SUVs make up more than 40% of new cars sold in the UK – while fully electric vehicles account for less than 2%

[Jennaonthebeach]

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.

they should start with making them smaller as per conclusions in above report. That would also serve to make them more affordable.

Though to go back to my original post, both them them are much, much more effective at lower speeds.

There is no either/or here. We could easily do both. 22% is not insignificant.

 

[Chz]

hey should start with making them smaller as per conclusions in above report. That would also serve to make them more affordable.

There are innumerable cars on the market smaller than the height outlined in the report. In fact, most cars are well below that. They've been making big-assed trucks for a hundred years and I think people need to take some fucking responsibility for buying them and not whining "Oh but it was there and it was shiny".

There is no either/or here. We could easily do both. 22% is not insignificant.

One would prove much more significant than the other, as every speed safety study from the past 50 or so years will tell you. Speed kills. If the car hits you fast enough, it doesn't fucking matter if it's a Mini or a bus. You're dead.

 

[Rob Ray]

It's not either/or, so wgaf which saves more lives?

"Sorry Batman, I'm afraid Superman exists ... "

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

There are innumerable cars on the market smaller than the height outlined in the report. In fact, most cars are well below that. They've been making big-assed trucks for a hundred years and I think people need to take some fucking responsibility for buying them and not whining "Oh but it was there and it was shiny".

One would prove much more significant than the other, as every speed safety study from the past 50 or so years will tell you. Speed kills. If the car hits you fast enough, it doesn't fucking matter if it's a Mini or a bus. You're dead.

You seem fixated on this one point. clearly you think 22% is insignificant and that it doesn't matter if those people die.

 

[Chz]

At no point did I say that. But I do think more effort should go to the more beneficial strategy. If one way saves 600 lives and the other saves 6000, do you expend the same amount of energy and effort on them? How many campaigns that want to do this and this and this succeed versus the single issue ones? I'm being a realist about human nature is all. You ask for two different things, people say "Nah, can't be done". You ask for one and it has a chance of happening.

ETA: Anyway, it's semantics. I don't want to stop or slow a campaign to adjust the shape of vehicles. I just feel the energy could be expended better elsewhere first and then move on.

 

[Hollis]

I'm still amazed so many people afford the things... I was looking at the Range Rover and they're around £100k. Even with finance and a deposit of £20k you're paying £600-700 a month for 4 years..

 

[Chz]

I'm grateful to all those what buy new cars so the rest of us can buy them used when they're done with them. My father had a thing for new cars because his dad always got a new company car every three years (and a nice one, at that), but I didn't inherit his tastes. He is literally the only person I knew on a one to one basis that bought new cars. And even he kept them for 6-8 years back when that was the lifetime of the average car. (he's been gone 20 years now)

 

[editor]

Interesting infographic

 

[Chz]

I hate things that cherry-pick to make a point when the point could be made equally well without distortion.

A Golf Mk I was quite small for a family car in 1980. The Vauxhall Cavalier would be more reflective at 167cm. And the Range Rover, oddly enough, isn't a family car. It's not even a popular car, in overall sales. So you've told us that one of the smallest new cars on the road in 1980 is narrower than one of the largest cars on the road in 2022. So what? You've not proven anything that anyone with more than 3 brain cells could figure out on their own. They've done it just for the "OMG Huge!" effect, but it's clearly not a helpful comparison.

How about... In 1980 the Range Rover was 178cm wide and one of the largest things money could buy anywhere, and the 2022 Range Rover is now an absurd 222cm wide and probably isn't even the biggest vehicle on the road any more. That sounds more significant. That actually shows the growth in one thing rather than trying to compare two completely different things. You could probably add in that ~174cm (so almost a 1980 Range Rover's worth) is the median width for today's most popular vehicles. (The average is ~180, but that's skewed by a handful of giant SUVs. The median is more useful here.)

I'm not even sure what the point about the carriage is. It may be a bit narrower than a 1980s car, but it's way taller than either of the other vehicles and height being a problem has been done to death in this very thread.

 

[Silas Loom]

I hate things that cherry-pick to make a point when the point could be made equally well without distortion.

A Golf Mk I was quite small for a family car in 1980. The Vauxhall Cavalier would be more reflective at 167cm. And the Range Rover, oddly enough, isn't a family car. It's not even a popular car, in overall sales. So you've told us that one of the smallest new cars on the road in 1980 is narrower than one of the largest cars on the road in 2022. So what? You've not proven anything that anyone with more than 3 brain cells could figure out on their own. They've done it just for the "OMG Huge!" effect, but it's clearly not a helpful comparison.

