Ban SUVs

orraloon wrote:

2 years back I had a hire car X-trail in S Africa for 3 weeks. What a crock of sh1t. 2 wheel drive version. Crap traction, crap performance. This 'looks big' body with minimal space inside. It even struggled to get up the entrance slope to one of our hotels, as in nope 1st gear ain't doing it, roll back down rev it up and take a run. Why do people, looking at you buy this sort of sh1t?

And another hire vehicle Uk this time turned out to be a Vauxhall Mokka. Is like a Corsa on 'roids but without the capabilities of the little 'un. Baffled as to why anyone would shell out proper money on something like that.

[/clarkson mode]

Smudgerii wrote:

Not read much of the thread, but...

Wouldn’t be without my LWB Mitsi L200 2.5 derv guzzling climate killer, much more practical than my 3ltr beemer.

HaydenM wrote:

Smudgerii wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Good for you, I'm sure nobody will read that and think you're over-compensating for anything.

Nah!

The M V Agusta more than makes up for that

Each vehicle is for a purpose, and used for it with purpose..


FREEDOM is ours, use it!

Could you not combine the 3l into the pickup and get an Amarok like a real man?*

*Definitely tongue in cheek, I'm not especially manly...

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't the delica powered by a 3.5 litre engine out of the pajero?

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't it partly about ground clearance? Jazz is tall but lower clearance puts heavy bits like engine and gearbox lower down.

Just one possible contribution.

Longshot wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't it partly about ground clearance? Jazz is tall but lower clearance puts heavy bits like engine and gearbox lower down.

Just one possible contribution.

Possibly but I'm still not buying the twice as likely statistic being thrown around. Maybe with a huge American SUV, but not with the average UK SUV.

Sports utility vehicles (SUVs) are enormously popular in the United States, and are becoming more so over here. In 2005, SUVs accounted for just under 9% of all new car registrations in Britain and around 7% in Europe as a whole. We still have a long way to go before we reach the saturation levels seen in America, where SUVs dominate the vehicle market, but it is still appropriate to ask whether Britain can learn lessons from the American experience with these behemoths.

Customers who opt to buy sports utility vehicles rather than a more conventional vehicle often cite safety as their paramount concern. Driving inside one of these tall, bulky road monsters, which towers over the other cars on the road and looks, over the world, like a kind of urban assault vehicle, is enough tomake anyone feel invulnerable. But is the feeling justified?

The Dangers
Studies in the United States have shown that the belief that SUVs are safer to drive may be wildly misplaced. Although the vehicles are heavier than normal cars, and so might be expected to be more resilient in the event of acrash, statistics show that SUVs are involved in a disproportionately high number of fatal car accidents. In 2003, for example, a driver of an SUV was 11% more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than someone in a standard car. One of the key reasons is the extra height of the vehicles, which gives them a higher centre of gravity and makes them more prone to roll over in a collision or even a sharp road manoeuvre.

As well as posing a danger to their own drivers, research has shown that SUVs present a far greater threat to everyone else. Pedestrians who get knocked down by an SUV are twice as likely to die as those struck by a normal vehicle. The sheer mass of a typical SUV, in part, accounts for this,but the physical configuration of the vehicles is also important. Their blunt and broad frontal geometry makes injuries to the heads and neck regions of pedestrians far more common than is the case with car impacts which, because of a car's lower and more aerodynamic bearing, more frequently result only in leg injuries.

Other motorists don't fare any better. If you are travelling in a car which is involved in a collision with an SUV, you too are twice as likely to die as you would have been if you had been struck by another car. In this case, too, though the extra weight of the SUV contributes to its greater destructive potential, design is also a key factor. A typical SUV rides so high that its bumper will make no contact with the bumper of a car when the two are involved in a frontal collision. In a sideways impact, the SUV's bulky front end tends to strike the occupants of a car in the vulnerable upper body area, increasing the likelihood of fatality.

Daniel B wrote:

Step83 wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

T'internet claims 5" difference, but yes I suspect TM is on the money with the higher centre of gravity.
Also the latest Jazz is higher (and probably wider and longer) than the previous generation.

I wonder where it will stop, this fattening up of cars :?

Put an old mini beside a new "Bini" an you can see just how bad it is.

Indeed, it's verging on offensive

KingstonGraham wrote:

I read that the average car has increased in width by something like a foot over 20 years which can't be great for towns, parking etc.

Moonbiker said:

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:

StillGoing said:

It will comfortably go off-road when needed.
It will pull non SUVs to safety when they're stuck in the snow when required.
It will pull a load without issue thanks to the 600nm of torque.