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

[MickiQ]

People are entitled to buy whatever size or configuration of vehicle they want, because we all have different needs from a vehicle. The solution to polluting SUV's is not banning them but offering less (and preferably none) polluting SUV's powered by electric batteries/fuel cell/hybrids in their place. The Tesla Cybertruck (admittedly the fugliest vehicle that has ever been sold) comes with optional solar panels that can extend range or power plugged in devices.

People often buy vehicles for reasons that have very little to do with functionality

I have no problem with this, I want a world in which everyone can make this choice not just some people, A world in which no-one gets to isn't any more desirable than the current one.

 

[editor]

I have no problem with this, I want a world in which everyone can make this choice not just some people, A world in which no-one gets to isn't any more desirable than the current one.

But what if those personal choices negatively impact on other - usually poorer - people? Have they just got to suck it up so that rich folks can carry on clogging up city streets with their shiny, oversized Range Rover SUVs?

 

[platinumsage]

But what if those personal choices negatively impact on other - usually poorer - people? Have they just got to suck it up so that rich folks can carry on clogging up city streets with their shiny, oversized Range Rover SUVs?

Is it pollution and harm, or shininess and owner wealth that concerns you most? If it’s the former then targeted taxation would surely help. If the latter then banning SUVs and sports cars would just result in more blinged up saloons and panel vans.

 

[MickiQ]

But what if those personal choices negatively impact on other - usually poorer - people? Have they just got to suck it up so that rich folks can carry on clogging up city streets with their shiny, oversized Range Rover SUVs?

You've kind of missed the point there, the world I would like to see then the other people who wouldn't be poorer would also be able to make that choice (it does not necessarily follow they will). The scenario you are suggesting is of course how the real world we currently live in now works and buying expensive vehicles is limited to a few and the poorer people do indeed just have to suck it up. Surely working towards an equal wealthy world is preferable to an equal poor one?

 

[editor]

Is it pollution and harm, or shininess and owner wealth that concerns you most? If it’s the former then targeted taxation would surely help. If the latter then banning SUVs and sports cars would just result in more blinged up saloons and panel vans.

I think I've made my concerns and priorities very clear, as have you.

 

[editor]

You've kind of missed the point there, the world I would like to see then the other people who wouldn't be poorer would also be able to make that choice (it does not necessarily follow the will). The scenario you are suggesting is of course how the real world we currently live in now works and buying expensive vehicles is limited to a few and the poorer people do indeed just have to suck it up. Surely working towards an equal wealthy world is preferable to an equal poor one?

There's more than a little bit of scope creep going on here - I would have thought that the way this site is run should give ample pointers to the kind of world I'd like to see, but doesn't the runaway growth of SUVs - and the clear negative environmental impact - bother you in the slightest?

 

[Spymaster]

Is it pollution and harm, or shininess and owner wealth that concerns you most? If it’s the former then targeted taxation would surely help. If the latter then banning SUVs and sports cars would just result in more blinged up saloons and panel vans.

You’re going to find the goalposts in constant motion here.

 

[MickiQ]

There's more than a little bit of scope creep going on here - I would have thought that the way this site is run should give ample pointers to the kind of world I'd like to see, but doesn't the runaway growth of SUVs - and the clear negative environmental impact - bother you in the slightest?

The runaway growth of polluting vehicles concerns me yes but the only viable solution to that has to be a technical one i.e. more advanced vehicles that pollute less. Banning or trying to ban certain types of vehicles is an idea that is dead before it gets out of the starting blocks.

 

[Doodler]

Do people in the UK buy SUVs because they're a practical choice, as platinumsage argued earlier?

Larger SUVs are definitely not practical, according to Which? research summarised here:

Five reasons why you shouldn't buy an SUV

The reasons include poor handling, high fuel consumption, being too wide for width restrictions, and 'astronomical' repair costs.

Smaller SUVs presumably evade most or all of these problems, but this does suggest that practicality is unlikely to guide most purchases of the larger SUVs.

 

[Cid]

That's not what the piece in the OP is arguing. It's arguing from an emissions perspective stuff like this:


Which is pure bollocks. Plenty of SUVs have better fuel consumption and lower emissions than cars. And how do they define an "average" car?