How about... In 1980 the Range Rover was 178cm wide and one of the largest things money could buy anywhere, and the 2022 Range Rover is now an absurd 222cm wide and probably isn't even the biggest vehicle on the road any more. That sounds more significant. That actually shows the growth in one thing rather than trying to compare two completely different things. You could probably add in that ~174cm (so almost a 1980 Range Rover's worth) is the median width for today's most popular vehicles. (The average is ~180, but that's skewed by a handful of giant SUVs. The median is more useful here.)

I'm not even sure what the point about the carriage is. It may be a bit narrower than a 1980s car, but it's way taller than either of the other vehicles and height being a problem has been done to death in this very thread.

1930s and 1960s vehicles would have been really useful comparators, reflecting the peak periods of suburban roadbuilding, as the point made is about width in relation to roads.

 

[editor]

I hate things that cherry-pick to make a point when the point could be made equally well without distortion.

A Golf Mk I was quite small for a family car in 1980. The Vauxhall Cavalier would be more reflective at 167cm. And the Range Rover, oddly enough, isn't a family car. It's not even a popular car, in overall sales. So you've told us that one of the smallest new cars on the road in 1980 is narrower than one of the largest cars on the road in 2022. So what? You've not proven anything that anyone with more than 3 brain cells could figure out on their own. They've done it just for the "OMG Huge!" effect, but it's clearly not a helpful comparison.

How about... In 1980 the Range Rover was 178cm wide and one of the largest things money could buy anywhere, and the 2022 Range Rover is now an absurd 222cm wide and probably isn't even the biggest vehicle on the road any more. That sounds more significant. That actually shows the growth in one thing rather than trying to compare two completely different things. You could probably add in that ~174cm (so almost a 1980 Range Rover's worth) is the median width for today's most popular vehicles. (The average is ~180, but that's skewed by a handful of giant SUVs. The median is more useful here.)

I'm not even sure what the point about the carriage is. It may be a bit narrower than a 1980s car, but it's way taller than either of the other vehicles and height being a problem has been done to death in this very thread.

The point being that cars are getting 1cm wider every two years, and over half of new vehicles are too wide for many on-street parking spaces. And this is all happening during a climate crisis when the responsible thing to do would be to buy a smaller, lighter car.

Instead selfish drivers are buying huge chunks of metal that endanger others and contribute needlessly to climate change. They need to be taxed and/or banned off the roads.

Spurred on by rising sales of large SUVs, newly-sold passenger vehicles (i.e. cars) are getting one centimetre wider every 2 years (see figure 1 below). All the indications are that this trend will continue without regulatory action by European law-makers. The current EU maximum width applied to all vehicles, 255 cm, was enacted to limit the expansion of buses and trucks in the mid 1990s – and was never truly intended for cars. The limit fails to contain the trend to ever-wider SUVs (including pick-up trucks), and there is a compelling case to review it.

Among the top 100 models in 2023, 52% of vehicles sold were too wide for the minimum specified on-street parking space (180 cm) in major cities, including London, Paris and Rome, the research also finds. Off-street parking is now a tight squeeze even for the average new car (180 cm wide), while large luxury SUVs no longer fit. Measuring around 200 cm wide, large luxury SUVs leave too little space for car occupants to get in and out of vehicles in typical off-street spaces (240 cm).

The trend towards wider vehicles is reducing the road space available for other vehicles and cyclists while parked cars are further encroaching on footpaths. The wider designs have also enabled the height of vehicles to be further raised, despite crash data showing a 10 cm increase in the height of vehicle fronts carries a 30% higher risk of fatalities in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists.[

Cars are getting 1 cm wider every two years – research

Over half of new vehicles are too wide for many on-street parking spaces. Paris will vote on tripling parking fees for SUVs on 4 February.

www.transportenvironment.org

 

[editor]

These cunts are as bad as the evil wankers who pushed tobacco products when they knew all about the serious health risks

Toyota SUV advert banned for 'disregarding' impact of vehicles being pictured driving on environment

Adfree Cities had complained that the advert condoned behaviour that damaged the environment. Toyota argued certain industries needed to be able to drive off-road in harsh terrain.

news.sky.com

 

[Chz]

The point being that cars are getting 1cm wider every two years, and over half of new vehicles are too wide for many on-street parking spaces. And this is all happening during a climate crisis when the responsible thing to do would be to buy a smaller, lighter car.

Yeah, I get that. And my point wasn't that this is wrong or controversial, it's that they chose shit data that doesn't prove anything because they wanted to chase the biggest possible number instead of actually proving their point. I am not attacking you. I am not attacking the notion that 2m wide cars are a bad thing.

