'A deadly problem': should we ban SUVs from our cities?

meeeeh

Peregrine wrote: »

Why a 5 series?

You're comparing one unnecessarily large car with another unnecessarily large car and concluding that the first car isn't unnecessarily large. A BMW 5 series is not an average car.

The average car occupancy in Ireland is much less than 2 and we're talking about cities. Something like a Ford Fiesta is much more suitable.

If you want to drive Fiesta that's your choice. Some of us like a bit of comfort.

OH drives commercial 4x4 because he has to travel into places where you need higher wheel clearance and 4 wheel drive. I drive Superb because it means that my son who will probably grow quite tall in the next few years and oh who is also tall can sit comfortably in the car (we also have a daughter and there are four of us in the car every weekend). I intend to keep the car for years (the last one 10) and I have no intention contributing to pollution with changing cars every couple of years to accommodate growing family or buying an extra chicken wagon just so I don't offend someones sensibilities when I'm in the car alone. We don't live in the city so most of the time it's a non issue but every so often we do have to travel in. Dublin public transport isn't good enough to time a meeting with a solicitor or accountant and not waste a day using public transport.

I think there is no point buying huge car just for the city and if you have decent public transport. But a lot of people who drive into the city don't live in the city and might be traveling a lot. I don't see the appeal of SVUs, I never did but I certainly value comfortable car.

As for the fatalities, road deaths seem to be falling significantly with increase safety features in the cars. Maybe we should ban the sale of basic models and those without parking cameras, proximity sensors etc..

magicbastarder

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Banning them from cities seems a bit draconian but it's tricky to argue the stats on the fatalities they cause.

i don't think it's possible to ban them really.

and there are obvious strides being made in reducing tailpipe emissions from cars, especially in an urban context where previously there were horrendous inefficiencies from slow moving or stationary traffic; but there are two efficiencies at play here. one is the 'how much fuel/electricity is used to drive 1km' which is obviously coming down.
the second efficiency which is not affected is the 'how much of that fuel is actually used to transport the person'; for the average car, it's between 90 and 95% i think. obviously higher for SUVs, especially if you look at the obnoxiously large mercs, BMWs, range rovers etc.

e.g. for a 2.4 ton car carrying a single occupant weighing 80KG (which is pretty much the worst case scenario), over 96% of the fuel is being used to move the vehicle, not the actual occupant. and that's astoundingly wasteful.

Cordell

The cars which are usually called SUVs (or jeeps :rolleyes:), the ones that became hugely popular in the recent years, are no larger than the usual Passat/Mondeo, in fact they are a bit smaller in most cases being based on the compact model of the same brand. What will be the reason for banning them? Their shape? The fact that some consider them a bit of eyesore? Or what?

Cordell

magicbastarder wrote: »

e.g. for a 2.4 ton car carrying a single occupant weighing 80KG (which is pretty much the worst case scenario), over 96% of the fuel is being used to move the vehicle, not the actual occupant. and that's astoundingly wasteful.

It's way worse than that: a car has a thermal efficiency that is less that 25%, so 3 quarters of the fuel burned is just wasted as waste heat no matter the useful payload. So your 4% applies to that 25% (or less) of fuel that is actually converted into kinetic energy.

magicbastarder

Cordell wrote: »

What will be the reason for banning them?

the mention of the ban in the thread title came from the article headline i posted. may not have been such a good idea to include that in the thread title, but i figured it was most 'honest' not to edit the article title.

Cordell

Well, not necessary ban them but discourage their usage; how to go about that? What's the criteria? Size as in road footprint it's not a good one, nor it's their weight, because they are not larger nor heavier than "regular" large family cars.
And for any car newer and safer mean less safety for the same make and model but older: 2 new Fiestas colliding head on at 40kmh will result is some cuts and scratches, one new and one from the 90s and you will have a casualty in the old one. Should we discourage newer sand safer cars?

vrusinov

Cordell wrote: »

Size as in road footprint it's not a good one, nor it's their weight, because they are not larger nor heavier than "regular" large family cars.

I think the weight would actually be fair. From pure physics perspective more weight = more energy required, thus more fuel required. Thus taxation which is based on combination of weight and fuel consumption (to discourage light but thirsty cars) will be fair in my opinion.

Obviously exceptions for likes of electric cars (which are heavier due to batteries), commercial vehicles and historic cars may be appropriate.

Should we discourage newer sand safer cars?

