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?
Yeah the "tank" analogy didn't pan out too well previously, but if you're in a corner; hyperbole is your only way out I guess…..
And there it is.
"Every one should live according to me and my life".
It's an idiotic level of arrogance.
An arms race, seriously?. Because not everyone wants a ford ranger or even the much smaller SUVs. I've no need to for one so therefore I don't have one. Your family example gets by with their Serena, that's great. Wouldn't suit some others needs.
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.
But everyone won't be going the same.
Imagine if everyone did exactly the same.
im sure an army truck would meet all their needs too.
I mentioned earlier in the thread - I don't think weight has much bearing, if any, on pedestrian safety. If a car hits you, the weight discrepancy is going to be typically within a range of 15x to 20x (average car and average adult), which for a moving car will not have any worthwhile effect on how quickly it slows down as a result of hitting you. The damage is done by the impact on you and the acceleration your body experiences as a result of the impact, and that's down to how the car is shaped.
You simply cannot draw a linear relationship between mass and damage to the body. You cannot say a car weighing two tons will do twice as much damage to you as a car weighing one ton.
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.
I don't think banning things ever really achieves anything. We live in a free market I'd much rather see something taxed to the hilt if we want fewer of them around.
Ugly and crass I can agree with, you'd never catch me in one, but those aren't good reasons to ban something.
As for them being dangerous and bad for the environment, there's always a way of making something safer and better for the environment. The upcoming Maxus T90EV for example is an all-electric pickup truck which would tick the environment box, add a few driver assist features like emergency braking and lane assistance and you improve the safety hugely as well. You still wouldn't catch me in one but at least it's an improvement over a V6 Ford Ranger
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?
Your calculations are unfortunately screwed up by the fact that you got the weight of the Octavia totally wrong. By over half a ton.
maybe you missed the context of that discussion?
It was discussing the possible range of an electric micro car, which would be far more than a standard sized car.
I don't take it as a personal attack despite you're best efforts to simplistically dismiss my answers.
"Occasional use" for me and plenty of others doesn't suit nor become near financially viable, but you choose to continue to assert that what suits you should suit others.
We now also live in a world wherein both parents working is the norm rather than the exception, if I'm combining my work/commute/family/social life etc. with one vehicle you have no idea, but worse, no intention of contemplating such scenarios.
I'd recommend you take a trip to foreign states that don't have the choice and freedom we have, it mightn't be the utopia you imagine it being.
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
Cool comparison.
Now do it again for an Audi A6 and a Seat Ateca.
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.
Not exempting any criteria I've yet to see a study stating an Octavia is more dangerous for pedestrians than a Tuscan.
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.
Fair play to the OP, appeared in December, 25 posts on boards and hasn't been seen since.
And here we are 32 pages and 4 months later arguing with each other.
I had a cousin who worked in local radio. Her job was to phone in with the controversial opinion if it was a slow days for calls to the chat show.
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.
"I think its ugly so no one else should be allowed to have one"
This is the raison d'etre for most opinions in this thread.
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.
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.
Ford Ranger - Ford Ranger - Ford Ranger etc. etc.
You've an obvious gripe with that model; it's deluded stuff
I think people who argue otherwise are as insecure as those curtain twitchers in the valley of the squinting windows.
"curtain twitchers" …The irony.
If you don't like it, ban it. Always a good rhetoric.
Ford ranger is a fairly accurate example about the type of vehicle this thread is about.
ive still to hear an argument that the average truck like the ford ranger is safer for the public domain than the average sedan or hatchback.
There's simply no argument for such trucks like the ford ranger for non commercial use.
I say that as someone who's used them frequently off road in construction.
I would love to see European countries starting to impose a ban on the sale of new SUVs - they are ugly, crass, dangerous and very bad for the environment.
There's a big problem with your "logic"-
I don't own a Ford Ranger.
Is the Ford Ranger in the room with us…
ford ranger drivers aren't an ethnicity, you're not a people.
It sounds like your ranger has become your emotional shell.
I know nothing about you, and it's not about you.
Correct, and you know nothing about other Ford Ranger drivers, but seem intent to assert your will on them irrespective of this.
It's about reducing danger in the public realm.
Perceived danger.
The likes of Ford Ranger is simply not suitable in any metric as a personal use vehicle.
Just the Ford Ranger? There are other brands & models out there; it's a strange fixation you have on this model.
There's plenty of metrics that say its suitable as for personal use. You just don't want to consider them
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.
So that works for you, why? - Because its an odd job. Others need it more often than you and it's not financially viable to rent another van every time.
Just because I drive a commercial van for a day doesn't then mean I hate all car drivers.
No, just Ford Ranger drivers evidently.
Vehicles are simply utilities, I don't think of them as a personal extension. They are various classes of vehicles for various uses.
This is the crux of the matter; you see it as a simple utility others are more interested in cars / vans/ 4x4's / motorbikes etc.
It is still none of your business.
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.
I never said it was. You're making things up now.
You just cannot accept people have choice and wish to engage in baseless judgement.
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.
It's designed for a multitude of uses. I don't tow a boat with my 4x4 does it mean in your simplistic land I should hand it back?
Where would you like this to end? Cars/houses/heating & utilities/food consumption; it's a bizarre train of thought to excuse simple judgement of others simply on the basis of "I don't like them".
Get a life. Stay out of others lives.
i just googled it - a 530e has a minimum stated weight of 1.6 tons (according to google AI!) and a citroen ami, with a 5kWh battery weighs 485kg.
minus passengers, that's greater than a factor of three in terms of weight. and the ami has a stated range of 75km!
(from a top gear review; i guess that given its top speed is about 50kmh, aerodynamic effects have much less effect on range)
What is quite interesting is that although the Ami has a limited range from that 5.5kWh battery, it will pretty much do what it says it will do in terms of miles - unlike a lot of ‘proper’ electric cars.
