twice as likely to kill pedestrians if they hit them with it. Paul Newbold, Sheffield

Roger from Bournemouth (below) seems to overlook the fact that the vast majority of SUV owners could just as well use a conventional car. People driving vans and lorries, on the other hand, have no choice - you can't get ten pallets of bricks on the back seat of a Ford Mondeo! Paul Pickering, Camberley

As an inanimate object, an SUV is no more dangerous than a MPV, the danger comes from the drivers attitudes and abilities and some of the worst driving I have seen has come from drivers of cars bearing “Greenpeace” and “Save the Whale” Stickers. The majority of people jumping onto the bandwagon either overlook or are completely ignorant of the fact that most of today’s SUV have the same engines as a number of "normal" cars. Many of the smaller examples take up no more road than a small family saloon. Chris Lawrence, Huntingdon

I've never read such a load of rubbish. I have a 4X4 for my family and a motorbike for my use, so that gives me a lower combined mpg than an average two-car family. So what? If environmentalists want to lobby, then go after the Government that has now made it more economical to run a petrol than diesel in many cases, and allow young idiots to drive like morons with no consequence. Most car drivers are terrible, and the issue is not their car, but the poor training and licensing system. Pedestrian safety is compromised more by speeding and poor driving than anything else, so the people who'd have us driving a 4-wheel cushion (as long as it was as cheap as their car) miss the point. Make tests harder and licences expire, and bring diesel prices back in line with petrol. Rob Platts, Stansted, Essex

Surely the road safety and environmental impact of driving a big 4x4 isn't THAT much greater than driving a normal car ... at least not when you compare them both to cycling or walking. I can't help but think that other car users are being fairly hypocritical to complain about 4x4s when they contribute almost as much to the same problems. Jake Wetherall, London