Why the reign of SUVs on Irish roads should end

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351028#Comment_121351028

Last time they did that things went a bit too far.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351012#Comment_121351012

Is that a thing here in Ireland? From what I'm seeing old people tend to drive small and very small cars.

Balsamnews

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351028#Comment_121351028

They do

They are called electric vehicles

yagan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351058#Comment_121351058

I agree with the more comfortable seating position. There are car like the Opel Crossland, Dacia Sandero and Seat Arona that can give you that better visibility with the same width as a standard Yaris.

I won't be surprised if there's a turn against Tuscan sized cars in time.

yagan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351091#Comment_121351091

I'm seeing it more and more, usually Hyundias.

I had a tough time dissuading a relative in their 80s from changing from a Corolla to a Tuscan. Thankfully they've come around to downsizing to a Yaris as they only drive to the local shop now for milk and ham. But for a while there they were convinced the higher up Tuscan would be easier to park than their Corolla, despite all the scrapes on their bumper saying otherwise.

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345025#Comment_121345025

Hyundai seem to disagree with you on that. https://www.hyundai.ie/tucson/design.html

But rather than trying to explicitly define SUVs, and then ban them, it would likely be more effective to target those elements of SUVs that give rise to danger to other road users. So a high impact point at the front, a higher centre of gravity, larger blind spots, higher weight, greater width and length could all be disincentivised either by higher taxes or restrictions on use.

Dublin already limits (in theory) the entry of five-axle trucks. Many cities in other countries limit smaller trucks/vans during the busiest times of the day. In one city I worked in you had to get deliveries done before 7AM if you wanted to use anything larger than a Ford Transit Connect. Lots of scope there to reduce the number of more dangerous vehicles on our streets by implementing targetted restrictions. And we already have laws about the use and tax treatment of commercial vehicles that are not enforced. If the existing laws were enforced you'd see far fewer Ford Rangers on the road as they would no longer be attractive as a daily commuter car for a creche owner (to give one real life example).

Ramasun

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121350783#Comment_121350783

That might already be happening judging by the reports of Ghost buses around the country.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351140#Comment_121351140

The biggest game changer I've seen for older drivers is the automatic gears.

Definitely extended their driving career by several years in a few cases.

creedp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121350958#Comment_121350958

I think I could come up with a myriad of sensible reasons not to pay tax if it meant revenue would emphatise with my genuine concerns 😂

creedp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121350908#Comment_121350908

A Yaris or Corolla Cross fits the bill, neither are monsters just slightly jacked up versions of the cars they drove all their lives. No need to break out the national guard just yet

yagan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351431#Comment_121351431

A standard Yaris is actually more upright than a corolla and probably all anyone who only drives to the shop for milk and ham needs.

I reckon there's an opening for a dealership that will stock all brands but by segment size.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351269#Comment_121351269

Of course they do, they need to sell SUVs at SUV prices. And yet as far as the size and weight goes, the Tucson is in the same category as the Passat:

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351058#Comment_121351058

I have a Tiguan and have had it a while - 7 years.

When I first got it, I found it impossible to park as I could not see the kerb, but I adjusted the door mirrors and problem solved. By lowering the mirrors, I find it very easier to park than my previous car because my higher viewpoint allows me to see the kerb near the back wheel, while still seeing the rear view as normal. As a result, it is dead easy to park, and drive.

The aerodynamics of a brick make it heavy on fuel.

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351513#Comment_121351513

Just because you can point to a saloon that's longer than the Tucson doesn't stop the Tucson being an SUV. The current 520i is similarly slightly longer and slightly heavier than a Santa Fe but that doesn't stop a Santa Fe being an SUV.

Both the Tucson and the Santa Fe have a higher centre of gravity, and a higher front impact point, making them inherently more unstable than an equivalent saloon shaped car and more likely to seriously injure or kill someone outside the car in the event of a collision.

Cordell

Then my question is: are those large saloons just as undesirable, or is it just a problem with SUVs simply because some don't like how they look? That saloon heavier than a Santa Fe is much more likely to seriously injure or kill someone in a smaller and lighter car simply because it is heavier. And Tucson, the SUV that isn't neither sport or utility, is only marginally higher, and lighter than many saloons, hence probably safer for other cars.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121352957#Comment_121352957

I am not really sure its just trendy to be anti cars without actually being seen to target all cars. I could understand if it was just against SUV's but its really an anti crossovers thing in Ireland. The market changed 10+ years ago and accross Europe and cross overs became popular. while they have slightly higher bonnets than a standard saloon in general they are not as powerful as many larger saloons. As you get older they are more comfortable to drive and the better visibility compensates for the risk attached to a slightly higher bonnet. The safety record of people driving these crossover cars is higher than those driving standard saloons.

there is a case for targeting larger SUV's such as Land cruisers, Rangerover, BMW X5 or AudiQ5, but the targeting of crossovers is just an anti car targeting mechanism

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121352142#Comment_121352142

A Tuscon is closer in size to a Ford Focus, than it is to an X7. It's not a particularly large vehicle by many standards.

A Tuscon is kinder to pedestrians than an i10, and is also less likely to hit them in the first place.

The same is true for a Ford Ranger, versus a Puma.

