SUV Scum

Tomas_V wrote: »

You've no idea about the reasons people object to SUVs. It's not that people can't see them coming, it's because the SUVs have blind spots. Have you not heard of the tragic accidents with parents running over then own toddlers in the driveway of their own home while driving SUVs? It's not the size, it's the shape that does the damage.

As to pedestrians getting out of the way, that's not what it says in the Rules of the Road. If a pedestrian has commenced to cross, a driver MUST give way.

How does a ford c-max or it's ilk not have the same blind spots?

What kind of car do you drive that you can see a toddler sitting behind your rear wheel? Unless you have a rear view camera, I don't think you can either.

What % or irish road traffic accidents are todlers getting run over by their suv driving parents. 0? Or close to that - I never heard of it ever happening in ireland - there is some anicdotal evidence from the US.

This thread is high on opinion, but seriously lacking on facts from the anti suv brigade.

Can the anti brigade get together a proven factual arguement for the banning or suv's. with figures demonstrating how the world is doomed if they continue to roam our roads.
Even a strict definition of what an SUV is would be a good start, as many here don't appear to be too well up on the subject.

Until then, what we have here is 23 pages of opinion like below....

Suv drivers are mean
suvs pollute
suvs kill babies
suv are expensive
suvs have blind spots etc etc

None of which has to date has been backed up by anything resembling proof.

Anan1

cancan wrote: »

Can the anti brigade get together a proven factual arguement for the banning or suv's.

Do the anti-SUV brigade want them banned? I don't, swingeing taxes and public opprobrium will do me just fine.

Tomas_V

cancan wrote: »

What kind of car do you drive that you can see a toddler sitting behind your rear wheel? Unless you have a rear view camera, I don't think you can either.

Actually, I mostly ride a bicycle. Visibility from the saddle is very good.

From what I've seen, SUVs waste of road space. But that's just an opinion too. Let's add it to the list.

Just as with the smoking ban, animal furs, smokey coal and plastic bags, absolute facts didn't bring about the changes. What happens is a change in public opinion and sentiment.

But I've no doubt SUV owners will want to talk up their market or it'll affect their trade-in value.

Anan1 wrote: »

Do the anti-SUV brigade want them banned? I don't, swingeing taxes and public opprobrium will do me just fine.

Ban/tax - Give us some figures and facts to back these ideas up.

Personally, I'm not their biggest fan and would never buy one myself, but I do take exception with people who want them banned for reasons beyond what they are stating here.

There has been no scientific proof to back up any arguement from the anti brigade.

The gov has made a mess of enough in ireland, and having the chattering classes wanting to ban/tax personal freedoms is a sad sad day for our country.

It's a slippery slope - who knows what freedoms will be removed next in the name of tax revenue. It would be wise to keep this in mind.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2006/06/fired_up_owners.html

more tax, the problem will sort itself out.

cancan wrote: »

There has been no scientific proof to back up any arguement from the anti brigade.

yes there has. anybody who understands the issues raised will have a basic grasp of physics and understand some principles of momentum, decelleration, progressive collapse of vehicles, centrifugal force, economics, environmental impact, road safety including visibility, pedestrian and passenger safety and any other issue which people should have some knowledge of before engaging in a discussion about SUVs, whether they are pro- or anti- the argument.

littlejukka wrote: »

yes there has. anybody who understands the issues raised will have a basic grasp of physics and understand some principles of momentum, decelleration, progressive collapse of vehicles, centrifugal force, economics, environmental impact, road safety including visibility, pedestrian and passenger safety and any other issue which people should have some knowledge of before engaging in a discussion about SUVs, whether they are pro- or anti- the argument.

Ok
Pick which of these two cars that, if you had the choice, would rather be involved in a frontal collistion with

a) BMW 5 series
b) Hyundai Santa Fe

cancan wrote: »

Ok
Pick which of these two cars that, if you had the choice, would rather be involved in a frontal collistion with

a) BMW 5 series
b) Hyundai Santa Fe

the BMW, for a number of reasons. why?

littlejukka wrote: »

the BMW, for a number of reasons. why?

