Monsters of the Road: What Should the UK Do About SUVs?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Monsters of the Road: What Should the UK Do About SUVs?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/05/monsters-of-the-road-what-should-the-uk-do-about-suvs
193 comments
It's amazing how ugly cars have become.
The upsizing is stupid - lots of cars either new versions of renamed versions of old ones but with another layer sandwiched in to make it higher, or just grow all dimensions and more clearance.
A lot of them don't even have much / any more room inside.
The upsizing is stupid - lots of cars either new versions of renamed versions of old ones but with another layer sandwiched in to make it higher, or just grow all dimensions and more clearance.
A lot of them don't even have much / any more room inside.
They exist for a reason. Some people have more to haul than just groceries.
> They exist for a reason. Some people have more to haul than just groceries.
What in daily life is different in the last ~20 years (when SUVs have grown popular), compared to the ~20 years before that (when minivans were a thing), compared to the ~20 years before that (when station wagons were a thing)?
Further, how often is the 'extra' hauling occurring? Why do you need to drive such a thing daily when the haulage is much less often than that? Wouldn't it save people cost (especially in gas, which everyone in the US seems to whinge about) by driving a more efficient vehicle for the most common case of the daily commute and simple weekend errands? (Renting when something 'extra' is needed.)
Further, what percentage of SUVs (and cross-overs/CUVs) actually have towing hitches to haul things? And for carrying things inside, how many SUVs have more internal volume that a minivan?
SUVs, especially the larger varieties, don't seem optimal for anything except vanity. (Speaking as someone who owns a Golf and who borrowed his parents' minivan almost every weekend as a teenager.)
What in daily life is different in the last ~20 years (when SUVs have grown popular), compared to the ~20 years before that (when minivans were a thing), compared to the ~20 years before that (when station wagons were a thing)?
Further, how often is the 'extra' hauling occurring? Why do you need to drive such a thing daily when the haulage is much less often than that? Wouldn't it save people cost (especially in gas, which everyone in the US seems to whinge about) by driving a more efficient vehicle for the most common case of the daily commute and simple weekend errands? (Renting when something 'extra' is needed.)
Further, what percentage of SUVs (and cross-overs/CUVs) actually have towing hitches to haul things? And for carrying things inside, how many SUVs have more internal volume that a minivan?
SUVs, especially the larger varieties, don't seem optimal for anything except vanity. (Speaking as someone who owns a Golf and who borrowed his parents' minivan almost every weekend as a teenager.)
the last truck I had was a Toyota mini pickup. used it frequently on weekends hauling support equipment for dog field events, supplies for rebuilding my house, and telescope kit for observing sessions miles from home.
It was cheaper to by my own pickup and use it everyday than buy a car and rent a pickup on the weeks. when you add the hassle of pickup and drop-off an time pressure to return before you accrue another day charge, owning was definitely cheaper
today, pickups are pillow princess trucks. no scratches, clean bed, no mud.
I am missing my little Toyota. Today, I need to haul plywood, 2x4s, foam board insulation and fiberglass panels for some home projects I was hoping to start today. I instead of using my truck, I have to spend 100+ to rent a body to bring the parts here sometime in the next week and damage them in transit.
It was cheaper to by my own pickup and use it everyday than buy a car and rent a pickup on the weeks. when you add the hassle of pickup and drop-off an time pressure to return before you accrue another day charge, owning was definitely cheaper
today, pickups are pillow princess trucks. no scratches, clean bed, no mud.
I am missing my little Toyota. Today, I need to haul plywood, 2x4s, foam board insulation and fiberglass panels for some home projects I was hoping to start today. I instead of using my truck, I have to spend 100+ to rent a body to bring the parts here sometime in the next week and damage them in transit.
Minivans are not small, if you have problems with the SUV size then why is a minivan suddenly okay? It's the same size car with a differently styled body and without towing capacity. E.g. Toyota Sienna is the same width and length as BMW X7 and less than 4" shorter in height. And Chrysler Pacifica is longer and wider than either of these (also less than 3" shorter in height than X7). And X7 is a big SUV that I rarely see, most SUVs on the streets around me are something like Toyota RAV4, which is half foot narrower than Pacifica, shorter in length more than a foot and shorter in height than any of the above.
> Minivans are not small, if you have problems with the SUV size then why is a minivan suddenly okay?
Forward visibility for one. There's a meme going around that even main battle tanks (and semi rigs) have better forward visibility than some pick-ups trucks:
* https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
And for all that external size, how much internal storage space do you get in a large SUV like the X7? If SUVs are allegedly for carrying stuff, how much stuff can you get in (with and without folding down seats)? How easy is it for people (esp. adults, and not just children) to get back to the third row, and how comfortable is it back there for them?
> Toyota RAV4
Now we're talking about a different class of vehicle than SUVs. Will you also compare it to the glorified hatchback (not even station wagon) that is the BMW X1?
