«1345

Posts

  • Click on a supposedly genuine link from a new member with only this post?
    No explanation or discussion.
    Methinks troll at best. Or maybe scammer. Maybe Extinction Rebellion.
    A pinko leftie pressure group?
    The great unwashed?

    Click on the link at your peril.
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    1500 posts doesn't seem like a new member.

    It's total nonsense anyway. You can't just 'ban' a type of car.
  • MoonbikerMoonbiker Posts: 1,706
    Plz explain you reasoning why not consider a ban or tax them alot more especially city centres congestion zones etc?

    Unwashed and pinko leftie isn't and argument for a policy on SUV use.

    Maybe you don't cycle so dont apreciate the improvment it would make having less SUV for other road users and cyclists?

    Gammon triggered? :roll:
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    Because there is already a tax on emissions - both through the congestion charge (London) and VED.

    SUVs don't make up the majority of traffic on the roads anyway.

    What about old cars, taxis, lorries, vans, trucks, high performance cars with low MPG?

    You utter plank.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,298
    IMHO, SUV's are a marketing success, having gotten everyone to buy into the idea of 'needing' a big high car to keep their precious offspring safe.

    Personally, I think they are a completely unnecessary vehicle, the most bloated kind being the worst - ie Q7, X5 type.

    This was bought home to whilst walking on a residential road built around 1900 - as I looked at a line of cars on the other side of the road, I saw they were all parked in at the same distance.
    When I crossed the road, I saw they were all parked on the road, apart from a Q7, which needed to be parked on the kerb to allow traffic to get by.

    The other thing that bought it home, is that if you look at a big practical van based vehicle, such as a Renault Trafic, or a Grand Tourneo Connect - these have LOADS of space inside, and if you can get the seated versions, can transport MANY people - but the footprint of one of these (The ford specifically, or the SWB Trafic), is SMALLER than a Q7 which can only seat 5 people.
    I'm all for bigger vehicles, IF they offer something extra over a conventional vehicle.

    The X6 is also baffling, it's big, and tall, and yet this is a sports SUV, wtf is that about?
    People lap them up though.

    The other down side of this, is that we see manufacturers abandoning other model types, such as hatchbacks / estates (so practical) in favour of these vehicles that people seem unable to stop buying.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,349
    it's not all about how many seats and load space - it's about the driving position too - SUVs sit higher up - so you can generally see further down the road.
    I don't for one minute think that's why most people buy them - they probably just see the space - keeping the kids apart in the back and still plenty of room for the shopping & dogs.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,298
    edited 8 October
    Loadspace is pretty censored though - if you compare something like a Skoda Superb Estate with most of these average size SUV's, they will be litres behind in terms of storage space - it's something of an urban myth imo.

    Ok, lets look at the Q7:
    Bootspace = 770L
    With seats folded = 1955L
    Vehicle weight = 2165KG

    Superb Estate:
    Bootspace = 660L
    With seats folded = 1950L
    Vehicle weight = 1687KG

    VAG Tiguan:
    Bootspace = 520L
    With seats folded = 1655L
    Vehicle weight = 1610KG

    If you compare with any of the smaller SUV type vehicles (Vauxhall Mokka anyone?), the difference is even bigger.

    Also bear in mind that a portion of the SUV's storage litres are up high, and in most cases, unless you have bungees etc, are not 'that' usable.

    My parents bought a Nissan X-Trail - I thought great, there will be loads of space in here, not a bit of it, the boot was stupidly small, and my initial thought that the load area with seats down would be long enough to take a fully assembled bike, was miles off, and even the height wasn't enough - so I had to take front wheels off and saddles off for them to fit.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,341
    Click on a supposedly genuine link from a new member with only this post?
    No explanation or discussion.
    Methinks troll at best. Or maybe scammer. Maybe Extinction Rebellion.
    A pinko leftie pressure group?
    The great unwashed?

    Click on the link at your peril.

    I mean I don't agree with everything I read in the Guardian, but that's an overreaction.
    and then the next thing you know
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 410
    Daniel B wrote:
    Loadspace is pretty censored though - if you compare something like a Skoda Superb Estate with most of these average size SUV's, they will be litres behind in terms of storage space - it's something of an urban myth imo.

    Ok, lets look at the Q7:
    Bootspace = 770L
    With seats folded = 1955L
    Vehicle weight = 2165KG

    Superb Estate:
    Bootspace = 660L
    With seats folded = 1950L
    Vehicle weight = 1687KG

    VAG Tiguan:
    Bootspace = 520L
    With seats folded = 1655L
    Vehicle weight = 1610KG

    If you compare with any of the smaller SUV type vehicles (Vauxhall Mokka anyone?), the difference is even bigger.

