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?
We do know that SUVs are more dangerous though.
I thought ghoulish was the trendy term around here for things you don't like?
Are you prepared to withdraw your previous lies that cyclists need additional regulation while motorists need less regulation?
I give you the GWM Tank, not available in Ireland, a 2.0 HEV passenger vehicle with off road capabilities…The manufacturer calls it as it sees it…A Tank !
Some folk on here will love it…some won’t, such is life, rejoice in the choice.
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?"
I await the next load of nonsense 😁
'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
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?
2 things that are trending lately
It's all the fault of SUVs, what was the question again?
It's all the fault of the green initiatives, what was the question again?
It's getting tiring now I find
first sensible post in this thread
a pity i meant it in irony so.
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.
Is that a trick question? Why do you think society has banned certain types of vehicles from public roads; and spoiler alert, it's not just down to the intention of drivers.
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).
Well, we're left with a simple comparison of two scenarios, where a child runs out in front of, and is struck by a car; only difference is one example they run out in front of a 'traditional' car, the other they run out in front of an SUV with a considerably higher bonnet.
Taking the results of the study mentioned earlier at face value, they are twice as likely to die in the scenario with the SUV. Where is the extra danger coming from? The actions of the child are the same, the actions of the driver are the same.
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.
The SUV is more likely to hit them in the head would be the obvious answer there
If they were to ban SUVs they'd first need to define what an SUV is, something like a maximum height at the front of the vehicle I presume is where they would go with that. Personally I'd prefer to tax them than ban them
yes, but SeanW was arguing that there's no such thing as a dangerous vehicle. my point is that if one vehicle can be more dangerous than another, that renders his argument pointless.
So just using that logic, and leave out the argument of whether they have a use, then vans, trucks, minibuses etc, are they all dangerous?
well, if you can place them on a rough scale of 'ability to do damage' or say one is more dangerous that the other - it's a hard argument to make that they're not dangerous to some extent.
Sure, a ban would be difficult enough to enforce seeing as we don't have any bus lane or red light cameras, so taxing on the basis of size and weight would work… Would it have much impact on the numbers of Volvo XC90's or BMW X5's driving around Ballsbridge or Ranelagh, probably not..
We need commercial vehicles for goods deliveries etc.. We don't need massive cars.
You seem to have missed my particular point there "leave out whether they have a use". You might not need a big car, others might.
That's where things like additional taxes and increased parking charges would come in for larger passenger vehicles..
Why should a certain type of car have to pay extra to park in exactly the same space as every other car?
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.
If they dont fit in the space, fair enough. But they generally do fit.
Do they indeed? May be a need for a sunroof in each of these large vehicles so they occupants can get out of them?
Even my smallest van, a peugeot partner is wider than the x5
According to a quick Google, a Peugeot partner has a width of 2107mm with mirrors, and an X5 has a width of 2218mm; over 10cm wider
You're correct, I was allowing for the partners mirrors as they don't fold on mine(automatically)
I did a Truth Social search for that, and I was arrested and imprisoned in Guatemala.