Forward visibility for one. There's a meme going around that even main battle tanks (and semi rigs) have better forward visibility than some pick-ups trucks:
* https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
And for all that external size, how much internal storage space do you get in a large SUV like the X7? If SUVs are allegedly for carrying stuff, how much stuff can you get in (with and without folding down seats)? How easy is it for people (esp. adults, and not just children) to get back to the third row, and how comfortable is it back there for them?
> Toyota RAV4
Now we're talking about a different class of vehicle than SUVs. Will you also compare it to the glorified hatchback (not even station wagon) that is the BMW X1?
SUVs are not pickup trucks though and have better visibility of the road ahead (due to higher eye level and higher headlights) than cars and minivans.
As for internal storage, I am content with the internal storage in a midsize SUV already. Third row in X7 is pretty cramped, if you are regularly driving 7 adults around you better get something with more seating capacity, few people need that IME.
As for internal storage, I am content with the internal storage in a midsize SUV already. Third row in X7 is pretty cramped, if you are regularly driving 7 adults around you better get something with more seating capacity, few people need that IME.
Instead of comparing with modern minivan, you should compare them with minivan from 20 years ago since that's what GP was talking about. In my region, minivans from 20 years ago are smaller than new SUVs today.
Sure, even compact cars 20 years ago were smaller than compact cars today. You cannot practically suggest people drive 20-30 y.o. vehicles, for one there are not enough of those.
>when station wagons were a thing
Just some interesting context, the original SUVs were station wagons. The big Suburbans/Wagoneers/Broncos/Blazers of the 70s and 80s were classified as station wagons. In addition, many of the station wagons back in the day got horrible gas mileage (many had the same engine size as their SUV counterparts).
Beyond that, the idea that people would be choose to have multiple cars for different aspects is a bit out of touch. The majority of Americans can't spring for a $1k emergency repair, let alone have another car payment just for a grocery getter. Most people need one car that can do most everything they need. Even if they could afford more than one car, your premise doesn't make sense. How many miles would have to be driven for a $20k used car purchase to have a positive economics based on its fuel savings?
Just some interesting context, the original SUVs were station wagons. The big Suburbans/Wagoneers/Broncos/Blazers of the 70s and 80s were classified as station wagons. In addition, many of the station wagons back in the day got horrible gas mileage (many had the same engine size as their SUV counterparts).
Beyond that, the idea that people would be choose to have multiple cars for different aspects is a bit out of touch. The majority of Americans can't spring for a $1k emergency repair, let alone have another car payment just for a grocery getter. Most people need one car that can do most everything they need. Even if they could afford more than one car, your premise doesn't make sense. How many miles would have to be driven for a $20k used car purchase to have a positive economics based on its fuel savings?
> when station wagons were a thing
my “big” SUV is smaller in length but larger in interior space and gets 5x further a gallon of gas than the station my parents drove in the ‘70s.
my “big” SUV is smaller in length but larger in interior space and gets 5x further a gallon of gas than the station my parents drove in the ‘70s.
That‘s what station waggons are for, it has worked for decades. It‘s surprising to me how little space there is inside of SUVs compared to their exterior dimensions.
Agreed. The kids won't drive themselves to soccer practice!
BMX practice for me.
Suddenly I was looking at bike rack systems worth more than some of my previous cars.
It’s a station wagon though. Still car shaped, SUV cargo space inside.
Suddenly I was looking at bike rack systems worth more than some of my previous cars.
It’s a station wagon though. Still car shaped, SUV cargo space inside.
> aking effectively twice the space of a small electric car
Not that many "small electric cars" out there, Teslas are big, as are the ID.3s and the like coming from Volkswagen. For reference, an ID.3 weights a maximum of almost 2 tons (1935 kg, to be more exact), that's compared to the maximum of 1500 kg for a Golf 7. To say nothing of my 2006 1.4 NA Seat Ibiza weighting just 1054 kg, but which is seen as worst than the devil itself because of its age.
So, yeah, I don't buy this crusade against SUVs coming from EV people, seeing as my very lightweight petrol car is also on their chopping block.
Not that many "small electric cars" out there, Teslas are big, as are the ID.3s and the like coming from Volkswagen. For reference, an ID.3 weights a maximum of almost 2 tons (1935 kg, to be more exact), that's compared to the maximum of 1500 kg for a Golf 7. To say nothing of my 2006 1.4 NA Seat Ibiza weighting just 1054 kg, but which is seen as worst than the devil itself because of its age.
So, yeah, I don't buy this crusade against SUVs coming from EV people, seeing as my very lightweight petrol car is also on their chopping block.
The issues talked about here are mostly about size (width, length), not weight.
Yes, the higher weight of EVs is a bit of an issue. But not as much as people make it out to be.
But there are a lot of big EVs now. I think it’s mainly due to all car manufacturers coming out with a new generation of EVs and the first models they make are the ones with the highest margins. I.e. big cars.
