The first thing is that there's something different about cars and crossover SUVs. Car companies these days use a platform manufacturing systems, which means that single chassis can be used on multiple models. This makes it easier to retool plants to make multiple models, as well as making sourcing and designing simpler. So the majority of small and midsize SUVs are just cars that have a taller profile. So the person driving an Escape or an Equinox isn't doing anything different than in the past---just driving a car that has a lot better situational utility.

The second factual error that I see is that "Detroit" has fucked up anything. The three companies you name are Euro/Japanese brands that are responding to the same incentives the Big 3 are, namely that people want vehicles with space for passengers and cargo. That they can do this is more a reflection of gas prices than of marketing. Of course the companies want to sell as many SUVs as they can, because they have the highest margins by far. The Grand Cherokee and Ferrari were the sole reasons that FiatChrysler was not going bankrupt recently, the Grand Cherokee alone accounting for over $2 billion in profit.

The third thing that I think is inaccurate is that anyone, anytime buys anything purely out of utilitarian need. If we're going that far, then we might as well be wearing government shoes and outlawing jeans in favor of government-issued burlap sacks. We all make choices based on a combination of need, want, and price. How each of us makes that choice is mostly personal, and as soon as someone starts telling me I can't drive a truck (which I don't, but I have in the past) because I don't "need" one, I'm going to be screaming that no one needs a steak or ice cream or a single family home or almost anything that makes life more enjoyable for reasons other than pure utility. We're all living in glass houses.

The fourth thing, which is nit picky but no less true, is that mileage per se doesn't really mean a thing. What if I drive my Suburban 100 mi per week and you drive your Corolla 500 mi per week? It's unfair to make willy nilly assumptions about what other people do and why, because each of us may have a good reason we need that truck, even if collectively, it's evident that there might be too many of them on the road, and we therefore think that you don't need one. If we collectively decide we want fewer large vehicles on the road, then we need different tax policies, because the market has evidently spoken about what consumers want in a vehicle. Raise the gas tax (or put a surcharge on weight, since electric SUVs are coming soon--and anyway even a Tesla S weighs like 4,500 lbs or something) if you want fewer of those vehicles. But then you might end up with a Euro situation where everyone drives a diesel, which I don't think we want here, either.

The fifth thing is that the linked article is very suspect in its conclusion that trucks and SUVs actually kill pedestrians at a higher rate than cars. The data they present don't actually seem to support that, and I can 100% guarantee you that the people who design them care a whole lot about safety. This disingenuous bullshit about car companies designing cars they know are going to kill you is just dumb liberal anti-corporate bullshit that has no bearing on reality.