UK SUV Petition

[Jody]

Are you actually prepared to look at these? Or are they all just "yeah but whatabout?"s

Likewise

We can all be obstructive and not wanting to concede ground but I don't think that's what the "anti" crowd are doing.

Why not answer some of the legitimate questions the "anti" crowd have put? Not just a retort with vague ideals

Define what you want banned. SUV is too broad a term. As has been said all the way through

Is it on BHP? If yes, let's talk EV's and all thinks BHP.

Is it on kerb weight? Again, let's talk about EV's and other large vehicles. A Transit van driven into a pedestrian is as much of a risk, if not more than the Range Rover.

Shooting straight for off road vehicles is nothing more than the politics of envy wrapped up in some "whataboutthe" kind of argument.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

If it's pollution, there are bigger fish to fry globally than large off road cars.

They are a pretty significant impact, actually.

...If SUVs were a country, they would rank as the sixth most polluting in the world... ...The vehicles are larger and heavier than regular cars and use on average 20% more fuel. The increased number of SUVs in 2022 were responsible for a third of the increase in global oil demand...

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...global-suv-sport-utility-vehicles-oil-climate

If it's weight, you're going to curtail EV's. A Tesla model 3 weighs considerably more than the Defender in the OP ( almost twice it's weight) and can be 4WD

If it's power, as above. EV's are right up there with the most powerful. Tesla model 3, 490BHP. Telsa Plaid 1020BHP

The power and weight of EVs are indeed a big problem, yes

Personally I don't like Range Rovers being driven around by 1 person and don't disagree that people need dissuading from them. It's their choice though.

It's their choice, but the impact is on others - they don't pay for the consequences of their choice. Hence the debate.

If it's pedestrian safety, vehicle shape and speed travelled should be the priority.

And SUVs are shaped and powered to maximise pedestrian impact.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

the politics of envy

Lol. Not the first time this has come up here. This shows just how defensive and weak the arguments made to defend SUVs are.

I'm as envious of SUV drivers as I am of people who fart in cinemas.

 

[Alex321]

MEANWHILE ... does anyone want to argue AGAINST limiting bigger, more powerful vehicles on our streets,
whilst AGREEING that they do cause more [damage, deaths, pollution - pick one or more]?

Anyone?

I certainly agree they cause more damage, and pollution. And probably more deaths overall, though I doubt they cause more pedestrian deaths.

But no, I wouldn't argue against limiting them.

The question then becomes how do you define the limits. I don't think weight is a significant enough factor to be the main determinant of any limits. Frontal area is more important (and shape, but that would be very hard to define).

 

[Jody]

I'm as envious of SUV drivers as I am of people who fart in cinemas.

That's you. Sample size of 1

The same as 1 car crashed and we knee jerk to a stance of ban them all.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

That's you. Sample size of 1

The same as 1 car crashed and we knee jerk to a stance of ban them all.

Ah, so you've got evidence of all this envy, and you've studied it carefully at an appropriate sample size.

Weird you haven't shared it...

'cos you're not just making it up to suit your own weak defence of SUVs, obviously.

 

[Jody]

The power and weight of EVs are indeed a big problem, yes

Thank you. That's all it takes to move a conversation on. If we're calling for one thing then "what about" is not an unjust position.

It's their choice, but the impact is on others - they don't pay for the consequences of their choice. Hence the debate.

The same feeling I have when 1 billionaire can float him and 20 staff round the med. Let's go after private jets, large yatchs, multiple homes laying unused and forcing people out of affordable homes, business waste, lights being left on all night in shops that aren't even open, food waste and all the rest.

And SUVs are shaped and powered to maximise pedestrian impact.

You're not serious with that one?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I doubt they cause more pedestrian deaths.

I doubt you're right, given the evidence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810?via=ihub

But even if you were, the effect of having many large, rapidly accelerating vehicles on intimidating pedestrians and other road users is bad enough in itself.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The same feeling I have when 1 billionaire can float him and 20 staff round the med. Let's go after private jets, large yatchs, multiple homes laying unused and forcing people out of affordable homes, business waste, lights being left on all night in shops that aren't even open, food waste and all the rest.

Your envy of billionaires is irrelevant to SUV drives endangering, intimidating and polluting our environment.

 

[Jody]

large, rapidly accelerating vehicles on intimidating pedestrians and other road users is bad enough in itself.

A lot of them (if not the majority) are slower compared to a standard family hatch.

Why we keep coming back to this hyperbolic view, I don't know.

 

[Jody]

Your envy of billionaires is irrelevant to SUV drives endangering, intimidating and polluting our environment.

Why is it irrelevant. We're talking about pollution and damage to the environment, no?

 

[icowden]

They are a pretty significant impact, actually.

Nope - only the ICE ones.

...If non EV SUVs were a country, they would rank as the sixth most polluting in the world... ...The vehicles are larger and heavier than regular cars and use on average 20% more fuel. The increased number of ICE SUVs in 2022 were responsible for a third of the increase in global oil demand...

Fixed it for you.

The power and weight of EVs are indeed a big problem, yes

Why?

And SUVs are shaped and powered to maximise pedestrian impact.

Why would that be the case? It would make no commercial sense to design a car to kill people.

 

[Alex321]

I doubt you're right, given the evidence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810?via=ihub

Fair enough. I wasn't fully considering it, was only thinking of weight. It is mainly the frontal area of these large vehicles which makes them more dangerous. The high bonnets (meaning a large flat grill area below), and the greater width.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522000810?via=ihub

But even if you were, the effect of having many large, rapidly accelerating vehicles on intimidating pedestrians and other road users is bad enough in itself.

Not sure why you keep saying "rapidly accelerating". Most SUVs have lower acceleration than the nearest similar internal size cars.

And while large, they are still smaller than the buses, trucks, large vans etc. that are all over the place.

 

[Alex321]

The power and weight of EVs are indeed a big problem, yes

Why?

I can see there is an issue with weight.

It does cause more wear and tear on road surfaces, and more particulate pollution from tyres - though that is slightly offset by lower pollution from brake dust.

I don't think it is as big an issue as our "self serving virtue signaller "seems to believe though.

Acceleration is dependent on how the vehicle is actually driven. Most drivers are unlikely to use the full acceleration even of their ICE vehicles, never mind that of an EV. And again, it is only really an issue because of additional particulate pollution from increased tyre wear. While those who DO use the full acceleration of their ICEV will be getting much lower mpg, and therefore chucking out more combustion pollution.

 

[Rusty Nails]

And SUVs are shaped and powered to maximise pedestrian impact.

This is an SUV:


As is this:


Not all SUVs.......