    Also bear in mind that a portion of the SUV's storage litres are up high, and in most cases, unless you have bungees etc, are not 'that' usable.

    My parents bought a Nissan X-Trail - I thought great, there will be loads of space in here, not a bit of it, the boot was stupidly small, and my initial thought that the load area with seats down would be long enough to take a fully assembled bike, was miles off, and even the height wasn't enough - so I had to take front wheels off and saddles off for them to fit.

    As a Tiguan owner, I can back up how poor the boot space is. That's not why I bought it though. I can put a bike in it though, without disassembly.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • photonic69photonic69 Posts: 911
    People don't "need" an SUV, they just choose to have one due to marketing/fashion/cos the neighbours have one etc.

    Even though a modern SUV might be more fuel efficient and have less emissions than an older standard car, the fact they usually have much bigger wheels/tyres and weigh a lot more means that the pollution they emit comes from the brake dust and tyre wear and these are two very serious issues as they are harmful when breathed in as well as washing into the water system via drains

    Smaller, lighter cars with skinnier tyres would be far more fuel efficient with even less emissions but they are just not fashionable enough for your average idiot.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,298
    edited 8 October
    Longshot wrote:
    As a Tiguan owner, I can back up how poor the boot space is. That's not why I bought it though. I can put a bike in it though, without disassembly.

    :D

    I assume you mean lying it down with all the seats (Apart from the front 2!) folded?

    I was meaning standing up - we used to own an LPG Volvo estate, and that was capacious and could swallow a bike lying down easily with the rear seats folded - two if you didn't mind the odd scratch.

    When we used to drive to Tuscany, I could fit both bikes in stood up (Saddles/seatposts and front wheels off) strapped to each side of the car, with ample room for kit and luggage down the middle.
    photonic69 wrote:
    ...have much bigger wheels/tyres and weigh a lot more means that the pollution they emit comes from the brake dust and tyre wear and these are two very serious issues as they are harmful when breathed in as well as washing into the water system via drains

    This I was unaware of.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • oxomanoxoman Posts: 6,569
    For people that need an suv type vehicle with off road capabilities I haven't got a problem. However slot of these suv,s aren't even all wheel drive or will ever go anywhere other than normal roads. The majority of suv,s are like politicians anyway useless.
    Moda Bolero wet bike.
    Giant Anthem SX
    Giant TCX CX bike
    Defy Adv Pro 2 shiny nice bike.
    Boardman comp hardtail. Not so little oxo,s
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 410
    Daniel B wrote:
    Longshot wrote:
    As a Tiguan owner, I can back up how poor the boot space is. That's not why I bought it though. I can put a bike in it though, without disassembly.

    :D

    I assume you mean lying it down with all the seats (Apart from the front 2!) folded?

    I was meaning standing up - we used to own an LPG Volvo estate, and that was capacious and could swallow a bike lying down easily with the rear seats folded - two if you didn't mind the odd scratch.

    When we used to drive to Tuscany, I could fit both bikes in stood up (Saddles/seatposts and front wheels off) strapped to each side of the car, with ample room for kit and luggage down the middle.

    I did mean with the rear seats folded. No problem, I have a 4 bike tow bar rack if I need to carry people and bikes.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • poptart242poptart242 Posts: 415
    I'm all for banning of SUVs, and other hugely inefficient vehicles, provided you don't have a genuine use case for them. And a blanket ban on cars in city centres.

    I say this as someone about to buy a 4x4 who currently lives in a city centre, to be fair.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,733
    photonic69 wrote:
    People don't "need" an SUV

    I do :wink:
  • photonic69photonic69 Posts: 911
    haydenm wrote:
    photonic69 wrote:
    People don't "need" an SUV

    I do :wink:

    Why? If so why not get a proper 4x4?
  • timothywtimothyw Posts: 2,417
    Should obviously be banned.

    Even if you are fool enough not to believe in (or don't care about) the environmental impact, the simple fact that they are considerably more deadly to those within and around them is plenty of reason enough.
  • monkimarkmonkimark Posts: 686
    Perhaps instead of banning them, just require an extended driving test to prove that you can park it in a multi storey space without going diagonally across the next space or that you can drive down a residential street without needing to use both sides of the road - that should thin out their numbers a bit.
  • craigus89craigus89 Posts: 863
    timothyw wrote:
    Should obviously be banned.

    Even if you are fool enough not to believe in (or don't care about) the environmental impact, the simple fact that they are considerably more deadly to those within and around them is plenty of reason enough.

    This.

