nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

magicbastarder

Statistically less safe than regular cars and with higher CO2 emissions, campaigners argue the heavily-marketed cars have no place in urban areas

"SUV insanity” shouted the front page of German business newspaper Handelsblatt earlier this month, showcasing a weekend special questioning the aggressive marketing by carmakers of highly profitable 4x4 vehicles.

That evening, at a busy Berlin intersection, the driver of a Porsche Macan SUV lost control of his vehicle and mounted the pavement, killing four people: a three-year-old boy and his 64-year-old grandmother, and two men in their 20s.

The city erupted. “It was no longer a theoretical danger; people were being killed,” says Benjamin Stephan, a transport and climate change campaigner at Greenpeace. “There was a public outcry. It didn’t come from nowhere, people are upset about these cars.”

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities

i'm bemused by volvo's claim that no-one will die in a volvo after 2020. they'll achieve that with the XC90, it's so big now that hitting a pedestrian or another car in it will be like a gnat hitting the front of a supertanker.
it's 1776mm tall; or 5'10" in old money. you'd need to be easily over 6 foot to see over the damn thing. it's a monster.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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 ?

magicbastarder

you appear to be very ill-informed about the effects of climate change, and effective ways of combatting it, but your true talent lies in finding fault with others who are able to point out the flaws in your arguments. keep up the good fight.

magicbastarder

nthclare wrote: »

What's your suggestion so ?

Horse's ?

bicycles, obviously!

dvdman1

Cordell wrote: »

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.

From a transport point a view.. a private vehicle is unbeatable as its point to point..no transport infrastructure can match a private car on the convenience, flexibility and reliability.
If the manufacturing of the batteries and parts can be made more sustainably, its the realistic way forward

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

you appear to be very ill-informed about the effects of climate change, and effective ways of combatting it, but your true talent lies in finding fault with others who are able to point out the flaws in your arguments. keep up the good fight.

I'm not arguing with anyone, I'm only having a discussion.

For a moderator you're not exactly shining a good light here.

As for bicycles, dream on

Cordell

dvdman1 wrote: »

From a transport point a view.. a private vehicle is unbeatable as its point to point..no transport infrastructure can match a private car on the convenience, flexibility and reliability.

I know, I also drive a SUV

dvdman1 wrote: »

If the manufacturing of the batteries and parts can be made more sustainably, its the realistic way forward

Yes, but private transport will never be green. It may become a bit less not-green, but it will always be far away from being green. I can't think of anything that even comes close to the waste energy and materials as the car industry and driving.

My point is that, if you're worried about environment, banning unnecessarily large cars its just polishing the turd instead of getting rid of it altogether.

magicbastarder

dvdman1 wrote: »

no transport infrastructure can match a private car on the convenience, flexibility and reliability.

the flexibility is something that is one of the best things, but also one of the biggest problems with the private car.
a decent private car can take five adults and a bootload of luggage. but the majority of the time (and commuting is probably the most common example), it's used to transport one or maybe two people, so a vehicle is being used at one fifth of its designed capacity.
one quarter, if you use the standard average (i think used on the canal cordon counts) of 1.2 occupants per private vehicle.

patrickbrophy18

The type of car someone chooses to drive is no-ones f@#$ing business. That includes SUVs.

Many people here seem to be think those choosing a car should get one that is weaker i.e. less sturdy than an SUV.

Also, people like to drive in style and comfort and shouldn't be demonised for it.

What planet are these SJWs on where they should dictate someones mode of transport down to the class of car?

magicbastarder

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The type of car someone chooses to drive is no-ones f@#$ing business.

actually, it is precisely my 'f@#$ing business' if the roads i cycle are more dangerous, or the air i breathe is more polluted because of them.
that's exactly what people are objecting to.
you want to spend €50,000 on a watch or some other luxury good, knock yourself out. your choice of a watch does not impose upon me.

donvito99

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The type of car someone chooses to drive is no-ones f@#$ing business. That includes SUVs.

People should be taxed more if their car wrecks the roads more, pollutes the air more, and is more dangerous when they inevitably run over someone.

Many people here seem to be think those choosing a car should get one that is weaker i.e. less sturdy than an SUV.

You don't need a strong car to drive to a Retail Park to buy plants.

Also, people like to drive in style and comfort and shouldn't be demonised for it.

Yes, only stupidly large SUVs are comfortable.

What planet are these SJWs on where they should dictate someones mode of transport down to the class of car?

This is not America, take you stupid phrases and small penis pick up trucks back there.

patrickbrophy18

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, it is precisely my 'f@#$ing business' if the roads i cycle are more dangerous, or the air i breathe is more polluted because of them.

As the owner of one (KIA Sportage), I habitually give cyclists a wide birth when passing them. Other than that, you don't get to dictate what I drive.

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's exactly what people are objecting to.

A bunch of busy bodies that have nothing better to do with their time. What I choose to drive is none of their business.

magicbastarder wrote: »

you want to spend €50,000 on a watch or some other luxury good, knock yourself out. your choice of a watch does not impose upon me.

