Ban SUVs

haydenm

Veronese68 wrote:

I think SUVs are absurd, nobody needs the Chelsea tractor type. People like HM need a large 4x4 for work, that's a different matter. But, I don't think they should be banned. Much like private plates, they make it easier to make assumptions about the driver

I do actually agree, it's a bit like having an HGV, no point unless you actually need it. Putting a massive tax on them (obviously with some sort of company car or tax reduction for work) would help but if it's not pitched right then it'll just mean they are seen even more as a status symbol and people will just pay more for them. The fundamental issue is that most people have dreadful taste in cars. When you speak to people who aren't into cars it's amazing to see what most people think a 'nice' car is...

I want something fun to drive really, SUVs aren't often exciting at all

photonic69

Slowbike wrote:

but I note you don't rebuke the rest of my argument ... so I guess there was no merit in your original statement - just blind prejudice ...

after reading your drivel I CBA

keef66

I get the feeling it's a kind of arms race. The more SUVs on the roads the more other road users feel intimidated by them or think they should have one, and so are more likely to choose one themselves.

Can't see us ever having one; we're neither of us very big physically so we rather suit a small hatchback. We'd look like 12 year old joyriders in a big jeepy thing.

Plus they must be a PITA to park in the average multi-story parking space. I see people taking forever to park them at Tescos; a bit like watching a novice mooring a narrow-boat. And if I'm unlucky enough to return to my car to find SUVs in the adjacent spaces I struggle to get into my car because I can'y get the door open far enough...

haydenm

It's amazing what people think they 'need'. I'd sooner pick a roofless caterham over a 2x4 softroader as a daily if I wasn't given a free car from work. I'd potentially then need to get the OH an old defender for the track to our house in winter but that's not the point...

daniel_b

keef66 wrote:

I get the feeling it's a kind of arms race. The more SUVs on the roads the more other road users feel intimidated by them or think they should have one, and so are more likely to choose one themselves.

Can't see us ever having one; we're neither of us very big physically so we rather suit a small hatchback. We'd look like 12 year old joyriders in a big jeepy thing.

Plus they must be a PITA to park in the average multi-story parking space. I see people taking forever to park them at Tescos; a bit like watching a novice mooring a narrow-boat. And if I'm unlucky enough to return to my car to find SUVs in the adjacent spaces I struggle to get into my car because I can'y get the door open far enough...

I think you may be onto something there in some respects, I think the bulk of it is people with little or no imgination needing to conform and fit in - all the neighbours / friends / colleagues / boss have gotten them, so they need to match them, and somehow that means they are not different and fit in.
I don't know, as have never subscribed to peer pressure, but could it be some kind of unspoken \ subconscious peer pressure I wonder?

A classic example is a Qashqai owning friend of my brothers, who on announcing they were expecting their 2nd child, were delighted to follow this up with the fact they would be able to justify the 'upgrade' to a Squashkai +2.

Mindblowing.

But I do believe sheep like mentality is on the rise unfortunately, if it hasn't always been on an upward curve.

keef66

Daniel B wrote:

A classic example is a Qashqai owning friend of my brothers, who on announcing they were expecting their 2nd child, were delighted to follow this up with the fact they would be able to justify the 'upgrade' to a Squashkai +2

a) Fcuk me, are they planning to fatten their kids to the size of sumo wrestlers??

b) Squashkai + 2 It's going to amuse me no end thinking of them as the motoring equivalent of a large butternut squash

daniel_b

keef66 wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

A classic example is a Qashqai owning friend of my brothers, who on announcing they were expecting their 2nd child, were delighted to follow this up with the fact they would be able to justify the 'upgrade' to a Squashkai +2

a) Fcuk me, are they planning to fatten their kids to the size of sumo wrestlers??

b) Squashkai + 2 It's going to amuse me no end thinking of them as the motoring equivalent of a large butternut squash

To be fair a squash is fairly tasteless as well, unless you cook it with crispy bacon, and then it comes alive.