    I have quite 'extreme' views on what should be done about cars, even though I use one myself out of necessity, but this would at least be a start.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,298
    timothyw wrote:
    Should obviously be banned.

    Even if you are fool enough not to believe in (or don't care about) the environmental impact, the simple fact that they are considerably more deadly to those within and around them is plenty of reason enough.

    Agreed.

    This bit stood out for me on the OP's link - (I don't know if the figures are true \ can be backed up)
    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.

    If that is true though, those are some pretty notable facts.
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • PhilipPirripPhilipPirrip Posts: 616
    VED isn't fit for purpose right now and not keeping up with the pace of change. It needs to embrace a far wider range of environmental and social impacts caused by motor vehicles and address the inequity of these impacts from say a Microlino versus a 3 tonne hybrid SUV.

    As for banning them, they banned segways as a type of vehicle but banning a type of car would be harder. They could legislate against them or, as the article says Germany are doing, introduce something like NCAP tests that test for the safety of people outside the vehicle.
  • daniel_bdaniel_b Posts: 8,298
    introduce something like NCAP tests that test for the safety of people outside the vehicle.

    I'm rather gobsmacked this has not been happening.......?
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,349
    photonic69 wrote:
    People don't "need" an SUV, they just choose to have one due to marketing/fashion/cos the neighbours have one etc.

    Even though a modern SUV might be more fuel efficient and have less emissions than an older standard car, the fact they usually have much bigger wheels/tyres and weigh a lot more means that the pollution they emit comes from the brake dust and tyre wear and these are two very serious issues as they are harmful when breathed in as well as washing into the water system via drains

    Smaller, lighter cars with skinnier tyres would be far more fuel efficient with even less emissions but they are just not fashionable enough for your average idiot.

    The brake dust and tyre wear on your average joe's SUV will be no different to that of the equivalent estate car - because, more often than not, they weight practically the same. Any additional weight will be offset by the greater wind resistance...

    So sorry - unless you can bring in any proper research into your statement - I'm going to have to assume it's total bollox and brought about because you "hate SUV's" ...

    We have an SUV - only a "small" one - it's not much different to the Skoda Octavia - except it's easier to reach in to do up the kids seat belts. Fuel efficiency wise - it's about the same as an estate of a similar age. It's nice to drive and whilst I appreciate that it may be more dangerous - we're not about to crash it ... so the safety aspect is irrelevant.
  • LongshotLongshot Posts: 410
    Daniel B wrote:
    introduce something like NCAP tests that test for the safety of people outside the vehicle.

    I'm rather gobsmacked this has not been happening.......?

    NCAP tests do have a pedestrian safety rating for each car.
    You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,733
    photonic69 wrote:
    haydenm wrote:
    photonic69 wrote:
    People don't "need" an SUV

    I do :wink:

    Why? If so why not get a proper 4x4?

    Does a discovery or something not count as an SUV and a proper 4x4? I actually have a pickup truck, it's a pain for when I occasionally have to drive it in a city but it would be quite inefficient for me to own a second car purely for that
  • photonic69photonic69 Posts: 911
    slowbike wrote:

    - we're not about to crash it ... so the safety aspect is irrelevant.

    Nobody crashes on purpose so your argument is irrelevant.
  • craigus89craigus89 Posts: 863
    slowbike wrote:
    we're not about to crash it ... so the safety aspect is irrelevant.

    That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.
  • PhilipPirripPhilipPirrip Posts: 616
    As an aside, has anyone noticed the length of a Tesla Model S (4.98m) exceeds a standard UK parking space (4.8m). These monstrous carbuncles either take up two spaces lengthways or overhang one space forcing pedestrians into the path of passing vehicles.

    It's such environmental and social impacts of these ridiculously over-sized vehicles that VED should also be addressing.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,349
    photonic69 wrote:
    slowbike wrote:

    - we're not about to crash it ... so the safety aspect is irrelevant.

    Nobody crashes on purpose so your argument is irrelevant.

    The way some people drive I think they probably do ....

    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 ...
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,349
    craigus89 wrote:
    slowbike wrote:
    we're not about to crash it ... so the safety aspect is irrelevant.

    That may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.

    you read what I wrote ... and felt compelled to respond ...

    go and and look at accident stats ...

    work out the probability of an accident per mile - on different road types ...

    What I was referring to was the higher probability of a roll over and worse off for pedestrians claim made above ... with the probability of an accident so low (and dropped because of the way of driving) - it's irrelevant ....
    I don't claim that all SUV drivers are like that because quite clearly they're not ...

    next there will be a claim that you're more likely to have an accident if you've got a black car .... or a car with an A in the name ...

    ban the drivers - not the vehicles.
Sign In or Register to comment.