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?
you've linked to a file on your local hard drive.
regarding the weight of the octavia:
https://www.automobiledimension.com/model/skoda/octavia
Weight 1433-1465 kg with diesel engine. Petrol Weight 1520 kg with petrol engine. Petrol MHEV Weight 1385 kg, petrol mild hybrid.
are you sure you were not listing the total maximum laden weight?
You'd rather be hit by the heavier car? Liar.
you did. that point was specifically about the range of an electric micro car.
You were comparing the weights of two vehicles, in a thread about large/heavy vehicles. Not sure I missed anything.
https://www.msl.ie/assets/1/product-brochures/skoda/skoda-octavia-price-list-2022.pdf
Warning: this is a pdf
And that's for the 1.0 litre, I've never seen one of them. The two litres are all 2 tonnes.
Did it even occur to you that some families may have one vehicle that they use for both work and family purposes?
if they tax it commercially, this is illegal. but like most things on the roads, totally unenforced.
Or would you prefer they own and keep two separate vehicles instead? That's hardly environmentally or otherwise friendly, is it?
And again, how do you know what reasons are behind their choice of vehicle?
These arguments continue to be nonsensical.
i don't think people are suggesting that the SUVs be impounded; a restriction on bonnet height for vehicles of the type going forward could be a good idea though.
or; we could kill the demand for rangers overnight if revenue started clamping down on commercially taxed vehicles being used for private use.
I don't think anybody is arguing against the expert figure of 82% for kids and 44% for adults. A politician simply represents the views of his constituencies, Paul Murphy is representing 9,928 voters in Dublin South West. Not trying to take away from anything he says but thems the facts
Maybe I'm missing something but does any article actually tell us what the experts have defined as an SUV?
An interesting figure quoted in that article
If all SUVs were replaced by standard cars, the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed in car crashes would decrease by an estimated 8% in Europe
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/eu-road-fatalities-drop-3-2024-progress-remains-slow-2025-03-18_en
There were 19,800 road deaths of which pedestrians account for 18%, or 3,564 and cyclists account for 10%, or 1,980. 8% of these figures account for less than 450 people across Europe
Assuming we move every SUV driver to a "regular" car and that doesn't result in more occupant deaths that's 450 people over a population of 500m. Is it really worth doing something so big for such a small return?
So that's one person (maybe, you don't really know). You're judging all.
From what I recall the post didn't simply state 'family car', it was also suited for their - lifestyle, sports & hobbies as well as load space and can fit the family.
You just cannot fathom nor accept any life different to your own and wish to judge others.
Haven't we had a poster here saying they know someone (they could be making this up) that uses a Ranger as their family car?
You assume the person is using it as a run around vehicle.
You're just a walking curtain twitcher.
And again, there's the pedantic nitpicking applied by my posts that isn't applied to other people's posts.
Here's what the poster said; "I haven't seen too many SUV's ramming into children around Ranelagh recently."
Are you suggesting that the poster meant that it's OK for SUVs to ram a small number of children around Ranelagh?
If you want to take everything literally, word for word, then sure, let's go down that totally non-productive road.
Bloody doctors, sure what would they know about public health anyway? Why can't they just listen to the experts on Boards?
Just saw this juxtaposition that sums up my feelings on the matter. On the right a typical family orientated SUV with a sloping bonnet, and on the left a vehicle with a much higher bonnet that was designed for commercial use.
I cannot fathom how anyone can argue that the commercial vehicle is an acceptable everyday family runaround.
I'm outraged at the unnecessarily large houses people build in this country. Waste of resources pushing up building materials cost during a crisis. Large houses need more energy and are worse for the environment.
Change the law. The maximum house size should be 175m2. No exceptions for residential buildings.
Paul Murphy 😂😂🤣🤣
It's more of the same old codswallop from the same posters, no matter what the thread. It's like now that religion has no hold on people they have filled the vacumn by becoming devout disciples of the Thou shall not sect. It doesn't seem to matter what the subject, the input is always the same....Though shall not....
