Monsters of the driveway: faults aside, SUVs satisfy demand. (Commentary).

SPORT-UTILITY vehicles are known as the bad boys of the American road, though I'm not sure they deserve their reputation.

Environmental advocates call SUVs gas-guzzlers. Plaintiffs' attorneys say some models are dangerous -- to their occupants and other vehicles. And some people hate them as examples of a wasteful and indulgent lifestyle.

Consumer Reports, which the auto industry regards as an influential guide for new-vehicle buyers, labeled some models unsafe because of their tendency to roll over during testing.

"Calling SUVs unsafe as a class of vehicles would be a stretch," said Gabriel Shenhar, the magazine's senior test engineer. "But there is some basis in truth."

In his 454-page diatribe, "High and Mighty: SUVs -- The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way," New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher claims that policymakers, as well as the auto industry, have failed to make SUVs adhere to the same rules as cars. Doing so would shrink most of these supposed monsters into smaller, lower and slower vehicles, he says.

SUVs are far from safe, comfortable and anywhere as useful as advertising makes them seem, says Bradsher, who marshals an array of facts and anecdotes to make the point they're difficult to control, cause terrible damage in accidents and consume too much fuel. Naturally, the auto industry disagrees.

Statistics don't provide either point of view with conclusive support. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says motor vehicle travel in general has never been safer. The fatality rate in 2000, the latest figures available, shows that deaths in accidents fell to a low of 15 per 100 million miles traveled, compared with 2.1 in 1990.

Critics of SUVs say they are more prone to roll over than cars. In rollover accidents, occupants of SUVs are more likely to die or be injured than in similar accidents involving cars, according to the statistics.

Rollovers, however, account for only 25 percent of all vehicle accidents. Automakers cite federal statistics showing sport utilities protect occupants better than cars in all types of collisions.

SUVs provoked little outrage when they made their U.S. debut in the early 1980s. They were new versions of passenger vehicles that were bolted to existing pickup-truck chassis -- a design aimed at taking advantage of less-stringent fuel-efficiency regulations meant for pickups and other commercial vehicles.

The more drivers tried SUVs, the more liked them: They afforded a better view of the road and also had more space than cars for people, groceries, golf clubs and more that suburbanites found useful. Soon, city dwellers were attracted.

The auto industry says it isn't looking for ways to rebut the anti-SUV crowd, though the charges Bradsher is making will surely command fresh attention. "Frankly we don't want to elevate the exposure of this book," said Jason Vines, an industry spokesman. "People love SUVs and buy them in great numbers because of what they do for families."

Earlier this year Congress rejected an initiative to increase fuel-efficiency regulations for SUVs and other light trucks. Lawmakers have the authority to see that the vehicles are smaller, lower, lighter -- or to banish them from the road.

They probably won't do this. Lobbying by car dealers, automakers and labor unions has helped Congress understand, at least for the moment, that the U.S. auto industry is stable and employs hundreds of thousands of workers -- in large part because of the revenue generated by sport-utility sales. Bradsher and others have made the point that SUVs have drawbacks. The critics still haven't persuaded a growing body of American motorists that the trade-off in benefits isn't worthwhile.

Doron Levin is a columnist for Bloomberg News.