Why do people drive unnecessarily large cars?

I got ChatGPT to summarise it. I didn't ask it for it's environmental impact though ...

Large cars:

Higher Manufacturing Impact: Large cars require more raw materials, energy, and produce more CO₂ emissions during production.

Increased Fuel Consumption & Emissions: Larger vehicles consume more fuel, emitting more CO₂, NOx, and particulates during use.

Greater Energy Use (for EVs): Larger electric vehicles have bigger batteries, requiring more mining for materials and higher electricity consumption.

More Infrastructure Wear: Heavy vehicles cause more damage to roads, leading to greater maintenance needs and associated emissions.

Higher End-of-Life Disposal Impact: Larger cars generate more material waste and are more complex to recycle or dispose of.

Indirect Environmental Effects: Large cars contribute to urban sprawl, traffic congestion, and greater environmental damage from paved infrastructure.

Safety Concerns: Large cars may offer better protection for their occupants, but they are more likely to cause greater harm to pedestrians and smaller vehicles in accidents. This increases the overall safety risks on the road and leads to higher injury severity for other road users.

I don't need to know.

I'm just saying you are judging people as greedy and selfish because they don't like life like you do.

There are plenty of things we could do to cut down on our environmental impact and we could always give more to charity and those less fortunate.

We all have different priorities and nobody knows why these anecdotal 1km journey gas guzzlers have been bought. They might need it for other reasons.

But labelling them as greedy and selfish is not fair.

You’ve a dog and a cat! That’s so environmentally destructive!! How dare you

Post 604 and it's not a valid point at all.

I don't care what car you have, I do not think our roads and urban areas are designed for the large SUVs that are increasingly common.

It's a completely false assertion. Bin trucks, Amazon vans, transits, post vans, coal trucks etc. have been operating on our roads for years, decades in some instances, interacting with pedestrians and vulnerable road users. The roads are fine.

They are well capable of accommodating the style of SUV in this country. Claiming otherwise is a stretch; I'd wager it's a load of faux concern to hide the fact that they just don't like them but haven't got the balls to say as much, because they're afraid of being labelled a moanbag, but that's my own opinion.

Using Chat GPT?!

"Cloud computing, which AI developers like OpenAI use, relies on the chips inside these data centres to train algorithms and analyse data. According to estimates, ChatGPT emits 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide per year, more than twice the amount that is emitted by an individual, which is 4 tons per year"

Hmmm.

'and urban areas' makes it valid.

In what way does it make it valid? Yopu're not actually giving any reason for the validation, you're just saying it, but that doesn't make it true. Here, watch this: "including urban areas invalidates it even further". That's just a statement with nothing to support it. It's meaningless, just as meaningless as what you're said.

if the point was 'SUVs don't physically fit on the roads' then yes, i don't think that's tenable.

That's not what was said though, WTF is up with people countering arguments that are in their head? The point was that the roads aren't designed for cars bigger than a standard saloon/estate. This is codswallop. You don't think they factored in larger vehicles when designing the roads? You think they said "yeah, we'll never have anything larger than a corolla on the streets, let's eliminate any safety concerns so"? Really? Because anyone defending that point is essentially making that argument.

and your argument is a slippery slope one. are we going to be here in ten years time when cars are double the size they are now, arguing the same thing, and the defence is going to be 'but they're still smaller than fire tenders/coal trucks were in the 70s'?

The cognitive dissonance is off the charts. How can you accuse someone of making a slippery slope argument while you yourself are making a slippery slope argument? Are cars twice as big as they were 10 years ago? No, of course not. Are they twice as big as they were 30 years ago? Or 50 years ago?* No, of course not. Why do you think they'll be twice as big in 10 years time then?

If someone is making similarly stupid arguments in ten years time, hit me up and I'll dismiss them just as easily.

*Before anyone jumps in here, let me save your breath:

Ford Cortina was the best selling car in Ireland in 1975. The mk III cortina had a length of 4,261 mm, a width of 1,702 mm and a height of 1,321 mm. A Tucson is a foot taller, another foot longer and about 10cm wider. Cars haven't doubled in size since they were invented. They're not going to do so again for the next 100 years, never mind 10. Claiming otherwise is an actual slippery slope argument, not, y'know, pointing out that we can already accommodate vehicles that are twice as large.

So customers with smaller cars are paying for higher overheads to accommodate those with larger cars.

They are probably paying more for tax in their petrol/diesel consumption so don't worry, it will work out. I'd be more worried about the money wasted on cycle paths.

Yes, that's why I sarcastically said I didn't ask it about it's environmental impact.

That's greedy and selfish. You could drive a smaller car, or sell it and get a bike, and save some destruction of the planet, and even use the money you save to give to the poor and starving on the planet.

And what if that single male regularly transports friends or family members when not working?

My point stands.

You are making assumptions about the reasons why people might choose to buy the cars they do.

And quite frankly, I see it as nobody else's business.