I'll just come back in here, gents.
We know that a very small % of people might need a vehicle with off road capability, but that really isn't the issue is it. We're talking about approx 50% of new vehicles sold been of the SUV inclination. Why is this?
Of course, we know that SUVs on average are less aerodynamic, heavier, less fuel efficient and present a greater danger on the roads. People might say they need more space, but there's no evidence for this. Families are getting smaller and vehicles have long been making good use of boot and rear space, they provide enough space for most people.
I think the worst culprits are people who have vehicles such Range Rover, Volvo XC90, BMW X5 and so on. These are almost never used for off-road capability and are idiotically used on suburban roads, often for doing the school run and driving to the shops. I think some jail time would do some of these imbeciles good.
Some of the smaller crossover offerings aren't quite so bad, but they still don't make sense. Apart from I'd say when something with greater ground clearance might improve access to the vehicle. But if this was the case you'd be much better off going for something in a minivan format or similar to a Golf SV. The Skoda Yeti was also a vehicle that made sense - compact but designed to be very useful.
We have a RAV4 hybrid. When we get a new car we look at the boot capacity of all the cars within our budget at the time, and choose the one with the biggest.
What doesn’t make sense about Wagatha Christie?
To be fair, the RAV4 is a brilliant vehicle. You've got to be a bit more forgiving to Toyota and Honda owners.
In terms of Wagatha Christie, Rooney's wife was posting out her info to 300 people and then said it was getting leaked. That didn't make sense at the time and still doesn't.