Are SUV's that bad?

Anan1

colm_mcm wrote:

joolsveer. these bullbars you show aren't original manufacturers, they're spurious parts. what has this got to do with whether SUV's are safe. you can fit a bull bar to anything

You can. That said, the kind of person who chooses to drive an SUV is the same kind of person who would choose to fit a bullbar.

joolsveer

colm_mcm wrote:

joolsveer. these bullbars you show aren't original manufacturers, they're spurious parts. what has this got to do with whether SUV's are safe. you can fit a bull bar to anything

I have yet to see a Micra or Yaris fitted with these anti pedestrian bars. I can only recall seeing two non SUVs with roo or bull bars. The attached shows one of the two. The other was what we called a High Ache (Toyota van with alloys).

joolsveer

some more

colm_mcm

my opinion is that those chrome bullbars look cack.

the best compromise is a plastic one like this

emaherx

This thread was started about such massive machines as the toyota rav 4.
The rav 4 is not an SUV, its a car.
The other day I saw a Rav 4 and a Corrola Verso parked beside each other and they are roughly the same size even in height, so whats the diffrance?

Gatster

the kind of person who chooses to drive an SUV is the same kind of person who would choose to fit a bullbar

Now there's a well reserched statement about all SUV drivers. Good few vans about with bull bars - don't get me wrong I think they look naff but some people, no matter how small a %, actually need an 'SUV' for whatever reason. This, of course, is defined by what is an SUV...

peasant

Coming back to the original question ...

I think that pointing the finger at SUV's or perceived SUV's (depending on your definition of what is and what isn't a SUV) is nothing but guilt.

All of us ...no matter what kind of car we drive ...could:

- drive less, walk more, use public transport more often
- make do with something smaller and more environementally friendly
- possibly even do without a car (or without the second / third car) if we put our minds to it and organised car-pooling / car-sharing

So we all feel a bit guilty ...about the environemnt, the ozone hole, global warming, road deaths, etc, etc ...

But as long as we can point the finger at someone who more or less obviously drives a car that he/she doesn't need / use for what it was designed to do ...

... so long we can all relax and enjoy our own vehicle much more ...after all it is THEM who really are to blame.

Am I right or am I right?

Anan1

Gatster wrote:

Now there's a well reserched statement about all SUV drivers. Good few vans about with bull bars - don't get me wrong I think they look naff but some people, no matter how small a %, actually need an 'SUV' for whatever reason. This, of course, is defined by what is an SUV...

That's why I said choose to drive, not need to drive.;)

maidhc

The BBC are having the same dicussion although perhaps in a more coherent manner:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4829628.stm

colm_mcm

emaherx wrote:

This thread was started about such massive machines as the toyota rav 4.
The rav 4 is not an SUV, its a car.
The other day I saw a Rav 4 and a Corrola Verso parked beside each other and they are roughly the same size even in height, so whats the diffrance?

I'm pretty sure a Rav4 is a SUV.

A Land Cruiser and a Hiace are roughly the same height and weight, does that mean they're the same?

emaherx

colm_mcm wrote:

I'm pretty sure a Rav4 is a SUV.

A Land Cruiser and a Hiace are roughly the same height and weight, does that mean they're the same?

It may be classed as an suv by toyota
but they only call it an suv so that women who want an suv but dont want something that is big and hard to park can say they have one.

rav for and toyota verso are bought by the same type of people "Mammys"

Surely a Hiace is is just as potetialy leathel as a land cruiser to pedestrians.
This thread was started about small suv shaped cars not large macines like the Landcrusier (a real suv)

The Rav 4 is more like a verso than a landcruiser in fairness

colm_mcm

I'm not really getting your point.

My original (purely visual) reference to the Rav4 was a statement that plastic A-bars were a good compromise to metal ones, as they still provided protection without harming pedestrians.

How this evolved into a sexist "women can't park" "Rav4 is not a SUV" I'm not quite sure

emaherx

colm_mcm wrote:

I'm not really getting your point.

My original (purely visual) reference to the Rav4 was a statement that plastic A-bars were a good compromise to metal ones, as they still provided protection without harming pedestrians.

How this evolved into a sexist "women can't park" "Rav4 is not a SUV" I'm not quite sure

Sorry if you misunderstand me
I didnt make a sexist statement, SUV's usually are hard to park. (But the RAV isint) I drive a Defender 110 and I find it extremely difficult to parallel park in a standered parking space, lucky there isnt too many parking spaces on my farm.

I did say women usually drive Rav 4's and I stand by my claim.

My refering to the rav 4 was not an attack on your visual refrance, I only mentioned it because this thread is about small SUV's such as the RAV4 and I was comparing it to a similar sized car by the same manufacture.

colm_mcm

An X5 is roughly the same size as a 5 Series Touring. one is a SUV, one isn't. I don't see how the fact that the manufacturer of an SUV also makes a normal car of the same size makes it less of an SUV

The fact that a Corolla Verso is roughly the same size as a Rav4 has very little to do with anything (or maybe i just don't get it)

Victor

emaherx wrote:

rav for and toyota verso are bought by the same type of people "Mammys"

No, mummies

Surely a Hiace is is just as potetialy leathel as a land cruiser to pedestrians.

I don't think so. Most commercial vans have much smaller blindzone and will still hit the pedestrian lower down and won't use the front of the bonnet as a chisel point.

One could also argue that van drivers need their vans for thei trade.

jackofalltrades

My original (purely visual) reference to the Rav4 was a statement that plastic A-bars were a good compromise to metal ones, as they still provided protection without harming pedestrians.

