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?
That's where things like additional taxes and increased parking charges would come in for larger passenger vehicles..
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.
We need commercial vehicles for goods deliveries etc.. We don't need massive cars.
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..
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.
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?
The SUV is more likely to hit them in the head would be the obvious answer there
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
Ironically, it is a good question - can an inanimate object be inherently dangerous?
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.
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.
a pity i meant it in irony so.
first sensible post in this thread
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
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?
'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
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 😁
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.
Are you prepared to withdraw your previous lies that cyclists need additional regulation while motorists need less regulation?
We do know that SUVs are more dangerous though.
I thought ghoulish was the trendy term around here for things you don't like?
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?
Road deaths peaked in the 70's when there were no SUVs, cars were much smaller and lighter, and there were far less people on the roads and the population was smaller.
Whatever you have against SUVs, bad for the environment etc, road deaths would be way down the list. There are around a quarter of deaths now on our roads compared to the 70s.
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/martina-devlin-if-micheal-martin-wants-to-save-lives-he-should-do-to-suvs-what-he-did-to-smoking/a1063494553.html
Huh. 'Autobesity'
Exactly - if you're involved in the sort of impact that kills one third of people, and you survive, it's not going to be pretty for you.
There’s a piece in info about suvs but can’t read all as behind paywall https://m.independent.ie/opinion/
They could have 59 broken bones and might never walk again but go down as survived
You keep calling others "ghoulish" but you're simplistically cherry picking any deaths of others again to score points.
There's no details in any article as to who was at fault, speeds, positions of the vehicles. You do not know if those deaths would have been avoided had it been a saloon/sports car/people carrier etc. but their a handy soap box.
IIRC 5-10% of pedestrian accidents at 30km/h are fatal, and it rises to approx 30% at 50km/h.
