editor
hiraethified
Sadly, I don't think he can.
SUVs make up more than 40% of new cars sold in the UK – while fully electric vehicles account for less than 2%
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Nobody said that though.
But manufacturers do load the dice of customer choice in favour of SUVs because they're the same basic components as a normal car with a bigger mark up. Even ordinary hatchbacks are fattened up and then plugged as having 'SUV-inspired versatility' and stupid shit like that.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
new cars are all way bigger than ones of old park an orginal mini next to a mini 4x4 countryman it looks like a toy!not quite a stupid as an American pickup truck we had one on are street the owner got rid of it as he could only park it on the street and everyone hated him for it and werent subtle about letting him no. it stuck out and made getting past the wretched thing difficult.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Saw a bloke trying to 3 point turn his monster truck the other day. It was embarassing. People use these things as school run vehicles ffs.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Explain it then. How do they "load the dice"? What you've basically said is that the SUV is more expensive and so it makes people buy them. That makes no sense at all. I'm not following the logic. FWIW, most of the "SUV"s sold are just fattened up hatchbacks, yes. But I don't see how that changes anything.
I mean, maybe I've read it wrong? To me you've said the carmakers "load the dice" by offering something more expensive that's more than people need, while still offering a cheaper option that's perfectly adequate. That's not loading the dice, that's basic sales. What is it that you think drives people to buy the inflated, 8cm taller hatchback over the regular one that's thousands cheaper?
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
None of that is new or different. We've had that for 80 years non-stop and people didn't jump up and buy a Mondeo over a focus just because one is safer, faster, larger. The SUV version of a hatchback is normally worse at performance than what it's based on, so it's certainly not about speed or handling. "Coolness" has never managed to be defined by the automakers (outside of the 2-seater market), despite a hundred years of trying. Every so often, they luck out and make something that's hot and ride the wave, but no-one ever set out in 2000 to make the SUV the dominant type of car sold in Europe. (The US is different because light trucks are regulated differently to cars and there's a massive incentive to sell trucks there. But Chrysler and GM have both pulled out of Europe and Ford is focusing on its core market.) Hatchbacks still get tens of millions spent on advertising them - it's not as if someone can look at an SUV ad and want it because they're not aware of the alternatives. The smaller cars are still there in the magazines, they're still there on the dealers' lots, the car companies still want to sell them because they've already made the things. And most will continue to do so. If SUVs were advertised to the exclusion of all else, you might have a point. But that's not the case. People have a choice, and they choose SUVs, despite extra cost, despite lower performance, despite them being more difficult to park. (the smaller SUVs have fairly equivalent emissions to the hatch they're based on, so I'll leave that one) It's been 20 years since the Qashqai shocked the market with its success, most are aware of all the drawbacks. And they still buy them. There's no secret trick up the car manufacturers' sleeve. If they'd found a way to make people buy a more expensive car, they'd have used it well before now.
Basically, I have faith that people in general aren't mindless automatons. They have a choice, and a well-defined one. You can't make someone choose a particular way, no matter what you spend on marketing it. People like the accursed things, and so they'll make more of them. There's a clear cause and effect there - we didn't suddenly have a dozen SUV models pushed on us overnight. It started with one (the Qashqai), which sold extremely well and surprised everyone, and so everyone copied it. And lo and behold, people like the things and all of the copies have sold really well too. It's even elevated the sales of the big beasts that were always there (Range Rover, Merc M-class) but never sold well in the past.
editor
hiraethified
Fuck SUVs
www.theguardian.com
Motor emissions could have fallen by over 30% without SUV trend, report says
Global fall averaged 4.2% between 2010 and 2022 but would have been far more if vehicle sizes stayed same
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
No I said manufacturers work very hard to get people to buy SUVs because they're more expensive. It's an objectively bad consumer choice, as you yourself have explained in some detail, but more and more people do it. Why do you think that is? Are people just getting stupider every year, or does the car industry maybe have a hand in it?
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
America consists of the entire world syndrome again. In the EU, passenger SUVs have the same safety and emissions requirements as cars, unlike in the States. According to VW Group, it most certainly isn't cheaper to make a T-Roc (which is a bloated Golf) than a Golf. A lot of these essays take the US market to represent everyone, when the US market is in fact the most exceptional one, being very different to literally everywhere else on the globe. Americans drive giant, gus guzzling monsters is a trope from 70 years ago, albeit a true one.