This is just made-up silliness for climate twats to get aerated about.

It’s clearly not bollocks. Aerodynamics is an actual thing. A taller vehicle is going to have a higher coefficient of drag. There are design elements within that might, for example, make a well designed modern SUV better than a 1980s hatchback. But in general, assuming a similar design, a lower vehicle is going to be less draggy and more efficient.

There are other things at play of course... I mean it’s going to be a large, polluting object regardless. Assuming similar carrying capacity. And I highly doubt the old people carriers were remotely efficient designs. Of course electric suvs are a thing too and, realistically, will be the kind of thing that fuels wider uptake, given market demands. But yeah, going down the road of ‘SUVs can be as efficient as badly designed/old cars’ is a bit pointless.

 

[Marty1]

The gf has a SUV, it’s 2.2ltr automatic, semi 4wd, 198bhp and you can get 7 adults in it comfortably.

She likes it for the raised driving position and says it makes her feel safe if ever she was in an accident.

Since the lockdown she’s been working from home so it’s rarely moved off the drive apart from trips to the park and shopping etc.

Company she works for have indicated staff will be required to work from office after Covid which means a 45mins drive each way adding unnecessary congestion and pollutants to the atmosphere.

I think when she eventually changes car she’ll stick with another SUV tho maybe a electric hybrid.

 

[gosub]

What % were hybrid?

 

[editor]

She likes it for the raised driving position and says it makes her feel safe if ever she was in an accident.

Not so good for anyone she hits.

Sport-utility vehicles, once exclusively hulking and heavy truck-based modes of transport, have largely evolved into the lighter and more manageable car-based crossover models that now dominate the nation’s driveways. And while their designs have adopted lower bumpers in recent years to lessen the threat to passengers in other vehicles in a collision, a just-released report indicates that even crossover SUVs remain every bit as lethal to pedestrians as ever.

That’s according to a study of 79 vehicle crashes in three Michigan cities conducted by the industry-supported Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in Arlington, VA. As it is, pedestrian traffic fatalities have risen by 53 percent from 2009 to 2018, the latest year for which such information is available. That means pedestrians now account for around one-fifth of all vehicle-related fatalities.

The sample determined that SUVs cause seven percent more serious injuries to pedestrians than passenger cars when struck at speeds quicker than 19 miles per hour. At speeds between 20 and 39 mph, 30 percent of pedestrians struck by SUVs died, compared with 25 percent who were hit by cars. One hundred percent of pedestrians in SUV collisions at speeds of 40 mph or greater died, versus 54 percent who were struck by cars.

Study Says SUVs Are More Deadly Than Cars When Striking Pedestrians

Their upright, largely horizontal front ends are at issue.

www.forbes.com

 

[editor]

And:

Some vehicle types are inherently more risky for people around the vehicle. For example, larger cars such as sports utility vehicles (SUVs, often referred to as 4x4s) cause much more damage if they hit someone. A pedestrian hit by a large SUV is twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian hit by a normal sized car [5]. In collisions between an SUV and a smaller car, the person in the smaller car is 12 times more likely to be killed than the person in the SUV [6]. This is because SUVs are generally heavier and stiffer than normal cars, and therefore cause more damage on impact. They are also taller, so pedestrians hit by SUVs are more likely to suffer head or chest injuries, which are more likely to be fatal [7].

Larger vehicles like SUVs also have bigger blind spots, so drivers are more likely to fail to see vulnerable road users, particularly children who are smaller and harder to spot.

Knowledge centre | Brake

Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages

www.brake.org.uk

 

[Struwwelpeter]

This myth about SUV's being safer needs to be nipped in the bud. Marty1's comment about his gf feeling safer is the giveaway. They roll over more easily and the visibility for the driver is much worse. They are stronger and heavier, so in a collision with a smaller vehicle, they will come off less badly. With a few exceptions (farmers, people who tow things, builders who stick machinery in the back of a half cab) they are a misguided fashion statement by insecure people who can't be bothered to inform themselves of the real benefits and disadvantages to the things. Plus, a lot of their drivers are self-entitled bullies who think that other road users (especially small cars, cyclists and pedestrians) have no place on the road at all. I would tax them, unless the owner can demonstrate a specific need from a carefully made list.