The sante fe weighs less (and pollutes less) - given your deep knowledge of physics, you would think you would have picked the lighter vehicle to get hit by.
Momentum is a bitch. Their cumple zones are at the same height.

If I told you I am about to throw two rocks at you at the same velocity, a small one and a big one, you just chose the big one.

The sante fe is built and is made of up mostly a hyundai sonata saloon, with all the same engineering make up.(Even down to the same assembley line)
Both are heaps, but to the average punter, you'd swear they were from different planets.

Stark

I checked the pedestrian safety NCAP ratings for both cars and the BMW's result is almost as woeful as the Sante Fe. Almost. The BMW 5 series scored 1 point, the Santa Fe scored 0 points. The shape of the bonnet matters much more in a collision than the mass of the car.

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/ncap/ncap_car_results.jsp?make=BMW&modelYear=5%20series:2004&publicationDate=2004-11-01
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/ncap/ncap_car_results.jsp?make=Hyundai&model=Santa+FE&year=2006&publicationDate=2006-12-01

If you want a nice big executive car that isn't lethal to pedestrians, it looks like the Citroen C6 is the to go for:
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/ncap/ncap_car_results.jsp?make=Citroen&model=C6&year=2005&publicationDate=2005-11-01

Actually, when the current green buzz wears off, it might not be a bad idea to start taxing cars based on their NCAP results.

I was nearly knocked down by some idiot in a large saloon the other night just walking along the footpath (guys decide to have a go at speed parking into his driveway without even indicating) so at the moment my bias lies towards them if anywhere at the moment.

Cheers for the confirmation Stark!
Different degrees of rubbish - but some of the people here make you think that hitting a 5 series, you'd be fine, and hitting a sante fe, would mean the end of your bloodline.

Remember NCAP tests are very specific - If you are lucky enough to have an accident exactly as per test, you'll get those results..

Think back to college - if you had the exam questions before the test, you'll probably get different marks that if you didn't.

But in a real crash, the questions change.

NCAP does not take this into account.

I respect the debate here - but some of the anti brigade are begrudgers, some are not educated on the facts, and some are just ranting.

I'm all for open debate of an issue, but I will not stand by as people who don't know the facts assume the position on a soapbox, and spread half truths, and perpetuate myths to the masses.

cancan wrote: »

The sante fe weighs less (and pollutes less) - given your deep knowledge of physics, you would think you would have picked the lighter vehicle to get hit by.
Momentum is a bitch. Their cumple zones are at the same height.

If I told you I am about to throw two rocks at you at the same velocity, a small one and a big one, you just chose the big one.

The sante fe is built and is made of up mostly a hyundai sonata saloon, with all the same engineering make up.(Even down to the same assembley line)
Both are heaps, but to the average punter, you'd swear they were from different planets.

eh...no. the 5 series ranges from 1550 kg, the lightest santa fe is 1640kg.

the 5-series is also safer for occupants in a collision, particularly children. if i was the cause or contributed to the crash, the people in the 5-series would be more likely to avoid injury. the fact that the centre of gravity of the santa fe is higher would tend to cause the front of my vehicle to be forced down, rather than a straight on collision. this would reduce the effectiveness of any crumple zone or other damage/injury limiting elements in my car.

ninty9er

cancan wrote: »

The sante fe weighs less (and pollutes less) - given your deep knowledge of physics, you would think you would have picked the lighter vehicle to get hit by.
Momentum is a bitch. Their cumple zones are at the same height.

If I told you I am about to throw two rocks at you at the same velocity, a small one and a big one, you just chose the big one.

The sante fe is built and is made of up mostly a hyundai sonata saloon, with all the same engineering make up.(Even down to the same assembley line)
Both are heaps, but to the average punter, you'd swear they were from different planets.

The Santa Fe may pollute less under certain circumstances, but I'm almost 95% certain without checking at all that a 530d would pollute less. You want the "anti-brigade" to go into specifics so I just did.

Sante Fe diesel V's bmw diesel?

I give up, I am not going to change some minds here. They are already made up.

I'll leave on the note that due to the bashing like what has gone on here, nice cars get taxed more.

I don't even live in ireland, but I can see what a shafting the average motorist is getting.