Try getting insurance for 10+ year-old fiesta and you will find out older cars already discouraged enough. Possibly up to a point where it is negative for the environment.

whisky_galore

vrusinov wrote: »

Try getting insurance for 10+ year-old fiesta and you will find out older cars already discouraged enough. Possibly up to a point where it is negative for the environment.

Drumming up business for SIMI under the guise of safety. Lots of older cars on the continent still driving away.

magicbastarder

Cordell wrote: »

Well, not necessary ban them but discourage their usage; how to go about that? What's the criteria? Size as in road footprint it's not a good one, nor it's their weight, because they are not larger nor heavier than "regular" large family cars.

again, height?
back to volvo - the difference between the XC90 and S90 is 0.2% in length, 2% in width, and 23% in height.

rgace

I've always felt there is something quite ignorant about buying a car so you can see over the traffic which results in other drivers having a restricted view because of you.

Where does it end anyway, they are so popular now that you will have to buy a double decker for the same effect soon.

Cordell

vrusinov wrote: »

I think the weight would actually be fair. From pure physics perspective more weight

It will be fair, but not all SUVs are heavy, especially not the compact and crossover kind.

vrusinov wrote: »

Try getting insurance for 10+ year-old fiesta and you will find out older cars already discouraged enough. Possibly up to a point where it is negative for the environment.

You are missing my point here: some claim that if a SUV hits a small car those in the small car are more exposed - which is absolutely true, but in the same time they are ignoring that it's more dangerous to be in a old car and be hit by the same make and model, but new.

magicbastarder

Cordell wrote: »

You are missing my point here: some claim that if a SUV hits a small car those in the small car are more exposed - which is absolutely true, but in the same time they are ignoring that it's more dangerous to be in a old car and be hit by the same make and model, but new.

an illustration from a good few years ago; same model of car from the same manufacturer, but 9 years in age difference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRxLlFm3VUA

magicbastarder

Cordell wrote: »

You are missing my point here: some claim that if a SUV hits a small car those in the small car are more exposed - which is absolutely true, but in the same time they are ignoring that it's more dangerous to be in a old car and be hit by the same make and model, but new.

while your point is technically true, it seems to be creating a false equivalence between the safety features of new cars and the size of SUVs; that if one creates a danger to old cars, and the other creates a danger for small cars, we can regard them in some sort of similar light.
increased safety in new cars is very generally a good thing for society. the ame cannot be said for increased size of SUVs.

anyway, the arms race to make cars bulkier is also a bad thing for all other road users, be they pedestrians or cyclists or motorists in general.
motorist X buying a stupidly large vehicle makes life better for themselves and slightly worse for everyone else.

Cordell

While your point is also technically true it seems to create a false equivalence between not getting an unnecessarily large car and not getting a car a all

Getting a car, any kind of car, makes life better for yourself but it's a very bad decision for the environment and for the health and safety of others. Getting an SUV it's just a small step towards making an already very bad decision just a bit worse...

Cookie_Monster

Why would you specifically ban these in cities as opposed to banning all private vehicle, which would be 1) easier to enforce and 2) better for everyone overall.

magicbastarder

according to the IEA, SUVs are the second biggest contributor to the rise in global CO2 emissions:

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/october/growing-preference-for-suvs-challenges-emissions-reductions-in-passenger-car-mark.html

patrickbrophy18

The part of the issue here is highlighted in bold from the article:

"the driver of a Porsche Macan SUV lost control of his vehicle and mounted the pavement, killing four people"

In other words, it was the drivers fault. Any car can be a weapon in the wrong hands. However, the use of phrases like "highly profitable 4x4 vehicles" just screams left-wing begrudgery to me.

In other words, it isn't SUVs that are an issue, it is crap drivers. Once again, they are clinging on to extinction rebellion derangement syndrome and the death of pedestrians to imbue the banning of SUVs with a social justice message.

Shai

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The part of the issue here is highlighted in bold from the article:

"the driver of a Porsche Macan SUV lost control of his vehicle and mounted the pavement, killing four people"

In other words, it was the drivers fault. Any car can be a weapon in the wrong hands. However, the use of phrases like "highly profitable 4x4 vehicles" just screams left-wing begrudgery to me.

In other words, it isn't SUVs that are an issue, it is crap drivers. Once again, they are clinging on to extinction rebellion derangement syndrome and the death of pedestrians to imbue the banning of SUVs with a social justice message.