I'm not saying that larger cars are more safe for pedestrians in general, and your point on the 520i, happens to be true, but there are so many outliers, that you are far better to look at the design of an individual vehicle rather than try to apply labels like "SUV" when it comes to safety policy as it's way too general.

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353341#Comment_121353341

@kirving "I'm not saying that larger cars are more safe for pedestrians in general, and your point on the 520i, happens to be true, but there are so many outliers, that you are far better to look at the design of an individual vehicle rather than try to apply labels like "SUV" when it comes to safety policy as it's way too general."

So we are basically on exactly the same page, as what I wrote in my earlier post was:

But rather than trying to explicitly define SUVs, and then ban them, it would likely be more effective to target those elements of SUVs that give rise to danger to other road users. So a high impact point at the front, a higher centre of gravity, larger blind spots, higher weight, greater width and length could all be disincentivised either by higher taxes or restrictions on use.

Good to know we agree, I guess.

Unrealistic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121352957#Comment_121352957

I don't know who is complaining about the looks of cars? Certainly not me. The link between higher points of impact and greater pedestrian injuries and deaths is well documented. To dismiss those concerns as somehow superficial and based on looks comes across as extremely shallow.

The difference between the weight of a 520i and a Santa Fe is so small that adding a teenager to the passenger seat of a Santa Fe would put it over the weight of a 520i with just a driver. Either way, a smaller lighter car hit by a 520i is going to take more of the impact in its crumple zones designed to protect the occupants. A Santa Fe is going to direct more of that impact over the crumple zones and into the cabin. So I'm not sure where you got the idea that the saloon is "much more likely to seriously injure or kill someone".

Regarding the Tucson, marginal differences in height are critical. Just looking at the pictures posted above it's clear that the Passat would hit the average pedestrian just above knee level while the Tucson would impact closer to hip level. That's the difference between being thrown over the car and being mangled underneath it. And comparing a Tucson to heavy saloons is a distraction. In reality the Tucson is bought by the same demographic that would previously have bought a Focus, Almera or similar models with a body shape that was much less dangerous for those on the outside.

Burt Renaults

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351028#Comment_121351028

A better idea would be to incentivise the purchase of smaller cars, thus discouraging the manufacturers from discontinuing them. Pay for it with a punitive tax on SUVs and pointless crossovers.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353404#Comment_121353404

While you're not saying an "SUV" is a problem, you're still targeting height, but that is still too general an assessment IMO.

EuroNCAP say that a Tuscon is kinder to pedestrians than an i10. That is down to individual vehicle design rather than height. The Tuscon too has more active collision avoidance technology to prevent a collision in the first place.

Weight is of little to no consequence if a VRU is hit by a vehicle.

yagan

How is a Tuscan kinder to pedestrians than an i10?

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353528#Comment_121353528

To dismiss those concerns as somehow superficial and based on looks comes across as extremely shallow.

I'm dismissing them as obsolete and misleading. What's sold now as SUVs in Ireland and Europe it is not what was considered SUV some years ago. Especially considering those studies which were done in America on proper SUVs. What we have here are cars that look like SUVs but aren't. They aren't big, the just look big.

So I'm not sure where you got the idea that the saloon is "much more likely to seriously injure or kill someone".

Weight difference is extremely important when 2 different cars collide. So extremely important that even EuroNCAP results no longer apply if the cars are of significantly different weights. This is the assumption when they crash a car into a fixed deformable obstacle, that the other car will be of similar mass, with similar inertia. If the other car is heavier the forces exerted on the passengers in the lighter car will be much larger regardless of cabin integrity.

Just looking at the pictures posted above it's clear that the Passat would hit the average pedestrian just above knee level while the Tucson would impact closer to hip level. That's the difference between being thrown over the car and being mangled underneath it.

Proper safety ratings put Tucson above Passat for pedestrian protection, maybe we should trust those over eyeballing it.

So to add a point: if we are concerned about pedestrians we should encourage cars that avoid accidents by making active safety systems mandatory, and not simply prefer those who will hurt less. This crusade against SUVs that aren't even proper SUVs is simply misguided.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353610#Comment_121353610

Why do we love punitive taxes, but within weeks of taxes being established do we very very queitly revolt?

Most of the "suv's" I see are just high up cars. Vw Golf with heel lifts. Nissan Almera's with bum implants and high heels.

Next we want to see Electric car drivers hit with taxes for their charging at work or from their private solar panels at home.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353734#Comment_121353734

Look at the EuroNCAP ratings I posted above for both.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353610#Comment_121353610

Apologies it was just a cheap nazi joke , I love huge cars

bladespin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121353884#Comment_121353884

Charging at work would be subject to BIK already.

liamog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121461682#Comment_121461682

Charging at work is not currently seen as attacting BIK. Revenue were treating it in a similar vein to on-site coffee supply, a benefit that is neglible to to the point of being non taxable.

bladespin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121461730#Comment_121461730

See how long that lasts ;)

liamog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121461743#Comment_121461743

I expect companies offering free charging in the workplace will end long before revenue feel the need to create a complicated system for tracking energy provided versus electricity costs to accuretly measure the BIK. I'm sure the usual gaggle of consultants will propose it so they can make money building a system.