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?
Well given that we have data about all-cause mortality on roads in Ireland (i.e. somewhere in the region of 300,000,000 vehicle kilometres between any cause of fatality), it's safe to say that arguing over whether an SUV is more dangerous than a car is like two bald men fighting over a hair comb.
Secondly, in your hypothetical scenario, the danger is still created by a person. It could be the driver, if their actions were reckless or wholly unreasonable, or it could be caused by someone outside the vehicle disregarding the rules of the road.
Indeed, I vaguely recall the "bash drivers" brigade making exactly this claim about there being no such thing as dangerous roads, because a road is inanimate. Is it true then that vehicles can be inherently dangerous but roads are not?
Again, a steering wheel view of the world.
As mentioned in my hypothetical scenarios, all else is the same bar the cars used. But the outcome is different. That's down to the car.
If you do want to suggest that drivers are dangerous, not cars, the conclusion here would be that SUV drivers are more dangerous. Is that what you're saying?
Would we not need to see the %of accidents involving SUV's as a whole.
If SUVs really are the 'big bad wolf', surely insurance premiums are sky high for them.
Or are they?
That's included or accounted for in the research mentioned earlier in the thread AFAIK.
A driver who drives in a reckless manner, will definitely amplify the risk they pose if they're doing it an SUV, that much I will concede. A driver who does not drive an irresponsible manner by definition is not a threat.
But my point is that in previous discussions, anti-motorist activist claimed that it was impossible for an inanimate object (in that case, a road with bad layouts or unfit for the type or volume of traffic) to be dangerous. Now, some of the people who might agree with that sentiment are now claiming that another inanimate object, i.e. a vehicle, does present inherent danger.
If one accepts that an inanimate object can be inherently dangerous, then I could entertain the idea of SUVs being "dangerous" if we could agree that environmentalists and NIMBYs who oppose motorway projects have blood on their hands, considering that the construction of motorways in Ireland is one of the factors leading to the collapse of road fatalities in this country.
I thusly have two simple questions:
Are the passengers hiding under the seats in embarrassment?
Its not a valid question. In fact its a completely redundant debate.
This is a SUV.
This is also a SUV
This is a saloon car
This is also a saloon car
The only thing thats matters is any particular car's overall NCAP safety rating for vulnerable road users. And in that regard, the highest scoring are:
The second largest Mercedes Saloon, the E-Class
The D Segment Skoda Superb / VW Passat large estate twins
And the 2.3 ton, 17 ft long, 7 seater, Mazda CX-80
So, lets have a proper conversation please, about the overall level of risk, including passive safety and driver assist functionality. And not just SUV Bad, Saloons and Hatchbacks Good, because its nonsensical.
Perhaps not weight as that would be detrimental to switching people to EVs.
Changing taxation bands influenced what people bought from 2008 onwards and it's why we had a huge amount of diesel cars around 2015. We introduced a NOx tax in 2020 and now we're looking at petrol being the most popular fuel type with EVs getting a huge boost the last few years as well
Taxation works to change people's buying behaviours
Just wonder how the Government will make up the shortfall in revenue once there's a large percentage of the motoring fleet as EV's, so they would lose all the moneys gained from Diesel & Petrol cars, will there be a new weight based system…
it's interesting to see that the VRU scoring is weighted 60/40 in favour of actual impact tests vs collision avoidance tech. i wonder how that translates to the real world - is the tech now so good it should potentially outweigh the impact tests in the ratings, or are we still a long way off that?
also, this is from the euro ncap page for the big mazda - how can the impact rating vary so widely across the bottom half of the windscreen? the same image is totally uniform for the superb for the same area:
My parents got a larger car simply because it's easier for them to get in and out of as its higer from the ground. One of them has a terminal illness.
of course they can be! the point is to reduce injuries/fatalities regardless of cause; and the type of vehicle involved is in play, regardess of cause/blame. a driver can be blameless but still the chance of a fatality is increased if the vehicle in question is an SUV; e.g. a child running out in front of them.
something similar happened a friend of mine FWIW - a drunk woman stumbled off the footpath and fell out in front of him as he was driving home one evening. no-one blamed him; thankfully the victim's family were adamant on that front.
Mazda has a decent sized bulge in the dashboard on the drivers side. I'm guessing the NCAP used a left hand drive car and the dashboard bulge had some effect.
jaysus, you'd hope your head would have pretty much stopped hitting anything substantial after stoving a windscreen in!
As it currently stands the taxes from petrol and diesel fuels are going towards SEAI grants, the grants are already reducing so as long as they continue to reduce the taxes from ICE fuels can also reduce
With regards to annual motor tax and VRT they'll need to start bumping them all up if they want to keep them cost neutral else you're going to have people paying 300-500 to paying €120 on annual motor tax
Don't forget the savings from the EU carbon fines, healthcare as there's less toxic fumes etc etc
I don't think anybody is arguing against somebody who might need an SUV. Most of the people out there driving one don't need one
Government could raise property tax (and even bring back water charges! Lol) instead of using VRT as a proxy wealth tax.
High cost of fuel and second hand cars punishes people on lower incomes and those who can't work from home or afford to live near their place of work.
Not to mention a few on here want to crucify larger families by making it prohibitly expensive to buy, tax and park larger cars. Maybe they would be satisfied if such families provided documentary proof annually of their 'need'to own such tanks?
Don't be giving anyone ideas now!
These cars or SUVs are perfectly legal and in some cases not even that big. Completely unacceptable in a modern democracy to want to ban them.
What next? As I stated tongue in cheek previously I am actually disgusted by the blight of McMansions in this country. Perfectly legal so long as the councils planning department allow them. That must be respected.
that's circular reasoning, no? if they're legal that's what makes them OK; but trying to regulate against them would be 'unacceptable'?
And don't mention the people who want to drive big motorbikes when a Honda 50 will do the job.
Nuance, devil in the detail. Regulation based on reason and logic takes time.
Communists screeching to have something banned, not regulated, without an accepted definition of what they want banned is quite different scenario.
Sean, drivers will make mistakes everyone knows that. Crashes will inevitably happen no matter how safe we think we can be.
When these mistakes happen the size of the vehicle will be a factor. Just because there is very few crashes out of x drivers doesn't mean we should stop improving safety.
Geraldine Herbert discusses how it is not just what we drive that kills but how we drive…
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/geraldine-herbert-its-not-suvs-that-make-our-roads-dangerous-its-the-way-we-drive/a833363159.html
Poxy paywall. What's it about below the free portion?
The start does include stats that pedestrians and children are 44% and 82% more likely to be killed in a collision by an SUV versus a car.
Bigger, heavier vehicles with taller bonnets, etc. are more likely to kill but driving style and enforcement play as much a part in road safety
i wonder did she pick the headline, or a subeditor?
Sounds like a well measured and balanced article for once!
I’d say definitely a sub editor. She’s is the most anticar motoring “journalist” ever. Pro cycling and EV, and against everything else