There is actually quite a similarity - I think I have accidentally stumbled on why they named it as such.

step83

keef66 wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

A classic example is a Qashqai owning friend of my brothers, who on announcing they were expecting their 2nd child, were delighted to follow this up with the fact they would be able to justify the 'upgrade' to a Squashkai +2

a) Fcuk me, are they planning to fatten their kids to the size of sumo wrestlers??

b) Squashkai + 2 It's going to amuse me no end thinking of them as the motoring equivalent of a large butternut squash

We used to just refer to them as squashys when I was doing service plans.

The SUV argument is amusing, the people who have them tend to say its because they need a big car for the number of kids (usually one). So they go out an get the defacto Squashy or Sportage, then complain its a pain to park and has no space.
Guy at work already he has three kids all under ten, he drives a Zafira, because as he explained its far more practical. He is right and he got the right type of car, he bought an MPV so he can take him, his wife an three kids places.

shipley

This thread is hilarious !! Ban SUVs ? Can anyone define an SUV ? At what point does a slightly raised Nissan become an SUV ?

We have a Touareg, it’s simply brilliant. I bought it as my wife’s recently broken pelvis caused her problems when getting into ‘normal’ cars. Initially I wasn’t keen but in the year we’ve had it it’s been to Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Dorset and Cornwall in utter comfort and with fabulous visibility. We have a small car for town / car parks.
It’s only challenge from my perspective is getting bikes on the roof as it’s so ruddy tall I need a folding step !!

If the tree huggers feel the need to ban something, why not start with Lambos and Ferrari’s etc first as they are even less practical and more difficult to park.

joe_totale-2

Shipley wrote:

If the tree huggers feel the need to ban something, why not start with Lambos and Ferrari’s etc first as they are even less practical and more difficult to park.

As a daily commuter in London I may see a Lambo or Ferrari once a month but I experience issues with SUV's most days.

It seems bizarre that if you're going to drive in a huge city with tight, narrow streets and awkward parking spots that you'd buy the biggest car possible.

kingstongraham

Shipley wrote:

This thread is hilarious !! Ban SUVs ? Can anyone define an SUV ? At what point does a slightly raised Nissan become an SUV ?

We have a Touareg, it’s simply brilliant. I bought it as my wife’s recently broken pelvis caused her problems when getting into ‘normal’ cars. Initially I wasn’t keen but in the year we’ve had it it’s been to Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Dorset and Cornwall in utter comfort and with fabulous visibility. We have a small car for town / car parks.
It’s only challenge from my perspective is getting bikes on the roof as it’s so ruddy tall I need a folding step !!

If the tree huggers feel the need to ban something, why not start with Lambos and Ferrari’s etc first as they are even less practical and more difficult to park.

If you read the article, it is (I think) mostly about the height of the vehicle meaning more deaths to pedestrians because of the point of impact in a collision, and the unwarranted feeling of safety that they cause to the driver. A Ferrari sounds like the kind of vehicle to encourage, as it would cause more lower limb injuries which are survivable.

Longshot

I have a better idea than banning SUVs in cities. Ban all cars. Use bikes or public transport.

I haven't yet had to pay the Congestion Charge (introduced in 2003) in London despite the fact that I work here 5 days a week and have a job that requires being mobile rather than purely desk based.

I've only driven into Central London twice in the last 16 years, both times at weekends.

shipley

I would much rather we took the European approach to driving meaning very very slow driving in built up areas, streets built for multiple purposes and widespread respect for all road users.

On motorways and dual carriageways fast driving is fine, and often safer than the UK. Everyone in the south east of England seemingly being permanently angry and confrontational doesn’t help our cause.

kingstongraham

Longshot wrote:

I have a better idea than banning SUVs in cities. Ban all cars. Use bikes or public transport.

I haven't yet had to pay the Congestion Charge (introduced in 2003) in London despite the fact that I work here 5 days a week and have a job that requires being mobile rather than purely desk based.

I've only driven into Central London twice in the last 16 years, both times at weekends.

I think this is something that's strange. In central London, probably 95% of the people there don't drive, but cars seem to take priority in most places.

shipley

KingstonGraham wrote:

A Ferrari sounds like the kind of vehicle to encourage, as it would cause more lower limb injuries which are survivable.

.....and yet perversely legislation has demanded car manufacturers raise the height of bonnets for the safety of pedestrians.