Thank you for your well thought out contribution that in no way completely manages to miss the point of an article containing such phrases as "You’re saying if you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed". Your thoughtful analysis ascribing traffic safety to "left-wing begrudgery" was especially insightful, and - rest assured - in no way reads like inane rantings spawned by a half forgotten fever dream.

patrickbrophy18

Shai wrote: »

Thank you for your well thought out contribution that in no way completely manages to miss the point of an article containing such phrases as "You’re saying if you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed". Your thoughtful analysis ascribing traffic safety to "left-wing begrudgery" was especially insightful, and - rest assured - in no way reads like inane rantings spawned by a half forgotten fever dream.

I was merely pointing out that the primary cause of deaths is always human.

Obviously, the bigger the vehicle, the larger the damage. At the end of the day, we have to realise that people are ultimately at the helm of these vehicles with the exception of self-driving ones which are still being refined and a good bit away from being mainstreamed.

So, in other words, the article is drawing attention away from the real root cause of these road deaths which is the driver.

Then again, with a charter like "attack the post and not the poster", it is no surprise that we are attacking the car and not the driver in this case.

Emissions are conveniently thrown in to the article playing into the extinction rebellion derangement syndrome when the article itself is essentially dealing with vehicular homicide. Emissions are an unfortunate bi-product of driving while vehicular homicide is always a bi-product of people.

Let's stop relinquishing personal responsibility.

frillyleaf

Duckjob wrote: »

I don't like SUVs. Never have. Even so, I think think banning them outright from cities is the answer. Would make much more logical sense to put them into a truck/bus licence category, since you see people everyday who simply don't have the ability to drive them safely.

People who really need them can go and obtain the licence for them, whereas the additional licence requirement should deter 95% of those who don't have a specific need for them.

Also, tax the sh*t out of them since due to their extra weight they create huge amounts of unnecessary wear and tear on our roads.

That’s a great idea!

magicbastarder

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I was merely pointing out that the primary cause of deaths is always human.

guns don't kill people, etc. etc.
whatever the article said or didn't say, the thread has been about emissions, size, and how they affect the chances of accidents and injuries/deaths.

as regards 'the real root cause of these deaths', yes, you can focus on the driver. there are a large number of SUV drivers who have picked SUVs partly because they've made the calculation that a collision is inevitable, and they may as well come out on top in that eventuality. the difficult calculation for society is how to deal with that 'i'm all right jack' impulse, and stop people from externalising the costs of their vehicle choice onto bystanders.

patrickbrophy18

magicbastarder wrote: »

guns don't kill people, etc. etc.
whatever the article said or didn't say, the thread has been about emissions, size, and how they affect the chances of accidents and injuries/deaths.

The same could be said about buses and trucks due to their size. However, this thread seems to be singling out SUVs and their owners.

magicbastarder wrote: »

as regards 'the real root cause of these deaths', yes, you can focus on the driver.

That's because this is where the true fault lies and not the type of vehicle or their emissions.

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are a large number of SUV drivers who have picked SUVs partly because they've made the calculation that a collision is inevitable

Where is the evidence of this?

The way this statement reads, you'd swear that some of the people buying them are buying them in self-defence or have resigned themselves to the fact that they are going to be involved in an accident. This is ludicrous. The main reason is because they like the vehicle.

Having said that, many 4x4 vehicles are great for various types of terrain. So, they are better equipped for some harsher driving environments.

magicbastarder wrote: »

...., and they may as well come out on top in that eventuality.

What?

magicbastarder wrote: »

the difficult calculation for society is how to deal with that 'i'm all right jack' impulse

Eh....................difficult calculation for society?

magicbastarder wrote: »

and stop people from externalising the costs of their vehicle choice onto bystanders.

What do you mean by this?

Stark

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The same could be said about buses and trucks due to their size. However, this thread seems to be singling out SUVs and their owners.

You need a different category of license to drive a bus or a truck.

Atlantic Dawn

Schools should have signs up outside telling idiotic parents not to have their diesel death wagons idling outside waiting to pick up their kids.

heroics

I had a saloon and when we had another kid I got an estate and my wife has an x1. I was never interested in the SUV type vehicle but Jesus its so much easier to put the kids into my wife’s car than mine just at the right height no bending over etc. Still fit more stuff in mine but it has a much larger footprint (50cm longer and 5 cm wider) why is the suv the problem exactly?

When I change for a 7 seater I’ll prob go for an x5/Q7 because I just don’t want to drive a Van which is what most other 7 seaters remind me of.