I literally had a co-worker look over my shoulder and say "So fucking what, Range Rovers were huge in 1980 and we complained about the size of them then". Comparing a MkI Golf to a RR gives no context whatsoever. All they had to do was compare a 1980 RR to a 2022 RR to a current B-segment hatchback and the point would've been much better made. What they did instead was look around for the biggest and smallest possible things, think "wow, that's a big number" and throw them together. But it proved nothing. I could say a brand new Fiesta is smaller than a Ford Granada from the 80s and that would make just as much sense. None. And I still don't know what the fuck the horse carriage was meant to prove. I have zero issues with "The Disco (and it is a Disco they used, not a RR but I feel the point stands adequately with it because the RR was their largest in 1980 and the Disco is their largest now) and its like are too fucking big". They should have just stuck with that.

Stupid, cherry-picked stats don't help an argument, they hurt it. If you use facts to slam the opponent, make sure they're both relevant and correct or you've just wasted your time because one little error renders the rest invalid. (I hated debating in HS, but that's the one thing I took away from it.)

Your follow-up post is much better in this regard. Though I think they're still fudging it slightly only mentioning in a footnote that Parisians only want tourists' cars to pay for being large. Parisians want their own cars to be as big as they fucking please; that proposal got scrapped right at the start of the process. I'm fairly sure a "3x parking charge for all non-residents cars, no matter the size" would probably pass too.

 

[editor]

Yeah, I get that. And my point wasn't that this is wrong or controversial, it's that they chose shit data that doesn't prove anything because they wanted to chase the biggest possible number instead of actually proving their point. I am not attacking you. I am not attacking the notion that 2m wide cars are a bad thing.

I literally had a co-worker look over my shoulder and say "So fucking what, Range Rovers were huge in 1980 and we complained about the size of them then". Comparing a MkI Golf to a RR gives no context whatsoever. All they had to do was compare a 1980 RR to a 2022 RR to a current B-segment hatchback and the point would've been much better made. What they did instead was look around for the biggest and smallest possible things, think "wow, that's a big number" and throw them together. But it proved nothing. I could say a brand new Fiesta is smaller than a Ford Granada from the 80s and that would make just as much sense. None. And I still don't know what the fuck the horse carriage was meant to prove. I have zero issues with "The Disco (and it is a Disco they used, not a RR but I feel the point stands adequately with it because the RR was their largest in 1980 and the Disco is their largest now) and its like are too fucking big". They should have just stuck with that.

Stupid, cherry-picked stats don't help an argument, they hurt it. If you use facts to slam the opponent, make sure they're both relevant and correct or you've just wasted your time because one little error renders the rest invalid. (I hated debating in HS, but that's the one thing I took away from it.)

Your follow-up post is much better in this regard. Though I think they're still fudging it slightly only mentioning in a footnote that Parisians only want tourists' cars to pay for being large. Parisians want their own cars to be as big as they fucking please; that proposal got scrapped right at the start of the process. I'm fairly sure a "3x parking charge for all non-residents cars, no matter the size" would probably pass too.

I want any cunt driving a massive SUV in the city to have the car clamped, towed away and scrapped and they get charged for the process.

 

[pbsmooth]

Higher parking fees for heavy cars could be coming to Paris and maybe London.

Sadiq Khan says he will monitor effectiveness of Paris plan to raise charges on SUVs

Mayor says he will monitor Paris plan to triple SUV levies, at event where he apologised to family of girl who died from dirty air

www.theguardian.com

 

[Silas Loom]

Higher parking fees for heavy cars could be coming to Paris and maybe London.

Sadiq Khan says he will monitor effectiveness of Paris plan to raise charges on SUVs

Mayor says he will monitor Paris plan to triple SUV levies, at event where he apologised to family of girl who died from dirty air

www.theguardian.com

“Maybe” doing a lot of work.

A spokesperson for Khan later told the Guardian that the mayor does not currently have the power to implement parking levies on SUVs and has no plans to do so.

 

[Mr Retro]

I often have occasion to drive around the area of Epping Forest and the roads are so bad you need the SUV. I won’t be able to change any time soon unfortunately.

 

[klang]

I often have occasion to drive around the area of Epping Forest and the roads are so bad you need the SUV. I won’t be able to change any time soon unfortunately.

How's your campaigning for better and more sustainable infrastructure going?

 

[Mr Retro]

How's your campaigning for better and more sustainable infrastructure going?

Not well. The Central Line which I need to use more than the car is a disgraceful joke. Worse than the state of the roads which is a feat in itself. At least when I have a choice I can do something about it. Hence the SUV.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I often have occasion to drive around the area of Epping Forest and the roads are so bad you need the SUV. I won’t be able to change any time soon unfortunately.

People driving around in three ton 'cars' is a big part of the reason why so many roads are in such a state.

 

[Silas Loom]

People driving around in three ton 'cars' is a big part of the reason why so many roads are in such a state.

