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?
I've never hinted or suggested anything about 'being better than everyone else'.
…..quickly followed by……
I'm not going to let you drag me down into your gutter.
maybe SUV drivers are worse.
Or, as the link shows, driver attitude & aptitude are a more pressing factor. That also assumes that simply driving an SUV in Ireland, one would simply adopt the same behaviours as American drivers.
"That means we cannot exclude that attributes of the driver are the major factors responsible at the same time for choosing the car type and violating traffic laws. In this case, driving a SUV would be a coincidental factor."
Why stop here though, let's get rid of EV's?
ev-drivers-cause-more-crashes-than-petrol-or-diesel-drivers
Just to be clear, my arm is not 1m long.
It's something I've experienced. Repeatedly.
It's not a certainty for sure, more of a trend.
And I've experienced the asshole BMW/AUDI drivers on my rear bumper more than any other brand; If they were all driving some other brand/type of vehicle would their attitudes change massively by some miracle? Calling for their removal from the roads isn't a coherent argument in that instance either.
I don't think I called for anyone's removal from the road, but you're giving me some good ideas there.
Plenty have called for it previously….but you never 'took ideas from those posts'….sure.
You'd better take it up with those who called for it so, not with me.
I have done so.
So why bring it up with me? Nothing to do with me.
I was addressing your point/picture/anecdote.
Glad to hear you aren't a proponent for SUV's being removed from our roads unilaterally.
You addressed with a strawman point.
It's generally best not to make assumptions about people's views based on what they haven't said.
I addressed with a similar anecdote to yours. You just don't like it when others use the same 'logic'.
When it came to removal of anyone from the road in relation to vehicle types/brands you said;
Therefore you aren't a proponent for SUV's being removed from our roads unilaterally; or are you?
It's fine according to the RSA. The earlier poster was right...its time to repeat the campaign
You'd be wrong to make such an assumption. I'm just repeating the wisdom of the RSA campaign
Thanks for confirming the blindingly obvious
You claim that "crashes involving SUVs are more dangerous" yet you still haven't explained how SUVs present danger without a person (either in the vehicle or otherwise) creating said danger. And you still haven't explained what other inanimate objects this rule applies to e.g. roads that should be upgraded to motorway. Perhaps you can demonstrate your belief in the inherent dangers of inanimate objects by showing your past and current support for road building projects?
As to your your nonsense about not having engaged in strawman tactics, I point to the following:
So, yes, you accused a poster of saying that children did not get killed in collisions with SUVs. Are you withdrawing this nonsense?
From your pics it's not clear whether the driver overtook you, or you attempted to undertake, but even assuming that they did, how does this reflect on the other 3.25 million "drivers" that you so regularly bash on these forums?
i know you keep bashing on about the 3.25m 'safe' drivers, but this is yet another reminder that
a) just because someone hasn't crashed their car or injured anyone today, it automatically means they're a safe driver
b) it's not the safe drivers people worry about.
if you think that all of the 3.25m drivers who didn't crash in the last week, or month, or year, are 'safe', i have a bridge i'd like to sell you.
This would be the RSA which everyone knows is not fit for purpose? The same RSA which is dependent on people driving for its income?
Plus they don't say 1m is sufficient when driving under 50km/h (which is what you said). They ask drivers to give at least 1m: there is a subtle difference.
Yes. And?
Not quite an anecdote though. You specifically raised a point with me that others may have made, but I hadn't. Slightly misdirected, surely?
Again, I can only suggest that you avoid making assumptions based on what people haven't said.
I don't owe you any explanation about the basics of road crashes. You've seen the data about the impacts of crashes involving SUV drivers. You can work it out for yourself, you're a smart guy.
Are you withdrawing your nonsense claim that I claimed that the other poster claimed that collisions between SUVs and children never happened? I never used the term never on this issue, but you couldn't resist slipping it into your bogus claim.
Not quite an anecdote though.
Your picture of the vehicle too close to you and your experience is anecdotal. Same as 'white van man' / 'BMW not using indicators' etc.
Driver attitude and aptitude are key factors across the board. Coupled with other factors.
You specifically raised a point with me that others may have made, but I hadn't. Slightly misdirected, surely?
Granted, you may not have raised that point, I clarified others have. It's not really a misdirection given the thread.
Your are going to great lengths to emphasise that you haven't called for removal of SUV's from roads (which I accepted) but are now saying I'm making assumptions…..you could easily just have answered the below.
So 1m is fine which is what I said. The way some people go on they will soon be demanding the return of the guy with a red flag walking in front of cars. And if they were successful they still wouldn't be happy
Your claim:
to answer the suggestion that children are not getting killed by SUVs
Which of course, nobody said.
The title of the thread is Why do people drive unnecessarily large cars?
I just gave a reason.
Maybe I'm too sensitive but I feel that it did need to be said. There is a high focus on SUVs here and a lot less on personal responsibility.
Are you withdrawing your nonsense claim that I claimed that the other poster claimed that collisions between SUVs and children never happened?
My Ford Danger story was indeed an anecdote, albeit with photo evidence. Your reference to banning SUVs wasn't an anecdote.
We could have saved a lot of time if you had 'granted' that earlier.
Perhaps I could have saved some time too, but I felt it was important to highlight the false assumption.
It's not necessarily a binary yes/no issue either.
Well, the thread *is* about the size of cars.
I didn't say it was fine - would you drive past your child at 30km/h leaving just 1m of space and, if not, why not?
I'll ignore the daft second and third sentences
