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

[platinumsage]

Yes it's amazing we've reached 87 pages without any workable proposal to tax, ban or restrict SUVs.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Yes it's amazing we've reached 87 pages without any workable proposal to tax, ban or restrict SUVs.

If classifying vehicles and then either taxing them accordingly or banning them from certain areas was impossible, then vehicle tax and ULEZ wouldn't exist.

In London you could just add any non-commercial vehicle wider than 6'6" or taller than 6 foot to the ULEZ fail list. It'd take maybe an afternoon's work.

 

[platinumsage]

If classifying vehicles and then either taxing them accordingly or banning them from certain areas was impossible, then vehicle tax and ULEZ wouldn't exist.

In London you could just add any non-commercial vehicle wider than 6'6" or taller than 6 foot to the ULEZ fail list. It'd take maybe an afternoon's work.

You could do that but those criteria wouldn’t include a Range Rover Sport, or the vast majority of other SUVs. So perhaps a wasted afternoon.

Sure you could make the criteria more stringent, but you’ll soon find you can’t include the majority of SUVs without also including loads of non-SUV vehicles. If that would be your aim, then fine, but you wouldn’t be able to pretend you were targeting SUVs.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You could do that but those criteria wouldn’t include a Range Rover Sport, or the vast majority of other SUVs. So perhaps a wasted afternoon.

Sure you could make the criteria more stringent, but you’ll soon find you can’t include the majority of SUVs without also including loads of non-SUV vehicles. If that would be your aim, then fine, but you wouldn’t be able to pretend you were targeting SUVs.

OK so we make the envelope smaller.

What if we ban an oversized car that's not an SUV? I'm fine with that. The problem is cars being too big, what people call them is irrelevant.

But to just keep saying there's nothing we can do about this is clearly crap.

 

[maomao]

It's funny how platinumsage thinks an SUV ban is unworkable using exactly the same arguments he has dismissed when they've been made against an XL bully ban.

 

[platinumsage]

OK so we make the envelope smaller.

What if we ban an oversized car that's not an SUV? I'm fine with that. The problem is cars being too big, what people call them is irrelevant.

Is it? You'll easily find yourself excluding MPVs i.e. families with more than two or three children, which in the capital are more likely to be non-white, or people owning smaller SUVs because they have mobility problems but haven't qualified for a blue badge, and then you're instituting a rule which applies to everyone in the same way but has a worse effect on some people with protected characteristics than others, and you're committing indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

It's funny how platinumsage thinks an SUV ban is unworkable using exactly the same arguments he has dismissed when they've been made against an XL bully ban.

See I couldn't care less if an XL Bully ban accidentally catches some Staffordshire bull terriers or American Bull dogs or other mastiffs or whatever. Literally zero fucks - the more big-jawed beady-eyed muscle dogs that die the better.

However I do care that a "SUV" ban catches large families, disabled people etc while allowing twatcunt supercar owners to go on revving around Harrods and drug dealers in their BMWs to carry on mowing people down.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yes it's amazing we've reached 87 pages without any workable proposal to tax, ban or restrict SUVs.

Replace “SUV” with “car”.

Tax based on:

Emissions
Weight
Size (width/length)
MPG

All the above data freely available. Job done.

 

[maomao]

The disabled people bit seems to be on the basis that some people who don't have blue badges 'need' an SUV for some reason (though somehow they managed before SUVs became a thing). This would seem to be a problem with the blue badge system rather than any restrictions on vehicles.

 

[platinumsage]

Replace “SUV” with “car”.

Tax based on:

Emissions
Weight
Size (width/length)
MPG

All the above data freely available. Job done.

A tax? Surely Range Rover owners will just pay the tax as a mark of ostentation. And do you only want wealthy people to own estate cars? The working classes need to find a Rover Metro or whatever. Classy. Pretty sure you’re a LibDem.

Surely any measure targeting massive cars needs to be an absolute restriction, not a tax?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Replace “SUV” with “car”.

Tax based on:

Emissions
Weight
Size (width/length)
MPG

All the above data freely available. Job done.

