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

[littlebabyjesus]

Nope, it’s not “because we're not quite where they are yet” it’s because we’ll never be where they were 20 years ago.

Perhaps before carrying on this nonsense you’d like to have a go at defining “SUV”.

This is one...

... this isn't...

HTH

 

[editor]

Nope, it’s not “because we're not quite where they are yet” it’s because we’ll never be where they were 20 years ago.

Perhaps before carrying on this nonsense you’d like to have a go at defining “SUV”.

Sure. A sport utility vehicle is a car that combines elements of road-going passenger cars with features from off-road vehicles. Or to many people it's an oversized, over-engineered, big, bulky and heavy car that is totally inappropriate for city use.

 

[Rob Ray]

Or village use come to that.

 

[DownwardDog]

This is one...

... this isn't...

HTH

Is this?



Or this:

 

[platinumsage]

What really fucks me off about you is how dishonest you are when you do this shit. You know perfectly well that there's a problem. You know what people are talking about when they highlight it. But we have to go through this farce over and over again. What is this, the fifth time you've tried to reset the conversation back to the beginning so it all has to be redone? It's so fucking boring.

There may be a problem with the very largest and oldest SUVs, yes. But extending that to the average crossover on UK roads is just naive and counterproductive to tackling it. But that’s what many on this thread are doing - average family cars that are smaller, lighter and safer than most estate cars are being criticised as they were monster trucks. When a female poster explains why some women might prefer a something like a Yaris Cross to a Mini she gets lambasted by self-righteous arseholes as if she was advocating Hummers for style reasons. It’s deliberate polarisation for the sake of having shouty arguments and it’s pathetic. So yes I know what people are talking about when they highlight it and I know they wrong and being deliberatly obtuse. Yes I’m trying to reset the conversation but it’s obviously a waste of time because various pricks are just shaking their old man fists at windmills, whether they’re being dishonest or just blindly ignorant idc.

 

[platinumsage]

Sure. A sport utility vehicle is a car that combines elements of road-going passenger cars with features from off-road vehicles. Or to many people it's an oversized, over-engineered, big, bulky and heavy car that is totally inappropriate for city use.

Then can you explain how a Toyota Yaris Cross or a Mazda CX-3 is an "oversized, over-engineered, big, bulky and heavy car" compared to the average saloon or estate car?

 

[Tones]

Sure. A sport utility vehicle is a car that combines elements of road-going passenger cars with features from off-road vehicles. Or to many people it's an oversized, over-engineered, big, bulky and heavy car that is totally inappropriate for city use.

What does "over-engineered" mean in this context?

Because the other four parts of your 'definition' are just different ways to say the same thing i.e. 'big'.

So, unless "over-engineered" is the a distinguishing feature of an SUV, why not just say that you don't want 'big cars' in cities (rather than SUVs)?

 

[Chz]

The old US data is irrelevant, because most of it dates from a time when SUVs were based on light truck chassis. The overwhelming majority of SUV-like cars on the road today are based on a passenger car platform + 2 inches of clearance. It's not like for like, and it's never going back to being that way. That 2-inches of clearance, in most cases, is the only SUV-like thing about them. A CX-3 is smaller than a Mazda 3 - including in weight - in every dimension except for height. It is literally a Mazda 2 with 10cm extra height and a bigger boot. But hey, it looks SUV-ish so it must be bad.

A lot of the trend towards larger cars has to do with regulations. To meet safety and emissions laws, a car has to cost a certain minimum amount irrespective of its size. Adding size adds cost, but as that minimum cost increases, the relative cost of a larger car becomes a smaller and smaller part of the purchase price. And people like their space. Look at the story of the Tata Nano - an attempt to make the smallest, cheapest thing possible, but it was simply too close in price to the next size up and it was a financial disaster. And that's in India! Tell people they can get a bigger car for an extra £1000 on the £18k it's already costing and they snap it up.

Editing to add: Again, I'm not saying there aren't cars that are too big. Just that it's rather more nuanced than it appears on the surface. For instance, you could find a way to tax SUVs based on certain characteristics, but it would be quite difficult to not include every delivery van in the country in that. Make an exception for delivery vans in some way, and carmakers will simply change their designs for passenger cars to meet that demand.