No argument with the rest of it though.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Because they like riding higher, they like having more cargo space, they like having a higher cargo lip. There do exist things that SUVs are better at. It's not an objectively bad choice. Whether it's worth the trade offs is for the individual to decide.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
But Chz is not saying that people are rational actors. He’s saying that there are various things many people like about SUVs for real reasons, some of which are rational, some of which are silly, and none of which really justify the environmental externalities or the cost premium. And car makers are rushing to meet the opportunity which these people present.
Why is it so important for you that evil corporations be entirely responsible for all human foibles?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
It's an interesting jump you make from "people aren't 100% rational" to "people do whatever they're told to".
Edit: Admittedly, when cheese says "eat me" I am powerless to refuse. But that's a niche case.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
If that were important to me, I might actually have said it.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
You can't make a particular person choose to do something, not with any guarantee of success, but you can make people in general choose to do it. Or enough of them to significantly affect the market and everything downstream of it. Otherwise all those billions spent on marketing probably wouldn't be.
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
Those are different things. People have agency and make real choices. That doesn’t mean they are “rational actors” in the classic sense of homo economicus, which as you say earlier is a discredited theory.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
You don't have to believe otherwise to understand that propaganda with enough muscle behind it to become a ubiquitous part of everyday culture is and has always been very, very effective. It's how everything from believing in a sky beard to the reversal of colour coding for gender identity has taken place. It's how capitalism works ffs. All that needed to happen in the US was for larger sizes to become normalised, which can be done by advertising and making other options scarcer. Not even impossible to find, just not the first thing you see in the catalogue.
hash tag
Books, not bombs
It sounds like it's been illegally parked for a few days. It begs the question how has it only just got a ticketBeen some enormous SUV parked outside my place last few days. Just got a parking ticket.
editor
hiraethified
The Planet: "Hey everybody, there's a climate crisis looming that is going to endanger the lives and livelihoods of millions of people and wreak permanent devastation on the natural world.
Cars are contributing to the crisis, so we need to look at creating smaller, lighter, more environmental friendly and less dangerous vehicles"
The Motor Industry: "Buy our bigger, heavier, more polluting SUVs because your personal comfort and safety trumps absolutely everything. And if you're not convinced we'll get rid of our smaller cars and bombard you with reasons why you need an SUV."
Cars are contributing to the crisis, so we need to look at creating smaller, lighter, more environmental friendly and less dangerous vehicles"
The Motor Industry: "Buy our bigger, heavier, more polluting SUVs because your personal comfort and safety trumps absolutely everything. And if you're not convinced we'll get rid of our smaller cars and bombard you with reasons why you need an SUV."
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Absolutely, but it doesn't absolve the consumer from the fact that they wanted these things in the first place and that they're selfish gits. I totally agree in all other regards. The businesses will ride it off into the sunset on their gold plated golf carts, but we served it up to them on a platter.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
The effect of front-end vehicle height on pedestrian death risk
Highlights
- I combine US pedestrian crash data with physical measurements of vehicle height.
- The effect of front-end vehicle height on pedestrian death probability is estimated.
- A 10 cm increase in front-end height causes a 22% increase in pedestrian fatality risk.
- The survival probability of women, children, and seniors are more strongly affected
Abstract
Pedestrian deaths in the US have risen in recent years. Concurrently, US vehicles have increased in size, which may pose a safety risk for pedestrians. In particular, the increased height of vehicle front-ends may present a danger for pedestrians in a crash, as the point of vehicle contact is more likely to occur at the pedestrian’s chest or head. I merge US crash data with a public data set on vehicle dimensions to test for the impact of vehicle height on the likelihood that a struck pedestrian dies. After controlling for crash characteristics, I estimate a 10 cm increase in the vehicle’s front-end height is associated with a 22% increase in fatality risk. I estimate that a cap on front-end vehicle heights of 1.25 m would reduce annual US pedestrian deaths by 509.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
That's fairly pitiful compared to what they'd get by reducing the speed limits by 10mph. But that would be a "war on drivers", so it can't be considered.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
We're getting there in the design phase, but it's going to take a long while to roll out to affordable cars as standard equipment. Both automated braking systems (because it's best to not hit the pedestrian, or hit them at 10mph), and pedestrian impact zones (which take advantage of car bulk) are expensive options on expensive cars. But like airbags and antilock brakes, it will trickle down. Though to go back to my original post, both them them are much, much more effective at lower speeds.
Similar threads