For Christ sake imagine demanding that people should only buy EVs that can manage a miseravle 20km a day🤣 How could any rational person make that claim and expect people to take it seriously. Comedy gold
You seemed to suggest that people should drive EVs with really short ranges to save weight, that business about 6-12kwh batteries and how "most drivers will be doing under 20km a day."
This is not a basis on which anyone would buy a car, yes, 90% of ones driving may be short-medium haul, but most people would reasonably need/want to be able to do long journeys as well. There is more to life than daily commuting or trips to the supermarket.
To be clear, you only mentioned 62-kWH batteries in a positive light in the post above, the simple fact is that good range is going to be essential if EVs are something people actually choose.
A bit of sense from our elected representatives:
Paul Murphy, a People Before Profit TD for Dublin South-West, described the statistics as “alarming” and said SUVs “are not built for busy city environments”.
He’s calling for SUV-free zones, similar to protections against heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) in urban areas.
SUVs have grown in popularity in recent years, with many drivers favouring their higher seating position. SUVs are generally taller, wider and heavier than traditional cars, and less fuel-efficient.
“These massive vehicles are getting bigger and more dangerous,” said Murphy.
https://www.thejournal.ie/children-are-82-more-likely-to-die-if-they-are-hit-by-an-suv-than-by-a-smaller-car-study-finds-6691454-Apr2025/
Just waiting now on the usual suspects to tell us how they know better than studies done by qualified experts and the opinions of people elected to the Dail.
More nonsense from you, why does someone living in and driving around an Irish city/town/village need a large heavy battery in their cars when a 62-kWH battery will be plenty for the majority of people.
Ok, which poster claimed: "that SUVs weren't ramming children"
The closest I could see was one poster who - correctly - pointed out that children being killed in collisions with SUVs was not common.
Your second point - surely cause is immaterial? Especially in child fatalities. A child running out into the road and being struck may not be the fault of the driver, but if the chance of fatality is double if the vehicle is an SUV means we have to consider this as a factor.
And your third point; no one is arguing against a farmer using a 4x4 to haul a trailer of bales across a field. The thread title specifically refers to necessity.
We need to switch to a motor taxation model based on weight and dimensions with kei cars being incentivised.
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.
There are two "if"s in that statement that are carrying a lot of weight. Firstly the "if hit by an SUV" and secondly the "If all SUVs were replaced by standard cars"
Firstly for both, the general data on Irish road safety that I posted earlier calls all of this moral panic into question.
Secondly, collisions, whether accidents or done deliberately, do not just happen. Generally speaking, someone involved did something to cause it - and there are occasions where a driver is involved in a collision they did not cause. A drivers' choice of vehicle will usually be, at most, a secondary factor. The primary cause is always something else.
Thirdly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that there is some "needless" use of SUVs, many will have a "legitimate" use for them that cannot be substituted by a car. For example, farmers who may need a heavy vehicle if they have to bring it to work in the field, tradespeople who need a bigger vehicle to carry lots of tools etc. And these groups may be doing a considerable mileage. So it isn't really feasible to replace all SUVs.
Is this supposed to be a joke? The idea that you don't need decent range in an EV is patently absurd. Likewise those weight figures.
”Definitely a tank”
Delusional stuff.
The Ford raptor which are on our roads are classed as a truck in the USA.
Also in the USA a Toyota Corolla is classed as a compact sedan, so yeah, a raptor is definitely a tank on our roads while the ranger is a truck.
maybe people who once rallied around dangerous American XL bully dogs have moved onto defending trucks as acceptable family vehicles.
You'd fit a family in the bucket of a ten tonne dumper too.
people keep going back to 'choice' as being a good thing. choice is good, within reason. but when you get to choose a vehicle type which results in headlines like this, you might find people have a very legitimate issue with some of the choices on offer.
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2025/0430/1510343-suv-road-fatalities/
If all SUVs were replaced by standard cars, the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed in car crashes would decrease by an estimated 8% in Europe and 17% in the US, they said.
and those results are purely analysing what happens in the aftermath of a collision; it cannot investigate the wider effects of tall body vehicles stealing visibility from other road users.
They’re not trucks
They’re not tanks. There’s a difference that you’ll continue to ignore.
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?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
