Why do people drive unnecessarily large cars?

Apologies, link fixed.

We're getting bogged down in semantics, however. The point stands. All the hand-wringing about heavier cars ignores the fact that saloons are quite often as heavy as, if not heavier than, plenty of SUVs. 5-series, A4/A6, even a new Leaf are all in the same ballpark as them. Ignoring this fact while they lambast others for their personal choices is intellectually dishonest.

No, I'm saying that your statement about weight at the beginning of the previous post is wrong, according to physics.

"I don't think weight has much bearing on pedestrian safety" is a ridiculous statement to come out with. Getting hit by a shopping trolley travelling at 15m/h is a lot more survivable than getting hit by Ford Transit travelling the same speed, all other things being equal. Are you seriously suggesting that having an extra half tonne of weight behind you doesn't make a difference? You think getting hit by a 1kg bag of sand is comparable to getting hit by a 501kg bag of sand? Really?

I calculated it using an online impact force calculator.

In that estate the family SUV is far more likely to run over somebody as they don't reverse park.

Maybe, maybe not. If it was enforced, some might decide it's worth the extra cost / more cost effective to tax it privately, rather than run a second car.

Again, it comes down to meeting individual families needs.

Some are taxed cheaply. When I taxed a commercial 4x4 they were strict on the paperwork & justification to avail of commercial tax.

Are we going to tax everything out of existence just because peoples personal preferences? Why not add 'crass' sports cars; no need for people to own one, is there? Where does this end?

You have to provide the required paperwork to avail of commercial tax.

Once you fill out the form and supply the documentation you are good to go.

What you use the vehicle for after that is where it gets awkward.

You have signed the form saying you will only use the vehicle for commercial purposes.

It's almost impossible for a person who keeps the vehicle at home to comply fully with this requirement.

If you stop for some shopping or go to sports training on the way home from work you are technically in breach of the law.

The insurance companies recognise this and cover private use in their policies.

AGS pretty much ignore private use of commercial taxed vehicles.

Yeah I'll accept there's dual use; no one is completely infallible but it's not the major issue; nor is one group solely infallible when it comes to tax/usage of their vehicle strictly within the rules. But it's what's being pushed here; it's not exclusively about tax, some just find them 'ugly' and cannot/do not want to accept the requirements of the lives of others.

It's been asked numerous times - what's the alternative? families would have to go from two cars and add a third? Some are harping on about the environment but wish to add more vehicles. The impracticalities aren't even being considered; with two parents generally working, both need to be able to do school runs/sports pick up/shop on the way home etc. The answer of 'just rent a commercial vehicle' is being repeatedly touted as a solution, but it quickly becomes unfeasible.

This isn't about tax and/or the environment - people just want to judgmentally enforce their lifestyle on others irrespective of reality.

No, I'm not misunderstanding it. I've clearly accepted it's in place and said clearly accept the dual use of a commercially taxed vehicle.

we're not suggesting you buy a third car for private use

Some are and I'm also asking how that would work. If two parents (as an example) need a private car plus one needs a commercial; then dual use is the best solution. Otherwise, there would be a need for a third vehicle and all the costs that go with that. If I can combine trips using a commercial vehicle it's way more sensible than having to either rent and return commercial vehicles (there isn't even a fleet large enough to replace current usage) and/or return home and take the private vehicle to return from where I've just passed schools/shops/gyms/sports etc. etc. The reality and practicalities are farcical. If someone has a commercially taxed vehicle, they've justified it sufficiently; the personal element is secondary and inconsequential. This is precisely why it's not enforced to the strictest terms and why insurances companies cater for it; simply makes sense.

But again, this isn't about tax - this is about some peoples personal preferences and the wish to impose their choices on others. "It's an ugly car so they shouldn't have one" - I'll ask again; where does this end? Houses/food/utilities/

Sports cars - no need for them (even commercially) - Tax them out of existence and stop selling them - why not?

So what's the solution? A person would then have to have a second car simply for private use despite the reality and practicalities. Or, as was suggested, rent a commercial wherein it becomes practically and financially unviable very quickly, adds cars on the road when our cities are congested as is and from an non existent fleet.

It makes no sense in either cost to consumers & business and/or trying to enforce it. Commercial tax also comes with CVRT requirements that private cars don't.

Those who tax their cars as private are not automatically infallible in their use for solely private use, never seem to get the same treatment; why -because the level of system abuse is minimal, just like those who have commercially taxed vehicles that cater to their personal and/or family needs.

But again (and again), this isn't about tax - this is about some peoples personal preferences and the wish to impose their choices on others. "It's an ugly car so they shouldn't have one" - I'll ask again; where does this end? Houses/food/utilities/

Sports cars - no need for them (not even commercially) - Tax them out of existence and stop selling them - why not?

Vintage cars - no need for them and they pay less tax yet get the same use out of the car the rest of us are, and are paying private rate for - Get rid of them too?

Based on the NCAP safety results, also the Volvo

76% pedestrian rating against 66%

Newer mini has improved

But now barely beats the old Volvo, just 1% higher. Can't find newer results for the later big Volvos, but the Polestar 3 is a big SUV (I think it shares the same platform as the Volvo EX90)

So it's safer in every way, including for Pedestrians.

You can no longer say that SUVs are less safe for pedestrians, the facts are they are not. These days it is far more relevant what safety systems are in the car, the bigger SUVs tend to be more luxurious which generally come with more safety tech.

why do you keep going on about sports cars?

As others have brought up the necessity for car/4x4 simply for practicality and familial use - "I don't need one, so no one else should have one". As I said, it's not a singular tax issue.

Same with vintage cars - why not scrap them? Cheaper tax yet same benefit.

why should you (or whoever) get the benefit of a vehicle for private use without having to pay private tax rates on it? because i have to pay private tax rates for the use of my car. you're enjoying an unfair advantage.

if you have (say) a toyota corolla taxed privately in your driveway, and a RAV4 taxed commercially in your driveway, and use both for private purposes, i am not saying you should get a third car if you want two cars for private use. i am saying tax the RAV4 at private rates and let you use it privately. this is what the law allows for.

But that's a misrepresentation of my argument. If I have a commercially taxed vehicle, I have justified the requirements. Your argument of zero tolerance for private use would require me to then have a second/third vehicle despite the reality and practicality of life.

If it were to be enforced in its strictest terms, I could not pick up shopping on my way home. I'd have to go home passing the shops, take my private car and go back to where I was…. Is traffic not bad enough? Do people not have enough expense on their plate without adding another car+tax+insurance+maintenance+running costs on top? Was the goal not to reduce cars on the road? We've had plenty on here bemoaning the environmental impact, yet the solution would be worse. Who would the additional costs be passed on to?

This is little to do with tax and/or the environment. It's personal preferences dressed up.

your neighbour who has two private cars for private use could well be paying 2 x private tax for that - why should you get the use of the second car for cheaper than them?

Because it's use is primarily commercial use and I've justified it as such I pay other costs private don't. Just because they are pay private tax and are insured as same, is there an automatic guarantee that they aren't using their cars for business use? No, but nothing said.

Same with vintage cars - why not scrap them? Cheaper tax yet same benefit.

I'm still yet to see a practical solution. The key justification has been - "I don't like them". Fine, don't buy one.