Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Why do people drive unnecessarily large cars (AKA "SUVS")?

1…4243454748…84

Comments

  • #1322
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123460441#Comment_123460441

    A moving vehicle is not alive.



  • #1323
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123459714#Comment_123459714

    You keep asking for stats specific to Ireland, specific to SUvs - which you know well are not available, and I can't help but think that without those stats your claim is that the research is invalid for Ireland.

    It might have been, had we our own domestic car industry where cars were different from what they drive in Europe.

    And regarding the point about SUVs moving or not, I've argued that higher vehicles create more risk even when stationary; as they rob visibility regardless of their speed. Where VRUs cannot see over them and other motorists cannot see VRUs behind them*

    *Been there, done that. The one time** I've hit a pedestrian (while I was cycling, thankfully) was when she ran out from behind what I think was a range rover. Thankfully no major damage done.

    **I also once spun a child like a top when he stepped to the side of kerb and kicked me in the shin as I passed. His dad was mortified. So the question there was whether I hit him or he hit me...



  • #1324
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123457295#Comment_123457295

    That's the ten million dollar question, but it's not a new concept in relation to road safety.

    E.g. on a particular stretch of road, an 80km/h limit is safer than 90 which is safer than 100 which is safer than 110 etc, but we do draw a line.

    I dunno, maybe higher bands of road tax based on the height of a vehicle? I've argued quite a bit in this thread that I think that vehicle height is more pertinent than weight when it comes to VRU safety.



  • #1325
    Flinty997
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,352 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    It's a holy war because there's holes in the argument you could drive SUV through.

    People have only themselves to blame if you choose to keep arguing with illogical posters. Be that lets walk everywhere argument or roads are safe enough let's stop trying too improve things.

    We can see how other countries drive car choice though government policies. Like the kei cars in Japan, or why we've so many diesel cars. If we have a lot of oversized vehicles it's because we've allowed them.



  • #1326
    mulbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,830 ✭✭✭mulbot


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123460706#Comment_123460706

    Or as another poster mentioned, a different licensing system, that'd make more sense if we're talking safety - a bad/ incompetent driver will still be so even if they pay more tax, where as the license requirement for bigger vehicles would or should offer a more competent driver.



  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    Flinty997
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,352 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    We've different license types which apply limitations. Learner motorbikes riders limited on power for example. Can't drive a lorry on a standard license. Moped etc. So we have lines in the sand already.



  • #1328
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 43,918 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123460494#Comment_123460494

    I did not say it was alive but it would not be correct to say that something that can move (now without direct human control) is an inanimate object. It just suits Sean's disingenuous argument to think that way



  • #1329
    mulbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,830 ✭✭✭mulbot


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123460868#Comment_123460868

    Ah come on now, of course it's inanimate. Same as a chair, a lawnmower etc are.



  • #1330
    Busman Paddy Lasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    I'd be 100% in favour of advanced safety driving test every ten years, for everybody.

    The person behind the wheel must be able to drive safely whether in a Jazz or a Range Rover. Prevention is better than cure and blindly blaming SUVs is just such a stupid argument. The quality of tyre is on the car is the no.1 factor is stopping distance - all other factors being equal. They are the only part of the car that touches the road. I don't think this had been mentioned yet.

    Reverse parking. Half the population don't practice this and don't realise that when reversing out of a space any car has an SUV type blunt and high surface. Double whammy the driver is facing the wrong way!!

    For anyone with an engineering or science background reading this thread is like having knives poked in their eyes.

    SUV hate will never improve road safety (excluding reduced visibility when parked) notifying all drivers that they are responsible for not running over someone and specific lessons in how to improve is the way forward. Prevention is the only way to get to zero road deaths, if that is an aim. Prevention in turn will reduce serious life-ruining injuries that obviously don't show up in death statistics.

    Opinion: taxing and vilifying SUV owners will put a chip on their shoulder and and increase bad driving behaviour.



  • #1331
    ?Cee?view
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,960 ✭✭✭?Cee?view


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123460698#Comment_123460698

    You describe two situations where you failed to avoid hazards, and fail to take responsibility for your unsafe road behaviour, yet somehow its SUV’s fault?



  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    yes, that's it exactly.



  • #1333
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    there's a real 'guns don't kill people' sort of logic to a lot of what's been said here.

    'guns aren't the problem as long as everyone is a responsible gun owner' is usually laughed at (from a european perspective). but that's essentially the logic of the argument being forwarded.

    appealing to everyone to be a better driver is great, and it's true, we should all aspire to be better driver;, but the thing is - we're not all good drivers. no amount of rhetoric about driver skills addresses the fact that certain cars are more dangerous than others.