 

[editor]

What does "over-engineered" mean in this context?

Because the other four parts of your 'definition' are just different ways to say the same thing i.e. 'big'.

So, unless "over-engineered" is the a distinguishing feature of an SUV, why not just say that you don't want 'big cars' in cities (rather than SUVs)?

It means requiring far more resources than is actually needed for the job - i.e. transporting (most commonly) just one person around slow, crowded city streets.

 

[Tones]

It means requiring far more resources than is actually needed for the job - i.e. transporting (most commonly) just one person around slow, crowded city streets.

So, you mean it as another synonym for 'big'.

Why not just say you'd rather not see big cars on the streets of cities, rather than all this talk of SUVs?

You could even set out the maximum height, length, width, and weight, to be more precise in what you're after.

 

[Rob Ray]

Came across this while going through some copy-editing and thought of the thread. Keith Paton circa 1970 imagining what could happen in a car factory taken over permanently by its workers...

So instead of restarting the assembly track (if the young workers haven’t already smashed it) they spend two months discussing the point of their work, and how to rearrange it. Private cars? Why do people always want to go somewhere else? Is it because where they are is so intolerable? And what part did the automobile play in making the need to escape? What about day to day convenience? Is being stuck in a traffic jam convenient? What about the cost to the country? Bugger the “cost to the country”, that’s just the same crap as the national interest. Have you seen the faces of old people as they try to cross a busy main road? What about the inconvenience to pedestrians? What’s the reason for buying a car? Is it just wanting to have it? Do we think the value of a car rubs off on us? But that’s the wrong way round. Does having a car really save time? What’s the average hours worked in manufacturing industry? Let’s look it up in the library: 45.7 hours work a week. What’s the amount of the family’s spending money in a week that goes on cars? 10.3% of all family income. Which means more like 20% if you’ve got a car because half of us don’t have one. What’s 25% of 45 hours? Christ, 9 hours! That’s a hell of a long time spent “saving time”! There must be a better way of getting from A to B. By bus? OK, let’s make buses. But what about the pollution and that? What about those electric cars they showed on the telly once? Etc., etc.

(From Work and Surplus)

 

[stavros]

I can't see anything to disagree with in there, other than:

What’s 25% of 45 hours? Christ, 9 hours!

 

[SpookyFrank]

I can't see anything to disagree with in there, other than:

Yeah that'd be 20% which was what he actually said the first time.

 

[platinumsage]

Came across this while going through some copy-editing and thought of the thread. Keith Paton circa 1970 imagining what could happen in a car factory taken over permanently by its workers...


(From Work and Surplus)

Did he ever meet an actual worker? Anyway it's better than his 9/11 conspiracy writings, I suppose.

 

[Rob Ray]

You really are just a man with a total lack of imagination aren't you.

 

[platinumsage]

You really are just a man with a total lack of imagination aren't you.

I’m don’t think most socialist fantasies require imagination, but rather a lack of it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Perhaps before carrying on this nonsense you’d like to have a go at defining “SUV”.

Just check if the driver is a cunt. If the driver is not a cunt, it's not an SUV.

 

[Rob Ray]

I’m don’t think most socialist fantasies require imagination, but rather a lack of it.

Yes that's about the level you do. A wannabe bon mottist without the skill to carry it off.

 

[platinumsage]

Just check if the driver is a cunt. If the driver is not a cunt, it's not an SUV.

The Corsa is only 10cm shorter than a Ford Puma, so it makes sense that you would consider it a SUV.

 

[platinumsage]

Yes that's about the level you do. A wannabe bon mottist without the skill to carry it off.

I thought you might have addressed the substantive SUV-related posts further up this page, but no, you posted some unrelated witterings from the 70s. So that’s where we’re at, once again.

 

[Rob Ray]

Lol the fool who continually forgets everything that's been said further up thread so he can ask the same boring fucking question about what SUV means talking about "substantive posts." Utterly pathetic.

 

[newme]

So, you mean it as another synonym for 'big'.