Should we really be compromising on road safety, espically when it comes down to aesthetics, the edge of those plastic A-bars are going to be fairly tough and cause a lot of unnecessary damage to pedestrains in the event of an impact.

emaherx

colm_mcm wrote:

An X5 is roughly the same size as a 5 Series Touring. one is a SUV, one isn't. I don't see how the fact that the manufacturer of an SUV also makes a normal car of the same size makes it less of an SUV

The fact that a Corolla Verso is roughly the same size as a Rav4 has very little to do with anything (or maybe i just don't get it)

I mean the Rav 4 isint a SUV(this applies to other small so called SUV's)
because no 4X4 as standered
it dosent have much more ground clearance than a normal car
its not sporty
Utility Vehicle how?

of course a maufacture who makes normal cars can make an suv
toyota make one, but its not the RAV4

Victor wrote:

I don't think so. Most commercial vans have much smaller blindzone and will still hit the pedestrian lower down and won't use the front of the bonnet as a chisel point.

One could also argue that van drivers need their vans for thei trade.

A comercial van has a much larger blind zone then most SUV's given the length plus lack of windows in the back. and they wont hit a pedestrian lower down as the front of them is nearly flat.

I was talking about small suv's
I didn't bring the hiace and landcruiser into this discussion, I was only replying to another poster.
I am aware peolple need Vans and Large Suv's for work. I myself need one.


But the likes of small "SUV's" (term used loosely) are fine as family cars since they are no bigger and in some cases no higher than normal cars

Rovi

jackofalltrades wrote:

Should we really be compromising on road safety, espically when it comes down to aesthetics...

Exactly! ALL vehicles should be made of marshmallow, with big soft fluffy cushions stuck all over the outside!

If it only saves one life...

Think of the children, will no-one think of the children?

.

colm_mcm

emaherx wrote:

I mean the Rav 4 isint a SUV(this applies to other small so called SUV's)
because no 4X4 as standered
it dosent have much more ground clearance than a normal car
its not sporty
Utility Vehicle how?

I'm tempted to call you an idiot

The Rav4 now has 4 wheel drive as standard. it was only the second generation 1.8 litre petrol models (only sold in any numbers in Ireland) that didn't have 4 wheel drive.


What SUV is "sporty" and how do you quantify sportiness in relation to SUV's?

mayhem#

Henry Ford III wrote:

They are big.

Yes, one of the reasons I bought one. I have 5 kids, 2 dogs and regularly have to transport "large items".

They handle and brake less well than comparable saloons and estate cars.

Comparable? How do you compare?

On the upside they are viewed as cool, and you get to sit up high.

Mine's definetly is cool but that rquirement was only halfway down the list...
I surely sit higher and are therefore able to see tarffic better and anticipate dangerous traffic situations. Helps me to avoid crushing small boy-racer cars than come shooting around bends blind...

Your choice.

Exactly! My choice, my money, nobody else's business...

E.

mayhem#

Anan1 wrote:

For many, however, they are visible proof of a disturbing trend towards a "f@ck other road users" mentality.

Let's put it this way; if I have the whole family in the car and am involved in a crash whose safety has my priority?

E.

Anan1

What do you drive?

mayhem#

Anan1 wrote:

What do you drive?

Me?
This: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054896156

E.

Anan1

There are some things that a Defender is better at than most other vehicles. Driving on tarmac, however, is probably not one of them. If you need do do serious off-road driving and just can't afford to run two vehicles, then fair enough. But your family would be a lot safer in a new Mercedes E200K estate.

mayhem#

Anan1 wrote:

There are some things that a Defender is better at than most other vehicles. Driving on tarmac, however, is probably not one of them. If you need do do serious off-road driving and just can't afford to run two vehicles, then fair enough. But your family would be a lot safer in a new Mercedes E200K estate.

Maybe, but the Merc does not fit my requirements;

• It doesn't seat 7+ people
• It's crap offroad.
• It is way more expensive to buy & maintain that the Defender.

E.

mayhem#

Also my Defender has a much bigger "**** off" factor....

E.

ds20prefecture

mayhem# wrote:

Let's put it this way; if I have the whole family in the car and am involved in a crash whose safety has my priority?E.

You are worried about your family's safety so everyday you put them in the oldest car design still sold new today. Clever.

Land Rovers - crunchy on the outside, mushy on the inside! Armadillos!

mayhem#

OK, you show me a safer car that meets my above mentioned criteria....

E.

ds20prefecture

Any 7 seater car with a Euro NCAP rating? Do you really need to bring all of the family off road regularly? Are the roads that bad in Tipp?

I'll grant you it is a difficult proposition to meet all of your criteria with one car, but with a budget of €45k (the cost of a new Defender station wagon) it should be possible to meet it with 2. My point is that the Defender makes very little concessions to occupant safety - almost any other car is a better place for your family to be in an accident. The chinese clone of the Opel Frontera (another separate chassis, old tech 4x4) scored 0 in the Euro NCAP. That design is 30 years younger than yours. This could be why the Defender has not been tested.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of old designs - I drive a 1972 car daily. But I don't for a second imagine it is a safe place to be, or to put my child. The most significant advances in automotive technology over the last 15 years have been in safety. The basic design of your car does not include any of those advances.

If safety is the number one concern, perhaps a Grand Scenic or Espace for road use and a beater Trooper or Fourtrak for off road. If having a big "**** off" factor and a cool car is the number one priority, then the defender, or maybe a hummer, is spot on.

maidhc

mayhem# wrote:

OK, you show me a safer car that meets my above mentioned criteria....

E.

If you need serious off road capability, any other modern 4x4, e.g a Land Cruiser is going to be far safer.

The defender is a lovely machine, but the Soviets were in Berlin when it was born, so it DOES drive and handle like a tractor (that is an objective, and not subjective statement). Mind you if I wanted a 4x4 it would be No1 on my list, but I would also run a car