That would be infrequent and shoddy maintenance firstly, and coming in at a distant second, lorries. Which are an order of magnitude heavier at the axle than even the beefiest SUVs.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That would be infrequent and shoddy maintenance firstly, and coming in at a distant second, lorries. Which are an order of magnitude heavier at the axle than even the beefiest SUVs.

And two orders of magnitude less numerous on the roads than suburban APC's. HGVs will also tend to use major routes which will (or should) have surfaces designed to deal with them. Many residential streets and rural back roads will only see HGVs when they get lost.

 

[Chz]

And two orders of magnitude less numerous on the roads than suburban APC's. HGVs will also tend to use major routes which will (or should) have surfaces designed to deal with them. Many residential streets and rural back roads will only see HGVs when they get lost.

I know anecdote isn't data, but around these parts it's the main roads that are in a state, the residential streets are just fine.

It's traffic volume primarily (well, and the lack of maintenance), with the HGVs being secondary. There are plenty of reasons to hate big SUVs, but they're not tearing up the roads.

A standard 3-axle HGV of the sort most common here is up to 25 tonnes. That's 10 times the weight of the fattest Land Rover. I'm not saying that big cars don't add to the problem, but it's a very minor contribution in the sum total of things.

 

[editor]

This is the damage wankers in SUVs cause for everyone else:

And the roads can’t cope, as heavier vehicles cause them to wear out faster. We’ve known this since the 1950s when (maths alert) it was calculated that the change in damage to the road surface is proportional to the difference in axle weight to the fourth power. A two-tonne SUV would therefore do 16 times more damage than a one-tonne car.

Opinion: Cars have a weight problem, and it's damaging more than the environment | Hagerty UK

A report from Green NCAP highlights how cars have become 100kg heavier on average, over the past decade, causing damage in many ways.

www.hagerty.co.uk

 

[Chz]

This is the damage wankers in SUVs cause for everyone else:

Opinion: Cars have a weight problem, and it's damaging more than the environment | Hagerty UK

A report from Green NCAP highlights how cars have become 100kg heavier on average, over the past decade, causing damage in many ways.

www.hagerty.co.uk

Yes, which by their own maths makes it a miniscule effect next to any sort of lorry. Otherwise the residential streets would be ripped to shreds, too. They're not built for taking as much volume or weight as a main road, but they were built with delivery trucks in mind and a Land Rover just isn't fat enough (yet) to make a major different.

 

[keybored]

I'm still amazed so many people afford the things... I was looking at the Range Rover and they're around £100k. Even with finance and a deposit of £20k you're paying £600-700 a month for 4 years..

No wonder they then cry about the insurance premiums...

One owner in north London told the Daily Mail this week she was quoted £890 a month for insurance.

Wait it gets funnier

"I've been forced to declare my Range Rover off road," she said

Our Range Rovers are not UK's most-stolen car, says Jaguar Land Rover

The boss of Jaguar Land Rover hits out at what he says is inaccurate reporting about the Range Rover.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yes, which by their own maths makes it a miniscule effect next to any sort of lorry. Otherwise the residential streets would be ripped to shreds, too. They're not built for taking as much volume or weight as a main road, but they were built with delivery trucks in mind and a Land Rover just isn't fat enough (yet) to make a major different.

You talk about maths but aren't willing to do the maths on how many chelsea tractors there are vs HGVs.

Delivery vans are also an issue, as they're increasingly being used to drop off a packet of tissues or a cigarette lighter. There's also a growing trend for delivery workers being obliged to keep their vans at home, even though few homes have space for a long wheelbase van so they end up obstructing the road and/or the pavement on a permanent basis.

 

[Chz]

There's also a growing trend for delivery workers being obliged to keep their vans at home, even though few homes have space for a long wheelbase van so they end up obstructing the road and/or the pavement on a permanent basis.

Yeah, that does my nut in, but what can you do? People gotta make a living.
I'm not adding up the chelsea tractors because there's no point. The proper monster SUVs are vastly outnumbered by working lorries. Most of them don't outweigh a Mondeo.

 

[klang]

Yeah, that does my nut in, but what can you do? People gotta make a living.

Resist privatisation, re-invest in public services eg the post office.

Re-vitalise the high street by opposing landlordism and high rents.

Re-build communities.

Make local shopping a viable alternative to internet shopping.

Oppose gig-economy.

Defend workers rights and sustainable employment.

Oppose globalisation.

Make sustainability and climate change a priority in politics.

Re-think transport infrastructure.

Act now.

Heavily penalise dodgy parking.

Etc etc.

Act now.

 

[Rob Ray]

Calls for double-lined parks

Sorry for the FB link but jfc this is some of the maddest levels of car-related entitlement I've ever seen. Suburban SUV drivers in Australia demanding car parks be redesigned so they don't have so much trouble fitting.