Cordell

SUV is the problem just because it's easier to focus the guilt of car owners on something that they don't own.
If SUVs are bad, they are just as bad as every other type of car, when something is bad it makes no difference when something else it just a bit worse. If you want green safe transport you need to have a problem with all personal cars, you don't get to pick and choose.

magicbastarder

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

i'm not sure what you want me to explain here, do you need me to explain what externalising costs means?

dvdman1

Cordell wrote: »

SUV is the problem just because it's easier to focus the guilt of car owners on something that they don't own.
If SUVs are bad, they are just as bad as every other type of car, when something is bad it makes no difference when something else it just a bit worse. If you want green safe transport you need to have a problem with all personal cars, you don't get to pick and choose.

What about full electric cars, do you have an issue with these? They represent the same collision hazards

drunkmonkey

dvdman1 wrote: »

What about full electric cars, do you have an issue with these? They represent the same collision hazards

There more of a hazard as you can't hear them coming as well. Chaps are modding their Tesla's to turn off the sound pedestrians can hear, which isn't recognisable anyway.

dvdman1

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There more of a hazard as you can't hear them coming as well. Chaps are modding their Tesla's to turn off the sound pedestrians can hear, which isn't recognisable anyway.

Eu regulations are to change this manufacturers will be forced to add sound and existing electric will have to be modified.

drunkmonkey

dvdman1 wrote: »

Eu regulations are to change this manufacturers will be forced to add sound and existing electric will have to be modified.

They have changed since the summer but it's not a retrospective law and I don't think they defined a standard noise.

Yer Da sells Avon

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The same could be said about buses and trucks due to their size. However, this thread seems to be singling out SUVs and their owners.

The same can't be said about buses and trucks because - unlike ridiculous SUVs - they're big for a valid reason.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

For the past 15 years I have been driving hatchback cars. However, I am dwarfed by these monsters. My next car is going to be an SUV of some sort. XC60 or Skoda Kodiaq. Regarding fuel consumption, these cars are not much different to the small car I am currently driving.

Cordell

dvdman1 wrote: »

What about full electric cars, do you have an issue with these? They represent the same collision hazards

Yes. From the safety point of view they are just the same. From environmental point of view, they are not too different, except for their zero emission thing - they don't affect the air where they are used, but they are not zero emission at a global level, where the CO2 counts.
They are a step forward indeed, but a very small one. You are not green by using an EV, you are still as far away as possible from being green.

magicbastarder

Kayla Howling Surfboard wrote: »

For the past 15 years I have been driving hatchback cars. However, I am dwarfed by these monsters. My next car is going to be an SUV of some sort.

it's an arms race.

nthclare

Ah yeah let's ban people from driving altogether, lets take people's spontaneity from them and wrap it up in environmental concern.

Let's control people's hobbies and lust for life, let's stop people from having a choice.

This banning has to stop, and it's usually perpetuated by boring people with no lust for life, enjoyment and empathy....

Drive on... and enjoy your lives the sky's not falling down..

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

Let's control people's hobbies and lust for life

if your lust for life is doing the shopping in a range rover, i pity you.

Yer Da sells Avon

nthclare wrote: »

Ah yeah let's ban people from driving altogether, lets take people's spontaneity from them and wrap it up in environmental concern.

Let's control people's hobbies and lust for life, let's stop people from having a choice.

This banning has to stop, and it's usually perpetuated by boring people with no lust for life, enjoyment and empathy....

Drive on... and enjoy your lives the sky's not falling down..

If buying an identical SUV to all the other SUVs, for the sole purpose of driving around town in traffic was my idea of having 'a lust for life', I'd reevaluate my life. How inexorably dull would your life be if your idea of 'spontaneity' was getting a PCP deal on a constantly depreciating lump of ugly metal?

It's no more a 'hobby' than owning a fancy washing machine.

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

if your lust for life is doing the shopping in a range rover, i pity you.

I'm speaking metaphorically, and you know dam well there's a difference between an SUV and a land rover.

I never mentioned my lust for life is going shopping in a range rover, so adding your own story to my post isn't stacking up really well.

nthclare

The greens came up with something about 30 cars could run a village, there's more of it

magicbastarder

okay then, you should have explained what you mean. not my fault you left yourself wide open for misinterpretation.
where do you see people driving SUVs that demonstrates their lust for life? or have you fallen for the frankly absurd marketing that is used to help sell them?

