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

Cordell · 09-10-2019 01:32PM

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 · 09-10-2019 01:33PM

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 · 09-10-2019 01:58PM

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 · 09-10-2019 03:15PM

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 · 09-10-2019 08:27PM

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 · 18-10-2019 04:48PM

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 · 19-10-2019 12:56AM

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 · 19-10-2019 04:46PM

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 · 19-10-2019 05:27PM

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 · 19-10-2019 05:37PM

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 · 19-10-2019 06:19PM

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 · 20-10-2019 11:12PM

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 · 20-10-2019 11:13PM

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 · 20-10-2019 11:14PM

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 · 20-10-2019 11:23PM

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 · 21-10-2019 07:41AM

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 · 21-10-2019 08:36AM

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 · 21-10-2019 08:51AM

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 · 21-10-2019 09:25AM

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 · 21-10-2019 09:34AM

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 · 21-10-2019 09:39AM

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 · 21-10-2019 09:59AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:15AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:16AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:19AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:25AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:29AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:36AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:44AM

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 · 21-10-2019 10:45AM

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

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

Comments