If ye want more taxes etc, keep it up.

I would have thought that we all like cars in a motors forum.

Who looks out for the motorist in ireland?
The simi cares about dealer profits, the aa after getting connor faughnan into nice parties and his name on the radio.

Its about time the irish motorist realised what a punching bag he/she has become.

I would like to move home sometime, but until the irish tax payer realises the shafting he is getting to run inept government agencies, I will be stuck away from home I am sorry to say.

cancan wrote: »

I give up, I am not going to change some minds here. They are already made up.

i can't speak for everyone else but i've come to the same conclusion about you. please stay where you are and drive what you like. at least you'll be somebody else's problem.

ninty9er

cancan wrote: »

Its about time the irish motorist realised what a punching bag he/she has become.

I would like to move home sometime, but until the irish tax payer realises the shafting he is getting to run inept government agencies, I will be stuck away from home I am sorry to say.

there's not much difference between the Irish motorist and the Irish taxpayer. and If you were to ask people whether they'd rather take a lesser hit on purchases or 60% on income, I;m sure you'd find VRT and road tax would become very appealing all of a sudden

Tomas_V

ninty9er wrote: »

I;m sure you'd find VRT and road tax would become very appealing all of a sudden

We don't have road tax in Ireland....yet.

Is this under discussion over at Ógra Fianna Fáil?

Prospect, fair play for ya to keep arguing with those that keep making the same silly points. Leave them off, there are 4, maybe 5 people that keep replying that are obviously hugely anti SUV, and you will never change their perception. Even though they have YET to define what exactly an 'SUV' is?:p

Screw them, let everyone drive what they want once it does not effect anyones else. Its not the vehicle that needs to be addressed, it is the collection of water and bones and cells behind the wheel that is always the issue!:D A badly driven punto is as bad as a badly driven land cruiser. Let the Anti SUV nazi's off, they refuse to see anyone elses point of view anyway. You have diligently refuted most of their arguments based on disinformation and fuzzy logic, leaving them with only the argument of "I just don't like them!".

dodgyme

astraboy wrote: »

Prospect, fair play for ya to keep arguing with those that keep making the same silly points. Leave them off, there are 4, maybe 5 people that keep replying that are obviously hugely anti SUV, and you will never change their perception. Even though they have YET to define what exactly an 'SUV' is?:p

Screw them, let everyone drive what they want once it does not effect anyones else. Its not the vehicle that needs to be addressed, it is the collection of water and bones and cells behind the wheel that is always the issue!:D A badly driven punto is as bad as a badly driven land cruiser. Let the Anti SUV nazi's off, they refuse to see anyone elses point of view anyway. You have diligently refuted most of their arguments based on disinformation and fuzzy logic, leaving them with only the argument of "I just don't like them!".

Not you again. People dont argue with this guy. He keeps going on about the fact that "as long as it affects nobody else" rubbish and not reading the posts. I think his daddy owns an SUV.

jmayo

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

OH...MY GOD! This is exact point us SUV-friendly drivers are trying to make! If you like to drive a Subaru better, then we aren't going to bother you about it - we like to drive Hummvee wantabees because we like them better than other vehicles. No, they don't handle as well, but we aren't interested in that right now - we want a nice, roomy vehicle that doesn't feel the bumps as much, with the capability of towing something (even if we don't tow but once or twice per year).

Once again, you can't generalize all types of drivers into one category based on nothing besides size alone. Thank you for showing those that are also on your side of the fence that you can't generalize all jeep drivers into one group. Oh, by the way, I am getting a Grand Cherokee, but have no interest in even riding in a Hummer. So yeah, here we are back down to preference.

Nope, American cars can't handle worth anything.

Speaking of generalisations, you assume I am on the side of those that want us all driving eco friendly 1 litres the size of the smart car.
I do not generalise all 4x4 drivers and SUV is a subset of these drivers.
I have no problem with people driving proper 4x4s (Cherokee, Defenders, Landcruisers, Patrols, Tacoma, F150, Tundra, Pajero, RAM, etc) because they need them for work or becuase they are carvanning or pulling boats, gliders etc.
I often drive 4x4 for one of the above reasons.

