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

Marcusm · 07-10-2019 07:04PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Some of the bigger ones are over two metres wide and five metres long. No non-commercial vehicle should be that size.

Not much different from a Skoda Superb estate do 1.9m x 4.9m roughly.

Eric Cartman · 07-10-2019 07:13PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

It would be much easier if we just banned everyone and everything that isn't a car driver.

Pedestrians - get rid of them. Cyclists get rid of them. Scooters- get rid of them.

finally, somebody sees sense.

Eric Cartman · 07-10-2019 07:16PM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That would make many high powered sports cars much cheaper to tax/insure than a standard family car. That wouldn't make any sense.

and shockingly luxury 4x4s are rather cheap to insure because deaths are more likely than injuries if it hits somebody, and funerals are cheaper than a lifetime of care.

was shocked at how cheap the quote was at first on my range rover compared to others , till the lad down the phone told me that it had a 5 star NCAP driver and passenger safety rating but a 0 star safety rating for other vehicles and pedestrians, it has a massive compatability problem with the front bumper meaning it rolls over most other cars in the event of a collision.

best city car ever...

Pinch Flat · 07-10-2019 07:19PM

For anyone who has a 800m journey to drop the kids to school, a SUV is an absolute must. Some journeys can involve unforded rivers, deep ravines and other hazardous off road conditions.

cnocbui · 07-10-2019 07:20PM

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That would make many high powered sports cars much cheaper to tax/insure than a standard family car. That wouldn't make any sense.

Makes more sense than having diesel powered cars cheaper to tax and run than petrol ones.

You are driving a Ford Focus with spouse and two children. You proceed through a traffic light controlled intersection. A vehicle runs a red light and T-bones your Focus on the passenger side. Given the same velocity at impact, would you prefer to be hit by a Jeep Cherokee or a Mazda MX5?

What is happening is basically an arms race. Heavy vehicles are lowering the death and injury rates for their occupants, when involved in collisions with vehicles of lower mass, but achieving that be correspondingly increasing the rates of death and injury in the occupants of the lighter vehicle.

Failing an outright ban, I don't see any way to discourage this vehicle mass arms race other than to increase the ownership costs of heavy vehicles by a very substantial amount.

As someone earlier pointed out, the damage caused to roads is not a linear function of their weight, so heavier vehicles cost disproportionately more in terms of road repair and maintenance.

magicbastarder · 08-10-2019 10:08AM

not that i'm often given to posting jeremy clarkson videos:

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

Peregrine · 08-10-2019 10:51PM

Ah, the Ranelagh Tractor. Where to begin.

Higher chance of injury and death to others when involved in crashes — particularly children who get dragged underneath the vehicle.

Higher emissions. 1500+ people die to pollution related illnesses per year in Ireland and transport is a significant contributor to that. Not to mention the thousands who live with illnesses caused by our pollution levels.

Takes up an incredible amount of space in our already congested roads. Usually occupied by a single person. When they're not in use, they still take up an unfair amount of space parked up.

Extremely inefficient use of energy. Moving 2 tonnes of metal to transport a single person often weighing less than 100kg from point to point is one of the most acceptable forms of waste in our society.

The vast majority of these vehicles are not used for sports utility. They shouldn't be allowed within cities, for starters. If a city like Madrid can ban polluting cars from its city centre, banning SUVs from the city centre will be child's play. All it takes is a little ambition and a sense of what's important. This arms race has gone on far too long.

AMKC · 08-10-2019 11:02PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

not that i'm often given to posting jeremy clarkson videos:

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

A man ahead of his time on that lol.

Volvo SUV's are better than other's if a car hits them front on as Volvo has two front cross beams on the SUV's one for cars low down like hatchbacks and saloons and one higher for SUV'S and other higher cars. It always amazes me that no one else has never done this. So if you are going to have a head on crash with on SUV make sure its a Volvo lol.

NotToScale · 08-10-2019 11:15PM

The term SUV gets thrown around without much sense to it though - I mean if you consider something like the Toyota C-HR, which is a 'subcompact' hybrid car with a higher driving position is described as an SUV and so is a some huge Range Rover.
The likes of the CH-R is basically just a hatchback stretched upwards a bit.

Cars deigned for off-road driving and utility work are ridiculous in urban environments but those crossovers are not really SUVs in my opinion, considering most of them would be as useless as a Corolla as a utility vehicle and I have no idea what sports you could do with them.

gctest50 · 08-10-2019 11:16PM

A gclass will do its best to stop for pedestrians and cyclists all by itself

So which would you prefer ?

You and your child croosing the road and nearly getting flattened by merc jeep but the electronics kicked in

or

scraping whats left of your family off the road after you got ploughed into by a car ?

