A girl I work with lives in Blanchardstown, she drives daily to Summerhill in her car. Why t f?
What’s wrong with a modest hatch back?
She’s unmarried and no kids. What the f does she need it for?
I know nothing about you, and it's not about you. It's about reducing danger in the public realm.
The likes of Ford Ranger is simply not suitable in any metric as a personal use vehicle. When I need the odd job which requires something bigger than my 3.9 metre long commuting vehicle I hire a commercial van for the day.
Just because I drive a commercial van for a day doesn't then mean I hate all car drivers. Vehicles are simply utilities, I don't think of them as a personal extension. They are various classes of vehicles for various uses.
If you can't accept that the Ranger was designed primarily for loads greater than the average school and shopping trips then there's no getting through to you.
The joke about the likes of the Ranger is it's for pulling the boat I don't own to the mountain track I don't need to use.
Now we are getting into a bigger battery and relying on tesla efficiency. I don't think its possible. Take the very first Nissan Leaf for example, some of those were 24 kwh from the factory, and would just about do 100km. Nowadays they will do 30-50km because of their design and chemistry.
For a 30km range car, you need at least a 12'ish kWh battery id say. And then you have no room for deviation in that. A BMW 530e has a 12 kWh battery and it will do the 30km on battery alone so a micro car, maybe………
I actually missed your "micro Car" comment in the original post so that does indeed change my perception.
A model 3 in the real world does about 14 kWh/100km so that’s about 7km per kWh alright.
so my hypothetical example - a microcar for running to the shops, with a max range of say 30km, should be even more efficient than that, i reckon.
This thread has gone to the dogs, as usual, and by the usual anti-car suspects.
There are plenty of reasons someone might choose a bigger car over a smaller one - up to an including an SUV - and quite frankly, no one has to explain their reasons to anyone here.
And no one buys a car with the intention of killing anyone.
As I said, I've always driven smaller cars, am currently looking at larger ones, because I need a bigger car. Not just "personal preference" but actual need. But I guess that is greedy and selfish too. And god help any toddlers who cross my path.
Y'all need to touch grass.
Sure who needs a 2 ton EV? Ireland should boycott any car manufacturer that cant supply a 7 seaterfamily car under 2 ton. That would sort them
But plenty of people use vans now for personal use.
Even take my situation; I have a 4x4. If I have a Ranger and I use it for commercial and personal use, who are you to judge me when I'm driving it. You don't know me or what I'm doing day to day.
Mind your own business, there's no room or need for you in other peoples lives.
This is nothing more than curtain twitching judgement with little basis in reality.
Tesla efficiency is calculated while moving so doesn’t take account of static drains on the battery. Then you have top and bottom buffers to protect the battery so you’re left with what, 3 kWh.
A model 3 in the real world does about 14 kWh/100km so that’s about 7km per kWh alright. I have a 9.2 kWh battery in one PHEV and it will barely do 20km if you try.
High bonnet trucks like the Ford Ranger should only be sold as commercial vehicles.
Commercial vehicles enter the public realm as task specific and not general personal transportation for commuting and pleasure. Someone earlier in the thread tried to counter argue that bin lorries drive through estates so therefore trucks like the Ford Ranger should be allowed. Do people use bin lorries as for personal use?
What is the end goal of all this - People can only drive small hatchbacks unless they report to their local apparatchik for permission to move up a grade?
I need a 4x4 sometimes, other times it's my daily transport. If you passed me by in the street, how are any of you to know my business and circumstances. What are the proposals for the 'other' times I need it - have two vehicles I need to insure/tax/maintain?
I know plenty of families that use vans as it caters to their lives better. I know some who own a 5 litre + V8's but don't drive them during the week and have easy access to public transport. Some, have no heed on cars and are happy with a small run around of any make. Some love driving, like me, if the choice were to drive or take a train/bus/plane, I'd pick driving every time unless the pro\con situation was significantly overwhelming.
There's a weird wish to be involved in peoples personal lives and choices.
Is your assertion that the Tuscan is safer than a Octavia borne out by empirical evidence or is it a theory based on one criteria that negates other factors such as bonnet height?
You are correct with the force of impact calculations. It's also laughable to consider a ranger being an average sized SUV. However it's important to bear in mind that that the Tucson is a higher up car than an Octavia so will hit you higher in the body
Another thing we might be forgetting when it comes to safety is the safety of the cars occupants. If there were a car travelling the wrong way down a motorway towards me or a tuck turning at traffic lights I'd rather be in a Ford Ranger than an Isetta any day
from my reading, it's fairly normal to get 5km per kWh in a normal BEV - so a normal, much heavier BEV would get 25km, let alone what you'd get from a micro car.
tesla claim 5 miles per kWh.
Not a chance an EV with a 5 kWh battery could do more than 10km once you've allowed for ancillaries including heating, vents etc
What a load of nonsense. My saloon weighs almost exactly 2 tonnes. That's almost 500kg heavier than a Tucson.
Why are you campaigning against one on the basis of weight and not the other, heavier one?
Because it looks to all and sundry like you've made your mind up based on incomplete data and you're just spouting buzzwords to justify your unwarranted hatred at this stage.
If weight matters so much, why not focus on the heaviest cars? A 5-Series weighs 2.2 tonnes. That's practically double the weight of a SEAT Arona. I don't see anyone starting a thread on unnecessarily heavy saloons and estates.