My car has zero emissions and doesn’t use gallons of anything, not sure why fat-shaming me for being a bit heavy and large is going to help anything…

 

[platinumsage]

The disabled people bit seems to be on the basis that some people who don't have blue badges 'need' an SUV for some reason (though somehow they managed before SUVs became a thing). This would seem to be a problem with the blue badge system rather than any restrictions on vehicles.

There’s all sorts of reasons why certain people might have a better quality of life in a “SUV” (actually small to mid-sized cars that are a few cm taller than average). I’m not sure each such person should need to apply for a special dispensation.

 

[maomao]

There’s all sorts of reasons why certain people might have a better quality of life in a “SUV” (actually small to mid-sized cars that are a few cm taller than average). I’m not sure each such person should need to apply for a special dispensation.

Well without a blue badge it boils down to them wanting one. So fuck 'em.

 

[platinumsage]

Well without a blue badge it boils down to them wanting one. So fuck 'em.

Blue badges are primarily about parking and walking, they're not concerned with ability to get in or out of a car.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Replace “SUV” with “car”.

Tax based on:

Emissions
Weight
Size (width/length)
MPG

All the above data freely available. Job done.

We already tax people more on emissions. My partners 07 petrol Kangoo costs almost almost as much a month as my 15 plate deisel Passat does for a year.

If you do width and length then you'll excluded a lot of SUVs. You'd probably sting me for my Passat. Which I can understand as its long, but then I normally get a train if I go somewhere like London or Manchester. So is this tax to just get all long cars of the roads or just out of cities?

 

[DownwardDog]

Replace “SUV” with “car”.

Tax based on:

Emissions
Weight
Size (width/length)
MPG

All the above data freely available. Job done.

Emissions is function of the other three so you might as well just use that - as is the case now. Although it should probably be much higher.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Emissions is function of the other three so you might as well just use that - as is the case now. Although it should probably be much higher.

Well all other things being equal. Which they aren't. Age is far more important.

 

[kabbes]

If I were going to impose some kind of law based on the concept of “SUV”, I’d want to start with the specific problem I’m trying to solve for. In cities, I think that’s the height and length of the bonnet. So that’s where my legislation would start — something to do with the angle of visibility from driver to ground.

 

[maomao]

If I were going to impose some kind of law based on the concept of “SUV”, I’d want to start with the specific problem I’m trying to solve for. In cities, I think that’s the height and length of the bonnet. So that’s where my legislation would start — something to do with the angle of visibility from driver to ground.

Width and overall height are the measurements that have the biggest impact on me.

 

[newme]

If I were going to impose some kind of law based on the concept of “SUV”, I’d want to start with the specific problem I’m trying to solve for. In cities, I think that’s the height and length of the bonnet. So that’s where my legislation would start — something to do with the angle of visibility from driver to ground.

One way to get rid of penny farthing riders for good

 

[hash tag]

Yes it's amazing we've reached 87 pages without any workable proposal to tax, ban or restrict SUVs.

We could use the Japanese Kei cars as a model

Kei car - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[platinumsage]

If I were going to impose some kind of law based on the concept of “SUV”, I’d want to start with the specific problem I’m trying to solve for. In cities, I think that’s the height and length of the bonnet. So that’s where my legislation would start — something to do with the angle of visibility from driver to ground.

Is that really the problem? Of all the mooted problems with SUVs I'm not sure that's a notable one. In fact most SUVs have a higher seating position and thus a better view of the road in front than lower cars with equivalent length bonnets.

 

[kabbes]

Is that really the problem? Of all the mooted problems with SUVs I'm not sure that's a notable one. In fact most SUVs have a higher seating position and thus a better view of the road in front than lower cars with equivalent length bonnets.

It’s certainly the claimed problem — not being able to see children, wheelchair users, pets, the elderly etc. I can believe that it is a problem too, when I see some of the designs out there. It seems like a sensible place to start in specifying restrictions in design.

 

[platinumsage]

It’s certainly the claimed problem — not being able to see children, wheelchair users, pets, the elderly etc. I can believe that it is a problem too, when I see some of the designs out there. It seems like a sensible place to start in specifying restrictions in design.

