I wonder how they market these highly impractical vehicles to people without children? It seems much easier to target parents with the safety message (not reflected here, obvs, but it's been used over and over to sell monstrous vehicles to families with children in need of overprotection) or a soccer mom sell, but I still see single folk cruising around in Hummers and the like. What gives?

My family had a 5-seater car and an 8-seat van when I was younger. To be honest, I think that's a perfectly legitimate reason to get a larger car - having such little space with two other brothers causes of lot of friction and "territory" disputes. Being in a van (where we all had much more space) was like upgrading from coach - it's more expensive, sure, but it's also more comfortable. I don't think the marketers manufactured a problem that didn't exist; instead, they discovered and found one that has existed.

Let's not forget that the boy being in the way back isn't going to stop him from antagonizing his sister. He'll just start poking her back/neck instead of her shoulder.

That car is seriously the size of my house, though. Crazyness.

I do know a family (two parents, two kids) that bought a van for that exact reason. It was about ten years ago, and they were the only ones I ever knew who bought a van especially to be able to put their two uncontrollable kids in different rows of seats. I remember finding it ridiculous at the time, and it really shocked me to see that the marketers have caught on. I didn't know it was that widespread as an idea.

Also, note the common media-theme of the mischievous, misbehaving boy and the well-behaved, put-upon girl.

When I was a kid, there were only 4 in our family total (Mom, Dad, me and sister), but we bought a big honking minivan. Why? To haul all our camping equipment that wouldn't fit in our sedan.

That's the only reason why the adult me (no kids) would consider buying a large vehicle: to pack it full of stuff.

Unfortunately, our family van inevitably turned into a "town car" when one parent had the other car, and spent a lot of its time hauling around nothing but a couple passengers and some air. Given gas prices, and the havoc that vehicle emissions have wreaked on our atmosphere, I don't think I'd buy a large car--even though I love going on camping trips--because I don't want it to accidentally become a "run errands" vehicle.

This is ridiculous...my parents used to drive hours with me and my sis in the back of a tiny 1979 2-door Honda CVVC when we would go on family vacations. It was just fine. No tv, cell phones, hand-held videogames...oh no! =P

The perfect van for parents who don't want to discipline their kids! I wonder if it comes with a screen like a taxi to block out the noise from the back seats.

When I was a kid, all 7 of us (5 kids, 2 adults) crammed into our 1974 Dodge Dart to go to church or drive the hour on the highway to get to the city.

That was before seat belt, car seat and booster seat laws, of course.

I've got a mini van now and I LOVE it. It suits our needs. We have 2 kids and have had it for only half a year, but I've already used it to haul furniture (I can fit a couch and 2 armchairs in there!), given rides to my wheelchair bound friend and her children, driven my kids and their friends to places, and hauled some 400 pounds of books half way across the country. Also, with my wrecked knees, it's less painful to get in and out of, and loading the back is easier for my husband, who has a back injury. It's a more comfortable ride, too. Especially the back seats. My kids are no longer crammed into a back seat that seemed to have been designed for people very short legs, and certainly not anyone adult sized, as my teens are.

There's a place for larger vehicles. Buying it because your kids are brats is something else entirely. :-P

I have three kids. We have a van. Now, two of the kids are in car seats, so there was absolutely no choice but to get another row of seating, otherwise, we all couldn't legally fit! And since the law here is that kids have to be in a booster seat until they're 9 (!) or 80 lbs, whichever is first, a van was a necessity.

I do get a kick out of the idea of "controlling kids". Maybe it's because mine are autistic and "managing" them is a closer to reality than controlling them is.

As someone who once had a little brother, I'd say the most effective and efficient way to stop this is a straight jacket and a ball gag, not a gigantic vehicle.

My parents bought a ten seat van for a family of eight for that same reason - not so squishy, so hopefully to avoid fights, and we were generally well behaved, and well disciplined kids. It was just a lot harder when confined in a small space for a half hour when everyone was tired. But it also meant two extra seats in the car for friends, or to give someone a lift home.

I noticed this before in a tv ad for this same vehicle model in which a dad basically leaves most of the kids at home (problematic in itself: why is a dude just allowed to take off? Are we assuming there's a mom at home to take care of the rest of the mess? Of course!). But anyway, the dad takes the littlest girl out for a ride and she has this moment after getting into the car of awe. It's like she's in a great peaceful expansive environment, and the end line is, "comfortably seats eight, not that it always has to." You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdetQH_6SWU There's also another one for this car in which a little girl selects the Traverse because it has enough room for her because it's a "big girl car." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7pXZ8M0NPU&NR=1

It's certainly not an original concept; people often buy cars for maximum utility, for that time that just maybe they'll have to move a couch, or a hypothetical moment in which they'll need to transport an entire birthday party. If anything, I think these ads show a car company hit by people turning away from that as they prioritize fuel efficiency, trying to help people re-rationalize this behavior again.

