Well, I'm not sure which comments are nonsense, but I'm irresistibly drawn to question the statement that the US highway system is the best in the world. Best in which way? Condition-wise, I'd definitely have to disagree. I've driven back and forth on the I-80 enough to know that that road isn't in good condition compared with, say, British motorways or.. well, anything I drove in Europe this summer, actually.
It's also 2 lanes each way for a lot of its length, which is a bit limited considering its role. The Eisenhower system was definitely needed when it was built, but IMHO it just hasn't been maintained like it needed to be. It should never have been treated as a one-stop fix, which in the great scheme of things it really has been. A road system needs a continuing guaranteed investment, and it should have been federal because it's fundamental to the health of the nation as a whole.
We've just recently got our first toll roads in the UK, and while I find the concept offensive, it has eased congestion around Birmingham. Britain is definitely drowning under the weight of its obsession with cars.
Also, on the topic of Euro/ricer vs US cars, I'm not sure where you're coming from there either. I'd sooner get in an Audi A3 than a Ford Focus. I suspect that I'm more likely to be ABLE to get out of an Audi A3 after a crash. I've seen plenty of crashes on the I-94 through Chicago, and been appalled at the damage to cars and people. I know things are improving, but the safety issue has really only properly taken off in the last 6 years or so, and it's being driven by an independent company that's hired by INSURANCE COMPANIES. It should be legislative, but I guess the car companies have a pretty big lobby budget in DC, too.
Statistically, you are no safer in a Ford Explorer (especially if you didn't get your tyres changed) just because it's an SUV. People are lulled into a false sense of security just because their car can ride a curb like it's a man-hole cover.