Can't see it myself, in fact I'd argue many SUVs are safer in this regard because the tiny fraction of additional height not viewable in front of the bonnet is exchanged for a significant length of road ahead in which a prone person would be visible:

 

[kabbes]

Can't see it myself, in fact I'd argue many SUVs are safer in this regard because the tiny fraction of additional height not viewable in front of the bonnet is exchanged for a significant length of road ahead in which a prone person would be visible:

View attachment 392099

Firstly, what “many SUVs” are like is not the point when it comes to an agreed standard. The point of the standard is that all vehicles must comply.

Secondly, the perspective that it is a good thing to exchange immediate visibility for longer-range visibility is very much the perspective of drivers (the one in the vehicle and the ones in other vehicles). It’s also a perspective that applies to faster-moving roads, where scanning ahead is a priority. For individual pedestrians on crowded urban streets, however, who expect to be able to step out into the road without being squashed, immediate visibility is a crucial element.

 

[platinumsage]

Firstly, what “many SUVs” are like is not the point when it comes to an agreed standard. The point of the standard is that all vehicles must comply.

Secondly, the perspective that it is a good thing to exchange immediate visibility for longer-range visibility is very much the perspective of drivers (the one in the vehicle and the ones in other vehicles). It’s also a perspective that applies to faster-moving roads, where scanning ahead is a priority. For individual pedestrians on crowded urban streets, however, who expect to be able to step out into the road without being squashed, immediate visibility is a crucial element.

If you check my diagram you'll notice the difference in visibility of persons is a few mm in height for a child hugging the radiator, but on the road ahead we're talking more than a metre at around five metres distance, which is significant given the 20mph stopping distance in the Highway Code is 12 metres.

I'm really not convinced this is something that needs to be legislated for, compared to say, an absence of autonomous emergency braking capability.

 

[_Russ_]

Is it? You'll easily find yourself excluding MPVs i.e. families with more than two or three children, which in the capital are more likely to be non-white, or people owning smaller SUVs because they have mobility problems but haven't qualified for a blue badge, and then you're instituting a rule which applies to everyone in the same way but has a worse effect on some people with protected characteristics than others, and you're committing indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.



See I couldn't care less if an XL Bully ban accidentally catches some Staffordshire bull terriers or American Bull dogs or other mastiffs or whatever. Literally zero fucks - the more big-jawed beady-eyed muscle dogs that die the better.

However I do care that a "SUV" ban catches large families, disabled people etc while allowing twatcunt supercar owners to go on revving around Harrods and drug dealers in their BMWs to carry on mowing people down.

Writing in a few exemptions to any rule is pretty standard fair, you are just being an arse and firing for effect with that excuse and who is defining this SUV ban anyway,
What began as a lame attempt to defend your use of an oversize vehicle is turning in to complete bollox...fuck off and go play with the traffic theres a good chap.

 

[kabbes]

If you check my diagram you'll notice the difference in visibility of persons is a few mm in height for a child hugging the radiator, but on the road ahead we're talking more than a metre at around five metres distance, which is significant given the 20mph stopping distance in the Highway Code is 12 metres.

I'm really not convinced this is something that needs to be legislated for, compared to say, an absence of autonomous emergency braking capability.

If I check your diagram, I find that it is for one specific car. It doesn’t tell me anything about the Range Rover Defender, for example. That was my very first point.

 

[platinumsage]

If I check your diagram, I find that it is for one specific car. It doesn’t tell me anything about the Range Rover Defender, for example. That was my very first point.

Presumably you checked that before advocating such a policy?

 

[platinumsage]

Writing in a few exemptions to any rule is pretty standard fair, you are just being an arse and firing for effect with that excuse and who is defining this SUV ban anyway,
What began as a lame attempt to defend your use of an oversize vehicle is turning in to complete bollox...fuck off and go play with the traffic theres a good chap.

Thankfully most Urbanites have no influence on road and vehicle safety regulations because most people on this thread don't seem to have the first clue about anything in that regard.

 

[kebabking]

I think kabbes is right on this one - if I'm crawling through Worcester at walking pace I need to be able to see the 4yo who walks out 3inches from my bumper, while whats happening 300m down the road is as much relevance to me as what's happening on the far side of the moon.

If I'm on the motorway doing 70, what's happening a foot in front of me is an irrelevance - at 70 I can't either stop or avoid it, but what's happening 300-500m up the road is critical, and the better view I have of it the better.