Why do people drive unnecessarily large cars?

The "SUVS are bad" crowd are doing their best to dismiss concerns surrounding safety of the occupants in this discussion for the guts of 30-odd pages at this stage. Saying what you've said above is tantamount to treason in their eyes, how dare you be concerned about you and your family's safety, you filthy child-killer you!!!! /s

My assertion is borne out of nothing but a desire to point out the rampant hypocrisy and blind-spotting that goes on when it comes to any topic like this. People get tunnel-vision on certain topics. And, as we've already seen on this thread, people are willing to ignore certain facts, introduce irrelevant data and even make sh1t up on the fly to justify whatever their 'cause du jour' is.

I've yet to see anyone put forward a logical and straightforward argument on this, instead they're relying on emotive nonsense……….certain posters would give Maude Flanders a run for her money. There is no consistency. Nobody is calling for Beemers or Skodas to be banned, even though the weight of the vehicle is a vital factor, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the cars they claim are safer are sometimes actually heavier.

A Tesla Model X weighs the same as a Ranger Raptor, but not once has a single EV been mentioned in this thread, to my knowledge. Andrew and a few of his compatriots would be the first people to laud the merits of any EV, yet they're silent about the weight issue in this thread. It's ridiculous behaviour and the leaps people are making to justify their unjustifiable positions are beyond outrageous. Watch, in response to this post there'll be a rat of "well I'm just looking to protect the kids, fcuk me right" type posts.

1. Should we be doing more to reduce tragic incidents like that poor kid who's having his memory tarnished by being paraded around like a martyr?……..yes, of course we should.
2. Are bigger and heavier cars more impactful and fatal when it comes to collisions?…..also, yes, of course they are.
3. Are SUVs bigger and heavier than regular cars?…….no, not all of them. Depends, on a case by case basis.
4. Should we introduce a blanket ban of a particular car type because some people were killed by that type?…..no, don't be ridiculous.
5. Will banning SUVs have an impact on 1 and 2 above?…..yes, of course it will, but nowhere near as big an impact as banning pretty much any other type of 4-wheeled vehicle in the state. Where's all the articles about dead kids killed by tractors? Or minibuses?

They're nowhere, because the Maude Flanders brigade don't actually give a monkeys about dead kids (as evidenced by them shoehorning that article into the conversation when it has nothing to do with the topic), they're too preoccupied making sure the Jonses' next door know their station and don't try to rise above them, in my experience.

So then what's with all the faux concern?

If they think heavy cars should be banned, then EVs and luxury saloons should be on the chopping board. If they think taller vehicles should be banned, then buses, trucks , tractors and lorries should be first up for discussion. But they're not? Why is that, do you think? Why are they talking about banning SUVs, and hiding behind the "bigger and heavier" cars excuse while they point blank refuse to discuss banning the biggest and the heaviest vehicles on the road? It's because there's no rhyme or reason to their resentment. They're pretending (to themselves, in some cases) that it's all about protecting the kids when, in reality, it's about policing what everyone else does.

Feckin' busybodies, sticking their nose in where it ain't wanted. "Well if I can do a shop for a family of 6 on a reclaimed bamboo penny-farthing then everyone else should be forced to run around like the Flintstones". Gimme a break.

I cycle into work everyday and have the scars to prove it from when I was mown down 10 years ago. Doesn't mean I think we should all be doing it.

this thread will go on and on, it’s all rather pointless at this stage, there are two sides and they will never meet.

Spend your hard earned on whatever vehicle you want, it’s still a free country and we should rejoice in having so much choice.

How people drive their chosen vehicle in terms of competency is a different matter.

It's a model indicative of the problem of people adapting for personal use vehicles designed for commercial heavy goods use.

I've used such vehicles in my work and that's where they belong.

As commercial vehicles can be hired for the occasional need there's no excuse for the class of vehicle exemplified by the ford ranger for non commercial use.

If you take that viewpoint as a personal attack then you've got bonding issues.

Car A weighs x

Car B weighs x+500kg

Which car would you rather get hit by? Why would you need a study to tell you that?

This is the simplified argument that the SUV haters are trying to make. Radio silence when it's pointed out that Car A is an SUV and Car B isn't.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/suv-deaths-range-rover-collisions-cars-pedestrians-b2741488.html

Havent seen the study but from this article it seems pretty much a given that they are

At the same speeds I'd rather be hit by the vehicle with the lower bonnet rather than a direct torso hit from an SUV.

Was there a piece in the journal.ie today stating it was safer to be hit by an SUV than a lower bonneted sedan/hatchback?

I know someone with a ranger, private use, it suits him perfectly for his lifestyle,.e.g sports and hobbies, has the load space and the seats for the family.

Imagine if everyone did exactly the same.

im sure an army truck would meet all their needs too.

Why not?

A range rover reversed into my brother's hatchback, driver was very apologetic and said she was a nervous driver and only drove her tank so SHE would feel safe.

It's an arms race where people would never consider having a tank SUV but buy one to feel safe from all the other tank SUVs.

I know families with five kids who get by perfectly well in their Nissan Serena and it's got an average sedan sized footprint so no need for the oversized barbie buses.

And there it is.

"Every one should live according to me and my life".

It's an idiotic level of arrogance.

You've expressed the mindset of those who chose to drive these trucks when there's plenty of smaller societally safer options that will meet all their needs.

But f society, right?

”Definitely a tank”

Delusional stuff.

People's personal choices have very real public impacts.

Do people use bin lorries as for personal use?

Let's leave the cybertruck out of the discussion for now please.

It's funny how the other poster's claim that SUVs weren't ramming children wasn't subject to the pedantic scrutiny as my post, isn't it? It's almost as if there's a double-standard applying.

There was no misrepresentation. There was no claim about cause or fault. There was a simple link and a reference to what happened - that a child was killed by an SUV.

Clearly it upsets some people to see that not being swept under the carpet for a change, but maybe try not shooting the messenger, and focusing on what is actually happening out there.

As for the research study, it's fascinating to see the pretence that the average Boards poster knows more and better about how to do peer-reviewed public health research than those who actually do this for a living.

That's the ghoulish behaviour going on around here.