  • #1334
    Busman Paddy Lasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123460988#Comment_123460988

    It is logical and true as you say. I don't want rhetoric, I want precise measured action. Not "appealing" to drivers to improve. Tangible measures to produce real world results.

    SUV hate is an emotive response. Cars aren't guns, don't make that comparison you're better than that.

    Being hit by a car is a roll of the dice with better odds than being hit by an SUV. I don't want to roll the dice in the first place!

    FYI I have been run over by a car and broke my legs so I know what I'm talking about.



  • #1335
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    yes, i know cars aren't guns. i was comparing the logic of the arguments.



  • #1336
    Busman Paddy Lasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461022#Comment_123461022

    You cannot compare the logic of the arguments, the subject matter is too different. Handguns and AR15s are designed to kill people (target practice me hole).

    Cars are made to get people from A to B. I know you know that but it needs to be stressed. The logic may seem the same but the real world application renders them incomparable.



  • #1337
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    It still stands.

    The logic I was arguing against is that of 'yes, we know a particular object is more dangerous, but we ascribe that danger purely to the user and suggest the only way to tackle it is user education'. And there are clear and obvious parallels between the gun control debate and many of the arguments being put forward in this thread.

    User education by itself also does not address the issue where the 'user' is not at fault. As mentioned earlier, a friend was the driver in a pedestrian fatality where he was held blameless (by the gardai, victim's family etc.)

    But if in a scenario like he faced, the pedestrian is more likely to die because the car involved is an SUV, can we not think how we can mitigate the extra danger created by the SUV?



  • #1338
    Busman Paddy Lasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461148#Comment_123461148

    For your single data point example, I don't see what you are getting at. That seems to be such an outlier that person was doomed.

    Prevention of collisions or reducing the number of collisions is the way to mitigate the extra danger created by the SUV.



  • #1339
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    My point was that there are a certain number (most, IIRC, according to SeanW) of pedestrian fatalities which are the cause of the pedestrian. In such an incident, driver training can only be so useful that scenario.

    If you accept that car and pedestrian (or car and cyclist) collisions are inevitable - and no amount of driver training will change that - the roads are more dangerous with SUVs.

    The research we've been talking about was clear - they even provided an estimate of by how much - that roads are more dangerous with SUVs.



  • #1340
    Flinty997
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,352 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461108#Comment_123461108

    The problem people have with AR15 is it looks like a military assault rifle. But theres a civilian version which isn't. Also hard for a place like Ireland to judge something like a rifle when we don't have the same sort of wilderness.

    How ever if everyone has a rifle the chances of it being misused are higher. In this SUVs are similar urban streets full of SUVs are a problem. Less so in the US where everything is massive. In Ireland with tiny streets and housing estates definitely is. It goes far beyond accidents. Imagine every had a Hummer. At what point do you say enough is enough.

    And I get they can be more useful, higher seating etc. More general purpose than fiat 500.



  • #1341
    Busman Paddy Lasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461302#Comment_123461302

    I don't know how suddenly that person fell out into the road in that specific case and I didn't want to get into one case then extrapolate. That's bad science that can be used by either side.

    "and no amount of driver training will change that"

    Disagree. "Inevitable" could be one, a hundered or a thousand per year. I'd rather 1 per year over 10 or 100.

    Driver training can reduce those type of pedestrian v car collisions. In theory all of them but common sense says not all of them.

    Advanced training involves anticipation and reading the environment as you drive. In my case of getting run over, if I was the driver I would certainly have avoided it.

    As a driver I have 100% avoided hitting a child running out into the road from behind a parked car. I read the situation, good weather in a residential area and kids out playing. I slowed down when approaching a row of parked cars, hovered my foot over the brake and braked instantly.

    I can't honestly extrapolate this one case to say we can eliminate all pedestrian v car collisions, because one collision would render such an amateur hypothesis false.



  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    BP_RS3813
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 685 ✭✭✭BP_RS3813


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461108#Comment_123461108

    You can get from A to B without needing a huge vehicle though.



  • #1343
    Busman Paddy Lasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461443#Comment_123461443

    I know. I have a saloon car. I get the bus to work. I refuse to drive into Dublin City as it is a medieval city layout and I think a lot more of it should be pedestrianised.



  • #1344
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,623 ✭✭✭SeanW


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123460698#Comment_123460698

    You may not have the intention to mislead Irish drivers, but the reason I insist on Ireland specific practical data, is that I've seen this scam being pulled on Irish drivers before.