Why not just say you'd rather not see big cars on the streets of cities, rather than all this talk of SUVs?

You could even set out the maximum height, length, width, and weight, to be more precise in what you're after.

I'm getting that it's more the unnecessary size versus load at the base of it. Presumably no issue with a delivery lorry that's far larger as it is necessary for the job it's doing. Does present some issues if you need a specific size vehicle for some purpose, such as being a large family, multiple dogs to transport, work usage etc.

Especially as having got a larger vehicle it's unlikely you then buy a single occupancy sized vehicle simply for commuting. We actually did that as I rode a motorbike but it's very much not for everyone. Neither is having multiple vehicles very practical in most cases. Of course there is a fair amount who buy one just cos they want it versus an actual need.

On what an SUV is, I came across this yesterday, my neighbour has an old style land rover defender. It's used for various fishing and forestry reasons. The son has now also got a defender but its the new version. Looking it up it comes up as an SUV, has a completely new emissions system and engine to maintain compliance with the standards for it which the older one does not.

 

[platinumsage]

Lol the fool who continually forgets everything that's been said further up thread so he can ask the same boring fucking question about what SUV means talking about "substantive posts." Utterly pathetic.

Whenever anyone addresses one of your on-topic points with something you have no response to, you switch to ad hominem attacks. You do it all the time but it's been so overdone on Urban over the years that it's really quite tedious.

 

[Rob Ray]

Whenever anyone addresses one of your on-topic points with something you have no response to, you switch to ad hominem attacks. You do it all the time but it's been so overdone on Urban over the years that it's really quite tedious.

You didn't "address it", you made a snarky comment and now you're pouting because I responded in kind. If you don't want people to insult you then try not acting like a prick for once.

 

[platinumsage]

You didn't "address it", you made a snarky comment and now you're pouting because I responded in kind. If you don't want people to insult you then try not acting like a prick for once.

How about you respond to post 2585 or 2588 on this page, which were partly in response to your witterings on the previous page about dated US studies.

 

[Rob Ray]

Why? People have been over the concept with you over and over again pointing out that the use of SUV in the context of this thread is a shorthand for the heavier end of the market rather than the murkier marketing guff of "crossovers" and such, and all you do is keep trying to turn it into a shit discussion on what exact brand counts. That's not a conversation about motor policy and social change, it's a car enthusiast conversation that no-one but you is interested in having.

 

[platinumsage]

Why? People have been over the concept with you over and over again pointing out that the use of SUV in the context of this thread is a shorthand for the heavier end of the market rather than the murkier marketing guff of "crossovers" and such,

No they haven't, just the other day editor even called the Toyota Yaris Cross "a SUV../too fucking big and ugly as fuck". The thread is full of posters lumping small family cars with SUV/Crossover styling into the "SUV" category.

and all you do is keep trying to turn it into a shit discussion on what exact brand counts. That's not a conversation about motor policy and social change, it's a car enthusiast conversation that no-one but you is interested in having.

It's a thread about taxing/banning/targetting SUVs, obviously definitions are important in such a discussion.

The thread for "a conversation about motor policy and social change" is here

 

[Rob Ray]

The thread is full of posters lumping small family cars with SUV/Crossover styling into the "SUV" category.

It's also full of people saying immediately if someone's being inaccurate enough for it to matter (kabbes, in that case). It doesn't need you going back to the beginning every five minutes like a dog to its own leavings.

It's a thread about taxing/banning/targetting SUVs, obviously definitions are important in such a discussion.

They're important to how you conceive the discussion and have tried to define it for other people. Not the same thing.

 

[platinumsage]

They're important to how you conceive the discussion and have tried to define it for other people. Not the same thing.

Seems like everyone who disagrees with the OP sees it in those terms, but well done for trying to gaslight me again as to what has been said on this thread.

 

[Rob Ray]

Seems like everyone who disagrees with OP sees it in those term

"Everyone." K.

Trying to gaslight me again as to what has been said on this thread.

I'm not the one who keeps acting as though previous conversations never happened. On which note, I'll leave you to the usual last-word-itis.