Peregrine · 08-10-2019 11:26PM

gctest50 wrote: »

A gclass will do its best to stop for pedestrians and cyclists all by itself

So which would you prefer ?

You and your child croosing the road and nearly getting flattened by merc jeep but the electronics kicked in

or

scraping whats left of your family off the road after you got ploughed into by a car ?

Is there something special about that particular SUV that makes it the only car in the world capable of having automatic braking? Is it not possible to make smaller cars with an intelligent braking system?

Is there any reason why you're presenting this silly binary choice?

Muahahaha · 08-10-2019 11:32PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'll admit to one definite issue i have with them, and it's the height issue i mentioned earlier. when i go into the office, i commute by bike, and one obvious part of anticipating the road and environment around me for my own safety, is being able to see it - and i can't see over a lot of SUVs, they're so tall. so i have to be more cautious when around them in traffic.

+1 on this, their height makes them less safe for other road users. With a normal heighted car you can see through it and will see the car in front of it hitting the brakes. With an SUV your view is completely blocked so you end up braking later.

I've wondered is there some kind of EU guidlines and how tall/wide manufacturers are allowed to build vehicles for the consumer market? Is there a limit to this war or can they just keep making them even more taller and wider while pointing to commercial vehicles as being even bigger as mitigation?

Andrewf20 · 08-10-2019 11:33PM

Do they really take up that much space compared to say a 5 series? Most of the space they take up is in the vertical direction.

Heres some stats:

VC90 footprint = 4953mm long & 2140mm wide
5 series BMW = 4936mm long & 2126mmm wide

Its basically 1% bigger.

gctest50 · 08-10-2019 11:37PM

Peregrine wrote: »

.......

Is there any reason why you're presenting this silly binary choice?

Oh lawd she sciencin'

Not a silly binary choice, because of the thread title :

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

and if that Gwagon can do automatic braking, no reason other SUVs can't do the same

Peregrine · 08-10-2019 11:42PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Oh lawd she sciencin'

Not a silly binary choice, because of the thread title :

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

and if that Gwagon can do automatic braking, no reason other SUVs can't do the same

And is there a reason why a car can't do the same? If not, this is definitely a silly binary choice:

gctest50 wrote: »

So which would you prefer ?

You and your child croosing the road and nearly getting flattened by merc jeep but the electronics kicked in

or

scraping whats left of your family off the road after you got ploughed into by a car ?

gctest50 · 08-10-2019 11:55PM

Peregrine wrote: »

And is there a reason why a car can't do the same? ............

In a few years *all vehicles without automatic braking should be banned from built up areas

*outside of special vehicles like sweepers etc

Peregrine · 09-10-2019 12:03AM

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Do they really take up that much space compared to say a 5 series? Most of the space they take up is in the vertical direction.

Heres some stats:

VC90 footprint = 4953mm long & 2140mm wide
5 series BMW = 4936mm long & 2126mmm wide

Its basically 1% bigger.

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.

Andrewf20 · 09-10-2019 01:40AM

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.

Because some folks talk about SUVs and their size as if they are exclusively bigger than a broader range of cars - a 5 series BMW is 1 example of whats fairly typical out there. There are many more of course of similar and bigger size - Ford Mondeos, Skoda Superbs etc.

The argument about size is too confined to just be about SUV's.

magicbastarder · 09-10-2019 07:26AM

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Do they really take up that much space compared to say a 5 series? Most of the space they take up is in the vertical direction.

Heres some stats:

VC90 footprint = 4953mm long & 2140mm wide
5 series BMW = 4936mm long & 2126mmm wide

Its basically 1% bigger.

you're talking about footprint, not overall size.

Andrewf20 · 09-10-2019 07:28AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're talking about footprint, not overall size.

Exactly. I'm a cyclist / motorist and I don't find they take up much space relative to a lot of large saloons out there. The biggest issue is where people place their cars in traffic. A micra wedged up near the kerb in parked traffic can be a nuisance too.

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

The emissions argument could be extended to performance / super cars that drink fuel too. More expensive fuel would probably make people think twice about bringing a gas guzzler into cities.

meeeeh · 09-10-2019 08:29AM

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 · 09-10-2019 08:59AM

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 · 09-10-2019 09:15AM

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 · 09-10-2019 09:18AM

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 · 09-10-2019 09:23AM

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 · 09-10-2019 10:02AM

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 · 09-10-2019 11:55AM

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 · 09-10-2019 12:01PM

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 · 09-10-2019 12:12PM

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 · 09-10-2019 12:23PM

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.

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

Comments