    A few years ago, Dublin City Council promoted their "Love 30" "consultation" document in which they outlined their intention to lower almost all speed limits in Dublin City - including on most of the main arterial roads - to 30kph. They called it a "consultation" but in reality their document was entirely one-sided looking to manipulate the reader into coming to the desired conclusion that blanket 30kph limits would be "safer" in some significant sense than the current mix of 30 and 50. In particular, they heavily referenced theoretical data about the probability of a pedestrian being killed in collisions at various speeds.

    What they failed to mention was that, in practice for Ireland:

    1. All vehicle data only showed 1 fatality every 300,000,000 vehicle kilometres driven roughly.
    2. Most fatalities occur outside of urban areas.
    3. Pedestrian fatalities are themselves only a subset of all of this.
    4. Most pedestrian fatalities are caused by the pedestrian, not the driver.

    Andy does the same thing regularly on these forums accusing "drivers" (all 3.25 million of us?) of killing whatever number of people they pulls out of their rear end that day, never putting any of those wild claims into context.

    So when I see people using weasel words like "if" I just assume they're trying to pull a similar scam - by getting people to focus on theoretical data rather than any practical application. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of trying to pull a scam but nevertheless I do continue to insist on practical data for Ireland.

    And it's also why I want to know:

    1. Where do you draw the line?
    2. Does the same argument apply to promoting motorway projects?

    As for a hypothetical: Suppose we had a common definition of "SUV" and that there was a proposal to heavily tax them BUT the money would be ringfenced to aid motorway construction, with considerably lowered thresholds in terms of AADT to justify a motorway or dual carriageway project.

    Since we know that road improvements massively improve safety, this kind of ringfencing of a hypothetical "SUV tax" would (in theory at least) have a double-effect.

    Would this be something Andy and those who think like them could support?

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1345
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,623 ✭✭✭SeanW


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461302#Comment_123461302

    Again, your side rejects the idea that collisions are inevitable. Andy goes around on various forums shrieking at people who use words like "accident" precisely because, in their view, accidents are NOT inevitable, they happen because drivers are reckless and irresponsible, so words like "accident" serve as propaganda by the all-powerful motorist lobby to let drivers off the hook.

    So either accidents are inevitable or they are not - and your side needs to be clear on this, because right now it looks like your side are promoting a bizarre Schrodinger's accident paradox.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1346
    elperello
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,719 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461426#Comment_123461426

    Three times in the past week I've seen near misses in supermarket car parks.

    Two were parents/guardians being inattentive and allowing small children to wander into the path of vehicles.

    Both times I was able to stop because I'm very careful in such places.

    The third time it was my agility that saved me when the driver of a hatchback almost ran over me reversing. I literally had to run to avoid being hit.

    In all three cases the reporting might have mentioned "vehicle strikes pedestrian".



  • #1347
    elperello
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,719 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123461443#Comment_123461443

    That's true but a lot depends on the number of passengers you need to carry or the size of trailer you need to tow.



  • #1348
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,863 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123462343#Comment_123462343

    my 'side '? Seriously? If I have made those arguments, I'll answer to them. But if you think it's a gotcha quoting arguments I've not made at me, as if they're mine, I'll simply answer by putting words in your mouth too.



  • #1349
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,623 ✭✭✭SeanW


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123462503#Comment_123462503

    Given how frequently Andy thanks your posts, and how many posts by others you both "thank" I consider it fair to assume you are on the same page.

    So I am wondering if we should in fact assume that accidents happen, because there does not seem to broad agreement on this point.

    But to get back to my questions:

    1. You have little practical data for Ireland.
    2. Where do we draw the line between an "SUV" that you want to discourage, and vehicles that are OK? Again, some posters' record indicate there is no line.
    3. Does the argument about an object causing danger apply in other areas.

    To make this more real-world, let's go back to my hypothetical - suppose we had an SUV tax that was ringfenced for road (dual carriageway and motorway) construction. Assuming that objects were inherently dangerous (something I don't regard as settled) such a tax would minimise two alleged dangers: SUVs and all-purpose single carriageways.

    Would this make sense? This last question I direct towards anyone alleging that SUVs are inherently dangerous.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1350
    Flinty997
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,352 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123462486#Comment_123462486

    But in all cases they weren't reported. So irrelevant to any stats.



  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    Flinty997
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,352 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123462563#Comment_123462563

    Physics doesn't work any differently in Ireland to require a different set of data.

    People can agree with some points people make but not all of them and without being on a "side". Picking sides is a playground mindset to avoid actually engaging in honest discussion.

    No one has to allege anything. Theres enough studies and data from around the world. People are free not to read or believe it.



Advertisement