Nope, but if I were you I wouldnt believe any technology based studies.
That is unless you really WANT to. You know, feel a certain compulsion
By the way, feel no fear or discomfort with what I did. All our work bore out was some positive indicators towards buying some better, more functional, and longer lived stuff (admittedly for more money) than people probably would have bought on their own in the absence of any data. The "proof points" we created werent necessarily misleading. Its simply an area that is too nebulous to place absolute direction in. So we picked a few places we could muddle down into, made some nice graphs and charts, and gave people the ability to do what they probably wanted to do all along. Buy cooler toys. Instead of buying "in the middle" of our product line, thinking that was the "sweet spot", they bought a rung or two higher. I'll bet 95% of buyers felt better about the decision two years later...
Auto and driving studies are good ones though. They're the most easily disproven.
Most of them ignore 'per capita' allocation, quoting bulk numbers through decades with no mind to the fact that there are more drivers and cars every year. Many do extensive data mining. A lot of them ignore safety and engineering improvements to vehicles and roads over the years. And the "driving tests" where they put people in cars or simulators and then change some aspect to measure differences in driving? Worthless. When people know they're being tested, they're fully alert and drive quite differently from the usual daydreaming half-asleep morning commute.
In this case, someone wanted to make a point, and it was probably anti-SUV, and its easy to mine the data to make that point if you want to.