My Nissan GTR had an airbag under the bonnet !

In my mind it’s not the cars that cause problems, it’s drivers, and the infrastructure totally focussed on the use of the car. That generates too much tax so buses, trains, trams etc all suffer lack of investment. That’s what I think extinction rebellion should be campaigning for, not for changes here which will be negated by China, Russia etc.

landmannnn

I blame social media.
Fake news all over the place, and the impressionable people (read limited brain power) jump on a band wagon and believe it.

Of course it is terrible that somebody was killed by a Porsche Macam driver, but banning Porsches or SUVs is hardly the solution.

Even a 5 year old could tell you that pedestrian only zones and reduced speed limits would prevent road deaths.

haydenm

landmannnn wrote:

I blame social media.
Fake news all over the place, and the impressionable people (read limited brain power) jump on a band wagon and believe it.

Of course it is terrible that somebody was killed by a Porsche Macam driver, but banning Porsches or SUVs is hardly the solution.

Even a 5 year old could tell you that pedestrian only zones and reduced speed limits would prevent road deaths.

Why not? Obviously reducing speed and changing road use would reduce accidents but I don't think making cars less dangerous to those they hit is an especially bad thing?

PhilipPirrip

landmannnn wrote:

I blame social media.
Fake news all over the place, and the impressionable people (read limited brain power) jump on a band wagon and believe it.

Of course it is terrible that somebody was killed by a Porsche Macam driver, but banning Porsches or SUVs is hardly the solution.

Even a 5 year old could tell you that pedestrian only zones and reduced speed limits would prevent road deaths.

So between looking at the article and writing your comment how have you managed to get the number of people killed wrong? Could it be that limited brain power you speak of?

FYI, four people, including a 3 year old boy, were killed by a Porsche Macan driver when they mounted the pavement. It's in the second paragraph of the article.

landmannnn

PhilipPirrip wrote:

landmannnn wrote:

I blame social media.
Fake news all over the place, and the impressionable people (read limited brain power) jump on a band wagon and believe it.

Of course it is terrible that somebody was killed by a Porsche Macam driver, but banning Porsches or SUVs is hardly the solution.

Even a 5 year old could tell you that pedestrian only zones and reduced speed limits would prevent road deaths.

So between looking at the article and writing your comment how have you managed to get the number of people killed wrong? Could it be that limited brain power you speak of?

FYI, four people, including a 3 year old boy, were killed by a Porsche Macan driver when they mounted the pavement. It's in the second paragraph of the article.

Very clever.

daniel_b

landmannnn wrote:

I blame social media.
Fake news all over the place, and the impressionable people (read limited brain power) jump on a band wagon and believe it.

Of course it is terrible that somebody was killed by a Porsche Macam driver, but banning Porsches or SUVs is hardly the solution.

Even a 5 year old could tell you that pedestrian only zones and reduced speed limits would prevent road deaths.

So these figures qouted are fake?

A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving. Originally modelled from trucks, they are often exempt from the kinds of safety standards applied to passenger vehicles, including bonnet height. In Europe legislation is being brought in to end such “outdated and unjustified” exemptions.

Have to be honest, I had only noted the 11% figure last time, but the 'twice as likely' for the boldened parts are far more eye opening.

craigus89

It's a start at least. The sooner we get to a point where the majority of lives are not spent in cars the better. The only way that will happen is through enforcement.

tangled_metal

Everyone needs a car right!

Interesting arguments here and partly right. Some of what I call "Greenpeace thinking" going on. By that i mean looking at a few examples and making out they're all the same. This lazy thinking means you end up with the likes of Greenpeace sticking anti car and anti pollution leaflets under wiper blades of those evil SUVs in a private company's carpark but ignoring the even worse saloons, sportscar, hatches and estates.

For example my BiL used to get a limited choice of company car. With a family who camps and holidays in the car they need space. The only two options was a mondeo estate type car or a Honda SUV. At the time the SUV had a much lower carbon emission and indeed the whole range if pollutants were lower out of it then the estate alternative. But Greenpeace ignored the non SUVs.