Going by your response, you may have had a few close calls with SUVs. However, this is human behaviour at the end of the day. So, I amn't going to have my choice of vehicle dictated because of their mistakes.

As always, in Ireland, it is punish the many for the mistakes of the few.

donvito99 wrote: »

People should be taxed more if their car wrecks the roads more, pollutes the air more, and is more dangerous when they inevitably run over someone.

By the way, would you be making this argument if the car was electric?

Also, accidents are not always the drivers fault. The amount of chancers who I see crossing the road last minute without looking both ways is startling. Then again, the sense of entitlement here trumps personal responsibility.

donvito99 wrote: »

You don't need a strong car to drive to a Retail Park to buy plants.

There are heavier loads than just plants and it's good to have a vehicle that is equipped for heavier loads. I'm not going to limit the choice or size of my car because you feel timid around them.

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes, only stupidly large SUVs are comfortable.

This sounds like the ravings of someone with a chip on their shoulder.

donvito99 wrote: »

This is not America, take you stupid phrases and small penis pick up trucks back there.

What an amazingly "mature:rolleyes:" comment to make. So, now this thread is becoming Anti-American, is it?

Again, it sounds like someone has a chip on their shoulder.

While Ireland was up **** creek up to the late 1900s, America was thriving and set the benchmark for how many western countries operate. People in Ireland seem to find any excuse to criticise them for their success when really, it is jealousy on a mass scale because we are still dependant on foreign trade.

donvito99

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

By the way, would you be making this argument if the car was electric?

An electric car pays less tax for less pollution, so no, not the same argument.

Also, accidents are not always the drivers fault. The amount of chancers who I see crossing the road last minute without looking both ways is startling. Then again, the sense of entitlement here trumps personal responsibility.

For pedestrians, SUVs are more dangerous than regular saloon cars. Although blaming the victims and relying on that for a pass helps I suppose..

There are heavier loads than just plants and it's good to have a vehicle that is equipped for heavier loads. I'm not going to limit the choice or size of my car because you feel timid around them.

Sorry, should have added trellis, compost etc from B&Q. Definitely need the SUV for that, shure we never managed before SUVs.

This sounds like the ravings of someone with a chip on their shoulder.

This from somebody condoning people driving around in SUVs.

What an amazingly "mature:rolleyes:" comment to make. So, now this thread is becoming Anti-American, is it?

Again, it sounds like someone has a chip on their shoulder.

While Ireland was up **** creek up to the late 1900s, America was thriving and set the benchmark for how many western countries operate. People in Ireland seem to find any excuse to criticise them for their success when really, it is jealousy on a mass scale because we are still dependant on foreign trade.

Revealing. #MakeIrelandGreatAgain

meeeeh

Is Hyundai Kona an SUV?

magicbastarder

hyundai call it a 'compact SUV'.

magicbastarder

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

A bunch of busy bodies that have nothing better to do with their time. What I choose to drive is none of their business.

the fact that your car is already subject to multiple emissions standards, crash test standards, basic regulations determining equipment and the like, plus it needs to be roadworthy and/or NCTed, taxed, insured, and the driver needs to be licenced before you can take it out on the road, means that you're already in a situation where you can't choose to drive 'whatever you like'; in the sense that what you can be offered to make that choice is already governed by busybodies.

if you think i'm being a busybody because i'm not exactly happy that SUVs restrict my field of view on the bike (and this is utterly unconnected with your fallback 'it's the driver, not the car' response as it has nothing to do with the skill of the driver), so be it. but my safety on the bike *is* my business.

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

hyundai call it a 'compact SUV'.

Well I'm all in favor of banning the pretend to be something cars.

Hurrache

magicbastarder wrote: »

hyundai call it a 'compact SUV'.

That's the thing though, what dimensions should a vehicle be for some people to expect it to be banned from a city?

magicbastarder

i'm sorry i pasted the headline of the article into the thread title now, as i believe a ban would be unworkable/incredibly clunky.

Cordell

Hurrache wrote: »

That's the thing though, what dimensions should a vehicle be for some people to expect it to be banned from a city?

Anything larger than a Yaris on any direction or measurement (height, width, length, weight). Even if it only appears to be larger. That seems to be the gist of it.

Eric Cartman

Hurrache wrote: »

That's the thing though, what dimensions should a vehicle be for some people to expect it to be banned from a city?

anything larger than whatever car that poster who suggested it has, Sounds like they're jealous of luxury SUV owners....

donvito99

Eric Cartman wrote: »

anything larger than whatever car that poster who suggested it has, Sounds like they're jealous of luxury SUV owners....

If it was jealousy I would be banning anybody in a proper German saloon car.

The fact of the matter is, cars become less safe to pedestrians with raised bonnets. When these vehicles have no utility other than "I like the driving position" they should be dis-incentivised. Might even encourage people to buy proper cars...

Another issue in relation to access to the city is that SUVs (and cars more generally) have narrowed the roads. Rathmines Rd for instance was a 4 lane road in the past despite the footpaths being just as wide.