Because being higher on the road makes driving easier, it increases your own safety (I admit not the safety of others), and a lot of people with money don't want to drive a sports car? It's not all about performance you know. I really don't understand what the rage is about - the owners have used their own money to buy it, not yours, so it's their decision surely? If they prefer to drive it than a lower luxobarge saloon or alike then why is that wrong? Plenty of 4x4s are not actually really destined for offroad - the X5 and Cayenne are prime examples, they'll take you through a bumpy field without damaging the car or yourself but I don't think many people really expect anything more of them...!
? Does it need one? ( look at a VW beetle: Does it have a radiator intake? ) Or any Porsche 911... (with a 6 cilinder boxer engine in the back)
In what way are they easier to drive may I ask? You can see over other cars or hedges is their only benefit. Otherwise they are harder to drive, understeer is a big problem for many, the fact that they are both wide and long makes them more difficult in the city etc. I've driven a few and am still insured on my Dad's Ford Maverick long wheel base (not a good example, as that thing sucks). I may not have driven the top of the range Range Rovers or BMW X5's etc, and I know they are meant to be much nicer to drive, but still not as nice as a luxury saloon which would be in the same or lower price brackets. I think it's wrong for the reasons in the other post I made. Expensive to purchase and run, more dangerous than a car for others on the road and especially for pedestrians, worse for the environment (if performance isn't important why not get something more economical?), poorish on-road and off-road (not always mind). I just see them as pointless, and tbh rather selfish choices. Does there need to be more reasons? That is quite a lot already. I know not everyone is going to agree, and I don't expect them to. I would like to see less urban 4x4's on the road though, but that's a personal preference. I would also like to see less chaved up Saxo's , not everyone is going to agree there either.
Only one possible answer to this question Fiat Panda 750 http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.carfolio.com/images/dbimages/zgas/models/id/3097/panda_750.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car%3D34067&h=235&w=300&sz=13&tbnid=88QpRvzyRS9iXM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=118&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dfiat%2Bpanda%2B750%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=fiat+panda+750&usg=__WeLUQM1kzU7MihkmGUICBePPmfg=&docid=vJ0_QZ-Kz6HS9M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jfe0UMOvIIel0AWgwIGYAw&ved=0CEUQ9QEwAA&dur=0 A square box with bicycle wheels and an engine that would have struggled to power a small lawnmower. Made out of what appeared to be that foil you used to find on milk bottles with a beautiful plastic interior. 0-60 in.... well I got overtaken by a overladen milk float at traffic lights once. The ride was terrible, it was noisy, leaked and most importantly made by Fiat.
It's at the back. The Corvair was (poorly) air-cooled, like the Beetle. It was also the star of Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" - the report that almost killed the muscle car market.
1980 Plymouth Horizon. Car was so small and underpowered, I could put my feet out the passenger window and my head out the drivers. My knees were placed at the 9 and 3 position on the steering wheel, while I still had to operate the clutch when shifting. I needed a block when parking on a hill because the engine compression was worthless in keeping it in place.