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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Paul Murphy 😂😂🤣🤣
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.
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.
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?
You assume the person is using it as a run around vehicle.
You're just a walking curtain twitcher.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Did it even occur to you that some families may have one vehicle that they use for both work and family purposes?
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.
if they tax it commercially, this is illegal. but like most things on the roads, totally unenforced.
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.
You were comparing the weights of two vehicles, in a thread about large/heavy vehicles. Not sure I missed anything.
you did. that point was specifically about the range of an electric micro car.
You'd rather be hit by the heavier car? Liar.
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?
Physics disagrees with you. Nobody ever claimed it was twice as bad. I provided calculations earlier in the thread, getting hit by a heavier car is much, much worse for you. The fact that anyone is refusing to accept this is outrageous.
are you saying that if a car weighing twice as much hits you at 30km/h, the force imparted on your body is twice as much?
also, before you say physics disagrees with me, how did you calculate that force?
You can't use a commercial vehicle for personal use. You should know this.
That's incorrect, they can be used once declared but it also dodges the salient points raised nicely.
The motor tax office will ask for further details if it's to be taxed as commercial, otherwise for dual use it's based on private.
I don't own a commercial vehicle, so why should I know this? I drive a micra.
Anyway, bringing up tax is just a deflection. From a quick google, it is possible to tax a "commercial" vehicle privately.
So then, answer this question at least (because I know you can't answer the other one) - what would be preferable?
One dual-purpose vehicle per family, or two separate vehicles?
That's me. Making it up 😂😂🫣yea, nobody really has one of these, they're just illusions
Clearly it upsets some people to see that not being swept under the carpet for a change
No, that's not what's getting people's backs up. It's your insistence on sullying the memory of a dead child so you can pretend you're better than everyone else that did it. You're essentially trying to shut others down by using him as a pawn. Parading dead kids around so you can feel smug is the real ghoulish carry on.
You're also ignoring valid criticism of that article via an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy pitfall. I never challenged the study. I challenged the article. The headline in that article is wrong. The interpretation of that study in the article is also wrong. Your refusal to engage with the, again, valid criticisms is disappointing yet unsurprising.
You can tax it that ranger privately.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
