Why do people drive unnecessarily large cars?

Spare us the self-indulgent "woe is me" narrative of people judging your posts. You're getting justified criticism because you make stuff up, engage in strawman tactics, use ridiculously hyperbolic language, and use dead children as props in your absurd theatrics.

First you made stuff up about a poster you quoted some pages back, and used the strawman you fabricated as an opening to pimp a dead child. Which you've doubled down on since. As to the rest of your nonsense, I clearly indicated in my post that it was fair to hold a driver responsible - if they were culpable. I don't hold even individual drivers, let alone "drivers" writ large, for collisions they did not cause.

Your claim that "Deaths involving SUV drivers aren't that unusual" is a provable lie. We have the data. I've shown previously that fatalities of any kind on Irish roads occur somewhere in the region of 1 every approximately 300,000,000 vehicle-kilometres. For scale, the average distance between Earth and the Moon is only 385,000km from Earth, so the statistically average Irish driver would have to drive the equivalent distance of between Earth and the Moon 779 times before even being involved - let alone the cause of - a fatal incident.

As to your accusations against me, all I am doing is providing the context to your outlandish claims. It is not my fault that you don't like facts, data and evidence, and that you don't like your hyperbolic nonsense and broad brush accusations being put into context.

Are you prepared to withdraw this lie, where you accused a poster of saying something that literally nobody said - not that poster or anyone else?

Are you prepared to withdraw your previous lies that cyclists need additional regulation while motorists need less regulation?

How is an inanimate object "dangerous?" An SUV doesn't move unless someone gets behind the wheel and starts the engine. After that, the only possible "danger" (and in the case of Ireland, there really isn't any) comes from either the behaviour of that driver (i.e. misuse of the vehicle), or the behaviour of other road users.

But if you assert that inanimate objects can be dangerous, you will agree that motorways are safer than all-purpose single carriageways, and have demonstrated support for historical, current and future motorway development programmes?

Otherwise, you have to explain why some inanimate objects (SUVs) are "dangerous" while all purpose single carriageway main roads are somehow "not dangerous?"

1. How far back would I have to go to find such posts?
2. I didn't lie.

I await the next load of nonsense 😁

SUVs are dangerous because people are more likely to be seriously killed or injured in a collision with an SUV than with a traditional car, or have you missed the last few days of discussion?

1. I don't know.
2. Oh yes you did.

first sensible post in this thread

Ironically, it is a good question - can an inanimate object be inherently dangerous?

But as your kind are so fond of pointing out, accidents or collisions or whatever do not "just happen." Someone has to cause them, and that person might not be the driver of the vehicle.

But since you assert that inanimate objects are inherently dangerous, and are supposedly concerned about "road safety" (i.e. not just bashing drivers) then you will no doubt give your full support to just about any proposed motorway project? Given that these are the types of roads where fatal incidents are least likely to occur, I am sure you have a long history of promoting motorway projects, opposing NIMBY movements against motorways etc?

Are you prepare to accept that your claim about people claiming collisions between SUVs and children never happened, was bogus?

As to your nonsense about lawbreaking cyclists, please point to a post where I supposedly "lied" or withdraw that claim. Preferably within the past 3 years or so.

Nope, no trick. It's just that if one accepts that it is possible for an inanimate object to be inherently dangerous, in this case SUVs, then it must also follow that other inanimate objects can also be inherently dangerous.

Take for example, motorway roads vs, various types of single carriageway, such as the all purpose single carriageway with houses, T-junctions etc along them that used to connect our main cities and still are main roads elsewhere, we know that motorways are statistically safer because they separate long distance from slower, short haul traffic and eliminate most opportunities for head-on collisions.

Yet I do recall arguments being made here on boards, though I don't remember by who or when, to the effect that there are no such things as dangerous roads, only dangerous drivers. Though if I recall correctly, it was the "bash drivers" brigade.

If there are no such things as inherently dangerous roads, then it logically follows that there is no such thing as an inherently dangerous vehicle, as both roads and vehicles are inanimate objects, until someone tries to use them.

Recognising this, I was wondering if Andrew's position leads him to support widespread motorway construction, for the sake of road safety? After all, like discouraging SUVs for smaller cars, large scale motorway construction would replace lots of dangerous inanimate objects (all purpose single carriageways) with inherently safer ones (i.e. motorways).

don't know small cars are generally considered good then large cars it has many advantages over large car like parking, traffic, etc. it can easily park and move on traffic conditions.

We need commercial vehicles for goods deliveries etc.. We don't need massive cars.

That's where things like additional taxes and increased parking charges would come in for larger passenger vehicles..

Pretty easy when you think that often these larger vehicles are too big for a standard parking space, thus take up more room on city streets etc.

Do they indeed? May be a need for a sunroof in each of these large vehicles so they occupants can get out of them?