For me there are very few advantages. 4x4 one's might be ok if you really need them. Better off getting a less polluting estate but you need to know which are. There's never much in the way of information on pollution when buying cars. Carbon emissions are indicated but none of the particulates or other pollutants.

Then you're into darcey l safety arguments. Bigger vehicles generally come out better in say head on collisions if the same ncap rating. But they're also heavier so possibly worse for handling and braking. However fast cars also tend to have better brakes so increased safety?

Take Ford as a brand. There's fiesta, focus and mondeo cars. They also do eco sport, kuga and edge SUVs based on the car platforms. Also MPVs of the same cars but that's something else. What a salesperson told me in a local Ford main dealership was that most of the SUVs got downgraded in NCAP rating from the cars for various reasons. That was why she either bought another make of car not SUV or used staff discount and got the estate car version of the platform of interest.

Then there's the use of the car on safety. A sports car goes faster but it also goes faster by being able to brake later. This means better brakes than SUVs or estate cars. In an emergency stop situation they might be going faster but they'll still stop quicker or sooner the shorter braking distance = safer?

Looking at boot space, as above you can't say SUVs are bigger inside for capacity. Some might be others not. You have to look at the specs on each potential option. No blanket rule to work to. Should you ban all SUVs then find you're seeing an increase in pollution because people have switched to an even worse saloon car! Possible but not completely likely. You do get my argument though.

tangled_metal

That quote sounded very American centred. European aucs are often car based. As mentioned above. A popular suv is the Ford kuga which is based on the Ford focus car. Basically a focus with a different body kit and a few other features. More is shared than is different. Including the driver aids which are becoming more a part of cars. Indeed ncap ratings drop a star without a certain minimum of driver aids.

Interesting is driver aids such as braking aids that detect other vehicles moving into your lane and braking automatically to keep a safe driving distance to the car ahead. These have been in a lot of SUVs before cars. They can also be turned off which imho is a flaw in their use or even design.

Longshot

twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians

Twice as likely than what?

What is the likelihood in numbers? 1%-2%? 20%-40% One is significant, the other isn't.

kingstongraham

Shipley wrote:

In my mind it’s not the cars that cause problems, it’s drivers,

Weird how all the car drivers are in cars though.

PhilipPirrip

landmannnn wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

landmannnn wrote:

I blame social media.
Fake news all over the place, and the impressionable people (read limited brain power) jump on a band wagon and believe it.

Of course it is terrible that somebody was killed by a Porsche Macam driver, but banning Porsches or SUVs is hardly the solution.

Even a 5 year old could tell you that pedestrian only zones and reduced speed limits would prevent road deaths.

So between looking at the article and writing your comment how have you managed to get the number of people killed wrong? Could it be that limited brain power you speak of?

FYI, four people, including a 3 year old boy, were killed by a Porsche Macan driver when they mounted the pavement. It's in the second paragraph of the article.

Very clever.

I take no pleasure in having to point that out what with the death of a child involved.

At least you haven't mocked those who protested at the death of a child as some here have.

daniel_b

Longshot wrote:

twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians

Twice as likely than what?

What is the likelihood in numbers? 1%-2%? 20%-40% One is significant, the other isn't.

Twice as = 200%
Twice as likely as a normal saloon / hatch / estate.

I thought that was fairly clear.

cycleclinic

Is be happy to see them banned too as they are rarely driven well. They are too wide for narrow country roads. They are bought because people feel safer in them and sod everyone else. Owning and using a car is a bit selfish which is one of the reasons why I refuse to buy a new one and dont drive much. owning and using a SUV is really selfish. The crossover cars are not so bad but are driven really slowly which may mean they are rubbish cars.

Car design peaked in the 80's, since then cars have not improved in my book. Being faster,or morefuel office t is not really better. They ride more harshly, have wheels which are too easily damged,far too complex and you cant see where you going in them properly.The visibility in modern cars is truly rubbish.

all modern are have got to big. A Ford focus is similar is size to my 31 year old 5 series. It might be wider in fact. The wider cars get the less there drivers seem to know where in the road there car is.

cycleclinic

The modern world is rubbish innit. I may be turning into a grumpy old man.

tangled_metal

Some people are born that way so don't sweat it.