I didn't think it particularly controversial to suggest correlation between size of cars and their weight.
Probably a lot more controversial to ignore weight, state one dimension of one vehicle and call that a "comparison".
Obviously a larger car is going to be heavier. Nothing controversial there.
Your point was unnecessarily heavy cars might be unnecessarily large, which is not the case. EV's are heavy even when mid sized. Comparison between a family 2 tonne electric car and a 1.3 tonne petrol. They are the same size.
My point is size is that size or weight doesn't define how much it pollutes. If were banning on based on geographical pollution levels, then an EV shouldn't ever come into the remit as there are no tail pipe emissions.
If it's for safety, it's fair to point a comparison between equally sized cars that are not being banned because they weigh less.
Like with the current Bully XL ban, in that you need many metrics to make a classification. You can't just class it solely on height, weight, muscle mass or head size but a combination of all. The more metrics you add, the less chance you have of catching something else that doesn't deserve to be banned.
Which goes back to the original question of "define an SUV" (as that's what everyone wants banned) and "define what it is you want banned". Is it emissions, noise, pedestrian safety, whole life environmental cost, fuel usage, how much floor space they cover etc
The powers that be have worked people's emotions up on this issue to the point where logic goes out of the window in favour of pitch forks.