I do have a problem with people that buy certain 4x4s (the so called SUVs) becuase the guy nextdoor has one and they see them as a status symbol. They primarily use them for city driving and to make matters worse they are often driven by people that should not be driving a Fiat 500 nevermind a large vehicle.

Even worse is the Hummer that is now seen as the ultimate prize.
It is not even suitable as a military vehicle, ask the US army how many villages they got stuck in Bosnia with their humvees. They are too bloody large. Give me a Defender anytime.

And can we stop comparing the bloody Santa Fe with Subarus and BMWs.
It is not in the same league as any of them.

Also I would ban all those bloody MPVs, they are fancy minibuses dressed up
Why do they have to be so high, if they are a car with extra seats?
Usually driven by eejits as well.

BTW I wouldn't go for Grand Cherokee if it is anything like the Cherokee.
Pile of ****.
Why not a Toyota or a European - Volvo, BMW or Land Rover ?

daveharnett

This is all very emotive and unproductive. I'm don't want to get into stereotypes about suv drivers driving. Yes, I do find that many of them use the car's size to intimidate other road users, but that is just my observation. Let's keep the argument rational.

My dispute is with the suitability of cars to the tasks they are used for. I have no problem with large 4*4s being used on farms, or by builders who regularly need to haul trailers. I also have no problem with 7 litre mustangs being used for touring the country one week a year. I can also appreciate that a large car with wide door openings is helpful if one needs to juggle a number of (ie. more than 2!) young children.

My problem is with people who own an SUV who's primary function is to A: take them (alone) from the suburbs to their office in the city centre. B: Mothers who take their 1/2 children a few miles to school. In these instances, the space the car occupies on the road, the danger to other road users, and the environmental impact is way in excess of what the task requires. I have just the same problem with the businessman driving his lambo to work, but this is not as common.

The decision to drive an SUV which you do not need is a selfish one. It makes the world a warmer, more dangerous, more crowded place for everyone else. Do not expect to be loved for it.

dodgyme wrote: »

Not you again. People dont argue with this guy. He keeps going on about the fact that "as long as it affects nobody else" rubbish and not reading the posts. I think his daddy owns an SUV.

Ya, imagine letting people have free will and freedom of choice. What would the country turn into?!:rolleyes: Lord but you really take the biscuit. Your either a troll or very pig headed. My dad does not have an SUV, neither do I as I already stated, I just believe people have every right to own one once they can afford it.

BTW I always read the posts,not my fault yours are mostly drivel with no factual content.

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

BTW I always read the posts,not my fault yours are mostly drivel with no factual content.

If you always read the posts, then how come you're still stuck at this?

astraboy wrote: »

A badly driven punto is as bad as a badly driven land cruiser.

Because its true? It does not matter what one drives once a person is competent enough to handle the vehicle. There are bad drivers in both superminis and SUV's, a fact of life I'm afraid. However, there are a large number of competent SUV drivers, that bought an SUV for the simple reason they wanted to and could afford to. All the anti SUV arguments have been dismissed, the high horse brigade are clutching at straws TBH. If you think a few jumped up boardies are going to stop the sale of x5's and Santa Fe's ye have another thing coming.

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

Because its true?

If you had been reading the posts you would know by now that it's not.

Anan1 wrote: »

If you had been reading the posts you would know by now that it's not.

Have you ever been on the road?! I read all the posts and people try and argue that a badly driven SUV is worse then a badly driven punto or similar, but its down to how bad the driver is in each situation, and what kind/size of SUV you are on about as there are 100's! In my experience in years of driving I have far more often been inconvenienced by people in fiestas and the like then SUV's and larger cars.

Again, my experience.

dodgyme

Anan1 wrote: »

If you had been reading the posts you would know by now that it's not.

Astraboy thinks anyone can do what they want. He doesnt understand that the roads are shared and that he lives in a society (a collective entity). He doesnt read the posts and when he is loosing the argument starts to call you sad and controlling. This might work in the pub dealing with a 20 year old but not when people actually care what they say and mean it. The 'get a life' responses show his true colours as immature.