I'm all for cars with a small carbon footprint. But at the moment, I'm driving an old, four door sedan with three kids in the back, one of whom is a toddler in a front-facing car-seat. The other two kids *should* still be in boosters, but it's physically impossible to fit them into the car. Seriously, I've tried.

As it is, when all three are in the backseat, it's incredibly cramped and I have to keep the babyseat in the center to separate the older kids in order to keep the older ones from getting in each other's space.

There are actual safety concerns that come with having three small kids crammed in the backseat. There's a lot of talk about cell phones and other "driving while" hazards, but kids are a whole other level of multi-tasking.

I'm not talking about horrible monsters, here, but ordinary, relatively well-socialized kids. It's distracting, and as much as I do stop the car when it gets out of hand, that's not always easy to do.

I have, on more than one occasion, fantasized about someone making a car with those Cones of Silence from Get Smart.

So yes, I look at this ad and think that, if I had the money and felt safe driving something that big and could find a hybrid with good mileage that would separate the kids, I'd go for it.

Until you have walked in another mom's shoes, y'know?

Let's look at this from maybe three different perspectives.

If we wanted to live a truly sustainable and egalitarian lifestyle, where we were damaging the environment as little as possible, and minimizing differences between genders and races so as to discourage discrimination of any sort, I think the government would have to mandate we all wear Mao jackets (or some equivalent) and use public transportation as much as possible, or otherwise use the smallest and most efficient vehicle for the trip we were taking. We would end up being kind of like Communist China during the Cultural Revolution. Dissent, in the form of wearing non standard clothes for any reason, or in the form of wasting resources for pleasure or otherwise, would have to be handled in some fashion by the government so as to make such activities so painful socially as to make them virtually if not totally non-existent.

Not a fun world to live in, but in way that is what many people seem to want, a world where we are treated as equally as possible, and where we are not leaving our grandchildren or their grandchildren with a poorer world.

Another perspective is that we should be free to make what choices we want. If I have worked hard and been successful in this life, can’t I reward myself with a big car? If I want to have a big family, I may need that big car or SUV. If God/Fate/a Teapot has endowed me with looks that other find attractive (I should be so blessed or lucky or Chamomile), why can’t I wear clothes that emphasize anatomical features that people find attractive? As long as I am not violating laws, how can anyone else say anything about what I do (although many believe that the laws enumerated by man are not enough, that people should be compelled to follow strictures contained in the bible or the Koran or the Torah, etc)?

The third perspective is where I live, and I am guessing most of us live. I don’t want to do discriminatory things or support discriminatory polices. I believe that in my state of relative wealth (and I do mean relative) I should do some things to help those less fortunate in my community and the world (at least one of those things I do I get paid for, so much the better). I want to reduce my carbon footprint as best I can, although I realize I mostly go for the “low-hanging fruit”. And I actually think it might well be a better world if we did all wear Mao jackets, or some equivalent, although since we don’t I am not above occasionally choosing my clothes with care to achieve a certain effect.

And personally I am appalled by the Traverse ad, on several levels. But what can we do here, other than to try to educate (not dictate to) other people that there probably isn’t a need for such a large vehicle. Or that a minivan that gets somewhat better mileage may be a better choice (in non-snowy climates where you drive on paved roads all the time). There are thornier questions about personal choices, such as having a large number of children, that are best handled with respectful discussion and perhaps agreeing to disagree.

And, assuming we agree about certain political and environmental issues, we need to grit our collective teeth and lobby for European-esque things like a high gas tax (and more government regulation of health care, if not a single payer system).

And who knows, maybe our future will hold silver Mao jackets and solar powered Traverses.

When it comes to family transportation, it's essential to have a vehicle that can accommodate your needs while keeping your children content. If you're a busy parent who's always on the go, you want Fleet management software a van that provides convenience and comfort without sacrificing functionality. That's why the perfect van for parents is the one that offers a range of features designed to make your life easier.

This article was a delightful read! The depth of research and the clarity of expression made it truly engaging.

perkasajitu

I'm genuinely impressed with the quality of this article. It's informative, engaging, and beautifully written. Great job to the author!

prabujitu
prabu jitu

I'm thoroughly impressed by the original perspectives and well-presented arguments in this article. Great work!

kembarjitu kembar jitu

I like viewing web sites which comprehend the price of delivering the excellent useful resource free of charge. I truly adored reading your posting. Thank you! prabutoto

Thank you so much for share this beautiful article and we provide best law service for many people if you want it kindly visit our page thanks. kembarjitu