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

okay then, you should have explained what you mean. not my fault you left yourself wide open for misinterpretation.
where do you see people driving SUVs that demonstrates their lust for life? or have you fallen for the frankly absurd marketing that is used to help sell them?

Well if you read my post with an open mind maybe you'd understand it better.

I know people who need SUVs for hobbies like, sea Angling, surfing, they're handy for dog's, they feel safer and it's more comfortable being up higher when you're driving.

We live in a country where it's up to people to make up their own mind,waste their own money on big car's etc

I'm looking at it from an angle if you try to control what people drive and where they drive,then we're taking people's freedom and choices away from them.

Start with the SUVs then work theirs way down.

magicbastarder

you obviously didn't read the thread. people are discussing the use of oversized vehicles *where they're not needed*

and also, being higher up when driving to make it safer for you means restricting the visibility - and making it less safe - for others. you're basically transferring the danger onto other people.

drunkmonkey

There not needed in the city by city folk. Trying to control who needs one and who doesn't would be next near impossible though unless it's a specific city tax, tbh if you can afford them a little fine won't put you off, some people use clamping and tow aways as valet parking.

meeeeh

What would the new puritans turn against if there was no choice in what care to buy. Would they then frown at people who use bus instead of train, train instead of bike and so on.

I don't like SUVs but arms race, banning cars and similar nonsense are just mindset that's replacing religion. Anyone who is less than pure and drives an SUV should become an outcast.

nthclare

It's quite easy to offset co2 emissions, plant up city scapes more.

Have small hedge's lining some street's, grow horse chestnut trees and prune them regularly... white Oak take in a lot of co2

Have jasmine attached to buildings, and other climber's it'll enhance the look of buildings and look far more attractive.

Just cut out a tasty looking half moon shape against the buildings, plant your climber's, and train them, there's plenty of hot wall's on buildings where you could grow fruit's too.
You'll have more bee's and butterflies too.

Weeds look dirty I know, but they have their uses too, a grassy verg along kirbing can help too.

Fine Gael love being the first to do this that and the other, maybe having the first fully environmentally friendly street scape would go down well..

cdaly_

nthclare wrote: »

Ah yeah let's ban people from driving altogether, lets take people's spontaneity from them and wrap it up in environmental concern.

Drive on... and enjoy your lives the sky's not falling down..

Actually, it is...

https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-and-extreme-weather
https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme-weather-and-climate-change/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/science-connecting-extreme-weather-climate-change
https://www.met.ie/climate-change-and-its-role-in-extreme-weather-events-in-europe

cdaly_

nthclare wrote: »

Ah yeah let's ban people from driving altogether, lets take people's spontaneity from them and wrap it up in environmental concern.

Drive on... and enjoy your lives the sky's not falling down..

Also, from the climate change perspective, it's important to remember that those of us who are driving now will likely escape the worst effects 'cos we'll be dead by then. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who will pay for our choices...

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

It's quite easy to offset co2 emissions, plant up city scapes more.

Have small hedge's lining some street's, grow horse chestnut trees and prune them regularly... white Oak take in a lot of co2

i would love to see your calculations on how easy it is.

your average modern car produces about 100g of CO2 per km driven. a reasonably mature tree can take in - in ideal circumstances - about 100g of CO2 a day. so let's take this upper maximum (in practice, i think it's less than half that, but we'll leave that for now).
so if you drive an average of 1km per day, you'll need to plant one tree to offset that. as (AFAIK) the average distance covered by a car every day in ireland is about 40km, you'll need 40 trees *per car* to offset the carbon, and that's in idealised circumstances for tree growth.
planting hedges as a way of offsetting CO2 is quite simply not even worth bothering.

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would love to see your calculations on how easy it is.

your average modern car produces about 100g of CO2 per km driven. a reasonably mature tree can take in - in ideal circumstances - about 100g of CO2 a day. so let's take this upper maximum (in practice, i think it's less than half that, but we'll leave that for now).
so if you drive an average of 1km per day, you'll need to plant one tree to offset that. as (AFAIK) the average distance covered by a car every day in ireland is about 40km, you'll need 40 trees *per car* to offset the carbon, and that's in idealised circumstances for tree growth.
planting hedges as a way of offsetting CO2 is quite simply not even worth bothering.

I appreciate your lack of commitment to any suggestions to offset a way to reduce emissions.

What's your suggestion so ?

Horse's ?