 

[discokermit]

It’s clearly not bollocks. Aerodynamics is an actual thing.

ever seen a bus? or an hgv? lol.

 

[platinumsage]

And:

Knowledge centre | Brake

Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages

www.brake.org.uk

Most of those risks have been mitigated on new vehicles by e.g. mandatory reversing cameras, active bonnets and object-detection.

Meanwhile nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains, but not even basic mitigation such as the secure fencing found in many other countries has been attempted.

 

[discokermit]

Plus, a lot of their drivers are self-entitled bullies

lol.

 

[Roadkill]

Meanwhile nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains, but not even basic mitigation such as the secure fencing found in many other countries has been attempted.

What? British railways are almost completely fenced off, whereas in parts of Europe ungated level crossings and unfenced railway lines are the norm. Also, what's your source for 'nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains'? I can believe that if it includes suicides, but it looks way too high otherwise.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s clearly not bollocks. Aerodynamics is an actual thing. A taller vehicle is going to have a higher coefficient of drag. There are design elements within that might, for example, make a well designed modern SUV better than a 1980s hatchback. But in general, assuming a similar design, a lower vehicle is going to be less draggy and more efficient.

There are other things at play of course... I mean it’s going to be a large, polluting object regardless. Assuming similar carrying capacity. And I highly doubt the old people carriers were remotely efficient designs. Of course electric suvs are a thing too and, realistically, will be the kind of thing that fuels wider uptake, given market demands. But yeah, going down the road of ‘SUVs can be as efficient as badly designed/old cars’ is a bit pointless.

All of which totally misses the point. But thanks for the aerodynamics lesson!

If you have an SUV which returns 30mpg for 200g/km (of which there are many), it's more efficient and cleaner than a car which returns 20mpg for 300g/km (of which there are many). The premise started at in the article in the OP is completely arbitrary. It is clickbait for morons.

 

[Doodler]

What? British railways are almost completely fenced off, whereas in parts of Europe ungated level crossings and unfenced railway lines are the norm. Also, what's your source for 'nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains'? I can believe that if it includes suicides, but it looks way too high otherwise.

A lot of people commit suicide by train.

 

[Roadkill]

A lot of people commit suicide by standing in front of trains.

Obviously. Hence my question to platinumsage about whether they're included.

 

[platinumsage]

Obviously. Hence my question to platinumsage about whether they're included.

Yes, but where are the automatic pedestrian-detection cameras around high-risk crossing points etc? And the fencing is mostly shit compared to e.g. Japan or any high-speed lines.

 

[Roadkill]

Yes, but where are the automatic pedestrian-detection cameras around high-risk crossing points etc? And the fencing is mostly shit compared to e.g. Japan or any high-speed lines.

I asked you for a source, not more unsupported assertions.

 

[Doodler]

Yes, but where are the automatic pedestrian-detection cameras around high-risk crossing points etc? And the fencing is mostly shit compared to e.g. Japan or any high-speed lines.

There is a large element of truth in your whataboutery.

 

[platinumsage]

.

 

[Roadkill]

No you didn't! What do you want a source for?

This.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

The problem is not SUV’s, it’s cars in cities.

When I get my next car it will likely be an SUV. It will mean I can take myself, 2 kids, 3 bikes, 3 bodyboards and a mountain of camping kit around the country in comfort.

What I won’t do is use it to take the kids to school, travel the 8 miles to work or pop to Sainsbury’s.

 

[platinumsage]

This.

Ok

454 pedestrians on road: https://assets.publishing.service.g...orted_road_casualties_-_Main_Results_2018.pdf
296 suicides, trespassers, level crossing users: Transport accidents and casualties (TSGB08) (mostly suicides)

 

[editor]

Ok

454 pedestrians on road: https://assets.publishing.service.g...orted_road_casualties_-_Main_Results_2018.pdf
296 suicides, trespassers, level crossing users: Transport accidents and casualties (TSGB08)

And you actually think that's some sort of meaningful comparison in the context of the debate here? You may as well add cliffs.