And what about EVs? A Nissan Leaf is 50% heavier than the Arona mentioned earlier. Why aren't you clamouring for them to be banned?
we saw a couple driving through the phoenix park the other day in an isetta; and my wife remarked that that'd be an ideal little runaround for people doing a quick grocery shop etc.
for the distance most cars used for that purpose do in a day, a 5kWh battery would be fine. but there's one major issue - they were small compared to other vehicles when they first came out, but now they're tiny and most people would think you'd be insane for driving around in one now.
This thread is certainly busy with absolutely no point whatsoever 😀
It was an example to show the weight difference of batteries, obviously it varies between short and long range versions depending on specific model of vehicle..
Here's some details on popular EV's and the weight difference:
The curb weight of the Volkswagen ID.4 ranges from 1958 kg to 2212 kg, depending on the model and trim. The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) can range from 2460 kg to 2740 kg. Some models may have a curb weight of 2130 kg and a full load mass of 2660 kg
EV with a 6-12 kWh battery…… You’re in dream land!
An EV with a 6-12 kWh battery might weigh 100-150 kg, while a 60-100 kWh battery could weigh 350-600 kg, people are buying heavier long range EVs when they don't need them.. most drivers will be doing under 20km a day in city driving so don't need a heavier larger vehicle.
You deliberately misrepresented what they were saying in order to use a dead kid as a pawn, flouting the tragedy in front of others as a way of browbeating everyone else into submission. Absolutely reprehensible behaviour.
What matters is that child deaths are happening in collisions with vehicles
I already asked you if the vehicle in this particular case, that you introduced as an example of "cars good : SUVs bad", was the reason for the fatality and you ducked it. If that poor child would have been killed anyway if the vehicle was a car, then introducing that story was pointless. There is nothing to suggest the vehicle type was the critical factor in the fatality. Presenting it as exhibit A in the crusade to restrict peoples' freedom of choice in what vehicle they drive is not only irrelevant, it's intellectually dishonest.
Clickbait nonsense.
A quote from that article:
Researchers…..gathered data from more than 680,000 road collisions in multiple countries over the past 35 years.
They compared the severity of injuries suffered by pedestrians or cyclists struck by standard cars with light truck vehicles, which include SUVs, small vans and pick-up trucks.
So the headline is a lie.
Lumping one category of vehicle in with others then demonising only that single category in the headline is a) a dishonest scumbag move, b) unscientific and c) exactly the same stunt that you pulled earlier……i.e….tugging on heart strings in the hope that you elicit an emotive response.
Tell me, what do the percentages look like when you compare deaths caused by (1) SUVs on their own versus (2) the total number of deaths caused by cars, trucks, vans, pick-ups and all other 'light truck vehicles' excluding SUVs?
Would you be happy if someone said "the number of fatalities caused by (2) is higher than the number caused by (1), ergo SUVs are safer"?
Spoiler alert: would you fcuk, you'd be in like a shot demanding a fair comparison. Funny how you're snidely happy to ignore the unfair comparison when it suits your own agenda.
The nerve of calling someone else ghoulish after the stunt you pulled is just……
Some do. Especially anybody going electric, there is a much greater selection if they are willing to go SUV
I’ve already posted a link to a woman who was killed by a cyclist yesterday.
That's the Chicken Tax which allows light trucks to be in the same grouping as Cars, I can't see that happening here. Once people move away from ICE cars into heavier EV's the government may introduce a tax based on weight rather than emissions, so that will mean 2 tonne cars will be heavily taxed and costly to purchase and run..
Commercial class. There's commercial variations of standard cars too, even the new Hyundai Inster has a van version arriving too.
The likes of a Ford Ranger,Raptor was not designed as a personal vehicle. Just because it may be used as one in the USA doesn't mean that applies here.
People need commercial Lorries and Van's to transport goods and equipment around the country, people don't need 4x4 cars which weigh 500kg more and are wider and higher than an average family car..
Is it just a Ford Ranger or can you specify a category of vehicle that shouldn't be driven for personal use period
Well that is conclusive enough for me.
It's the reptiles. Always the reptiles.
Back in 2002, the New York Times writer Keith Bradsher noted in his book, High and Mighty, that the auto industry tapped into some “reptilian” impulses for more aggressive vehicles. A marketing savant at Chrysler in the 1990s, who helped launch the SUV trend, liked to compare the road to a “battlefield.” Bradsher quoted him as saying, “My theory is, the reptilian always wins. The reptilian says, ‘If there’s a crash, I want the other guy to die.’ Of course I can’t say that out loud.” He probably meant “the guy in the other car.” What about the guy in the street? In 2003, a study found that SUVs were three times more likely than sedans to kill pedestrians when they struck them. Leg injuries are dreadful, but “serious head and chest injuries can actually kill you,” the injury-biomechanics professor Clay Gabler told the Detroit Free Press
Back in 2002, the New York Times writer Keith Bradsher noted in his book, High and Mighty, that the auto industry tapped into some “reptilian” impulses for more aggressive vehicles. A marketing savant at Chrysler in the 1990s, who helped launch the SUV trend, liked to compare the road to a “battlefield.” Bradsher quoted him as saying, “My theory is, the reptilian always wins. The reptilian says, ‘If there’s a crash, I want the other guy to die.’ Of course I can’t say that out loud.” He probably meant “the guy in the other car.” What about the guy in the street? In 2003, a study found that SUVs were three times more likely than sedans to kill pedestrians when they struck them. Leg injuries are dreadful, but “serious head and chest injuries can actually kill you,” the injury-biomechanics professor Clay Gabler told the
Detroit Free Press
From the piece I linked in my previous post.
I appreciate your respectful advice, but I reject it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