In the previous generations you had cars like Hyundai Kona EV which is completely reasonable size. But the first in Hyundais new generation is Ioniq 5 which doesn’t look like a monster but is surprisingly big.
Yes, the higher weight of EVs is a bit of an issue. But not as much as people make it out to be.
But there are a lot of big EVs now. I think it’s mainly due to all car manufacturers coming out with a new generation of EVs and the first models they make are the ones with the highest margins. I.e. big cars.
In the previous generations you had cars like Hyundai Kona EV which is completely reasonable size. But the first in Hyundais new generation is Ioniq 5 which doesn’t look like a monster but is surprisingly big.
> Yes, the higher weight of EVs is a bit of an issue. But not as much as people make it out to be.
Not to detract from the discussion‘s topic but weight is an issue. Road damage scales with fourth power of axle load. That’s is, a car with 2t instead of 1.5t does three times the damage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Not to detract from the discussion‘s topic but weight is an issue. Road damage scales with fourth power of axle load. That’s is, a car with 2t instead of 1.5t does three times the damage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
True but that should also tell you that road damage comes almost exclusively from commercial-sized vehicles, coming back to the main point: Added EV weight in passenger cars is a non-issue.
Three times the damage of a tiny number is still tiny. Vans, garbage trucks, plows, tractor trailers, pickup trucks, all do significantly more damage. A single garbage truck is going to do more damage than 4000 EV cars in one pass.
That's what people mean when they say EV weight isn't as impactful as people make it out to be.
There's also the assumption that most road damage comes from vehicles. I don't know how it proportions out between vehicles and weather, but weather, particularly freeze and thaw, is very damaging to roads.
That's what people mean when they say EV weight isn't as impactful as people make it out to be.
There's also the assumption that most road damage comes from vehicles. I don't know how it proportions out between vehicles and weather, but weather, particularly freeze and thaw, is very damaging to roads.
ID.3s are also big in terms of size, it's just that they're not branded as CUVs/mini-SUVs and that's why they get a pass. For example they're bigger than a Mazda CX-3, which is branded on wikipedia as a "Subcompact crossover SUV (B)".
Fiat 500e, Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe, Peugeot 208e, whatever ugly shit Opel/Vauxhall is pushing out...
The size difference between a Leaf and a RAV4 is negligible.
None of those cars (toys) get you very far outside of the city. And inside of the city we've got public transportation.
I'd argue all of the cars you listed get you as far as you have gasoline. Even with room for at least one passenger and luggage. What's your argument?
And public transport cannot always replace individual mobility. E.g. transporting big things or sick people is not really an option on public transport
And public transport cannot always replace individual mobility. E.g. transporting big things or sick people is not really an option on public transport
If you argue that you'd be a liar. They just don't.
They all get about 200 miles real world, my (£10,000 cheaper !) hatchback, petrol with a 55 L tank and much more interior space than any of those, can push 400.
Why say things that aren't true? People aren't going to be fooled.
They all get about 200 miles real world, my (£10,000 cheaper !) hatchback, petrol with a 55 L tank and much more interior space than any of those, can push 400.
Why say things that aren't true? People aren't going to be fooled.
> can push 400.
That is to say, not 400? Why say things that aren't true? People aren't going to be fooled.
That is to say, not 400? Why say things that aren't true? People aren't going to be fooled.
400km on 55l of fuel is pretty low. A car that gets 50mpg (UK gallons), which is fairly middle of the road efficiency, would go 600 miles, or 965km on that, assuming motorway driving.
I regularly do 550 miles (850km - 5 return trips of 55 miles each way) on a single 60l tank of diesel in an older car and can do more if I dawdle and cruise more. I know I've been driving badly when the fuel light comes on on before the end of the fifth trip.
I regularly do 550 miles (850km - 5 return trips of 55 miles each way) on a single 60l tank of diesel in an older car and can do more if I dawdle and cruise more. I know I've been driving badly when the fuel light comes on on before the end of the fifth trip.
How come not true? My 3L A6 Quattro did more than 400mls on a tank of you were careful. That’s normal territory for European cars.
My 10 years old diesel on full tank makes 800+ km (tested a few times). None of the EVs can make that nowadays, or they can?
[deleted]
IMO, everyone should start from phasing out street parking. Mandatory private parking would create selection pressure towards smaller and less obnoxious cars, proportionate to mental as well as financial investments by its owner.
That sounds more like a transfer of wealth from government coffers to private parking structure owners. How would that affect the size of vehicles?
Property owners try to maximize residential fraction within land and car count within minimized parking lots. Car owners try to minimize ownership and space premiums. The result is more no-lot housings, more demand for public transportation, and more compact hybrids.
Denmark taxes car purchases at 150%. I think Singapore does something similar.
Denmark taxes lower income rural residents disproportionally. Singapore is a city state.
While our car taxes are very high, the 150% is the top marginal rate and isn't applied to cheap economy boxes.
Not sure what that has to do with anything...
I wasn't commenting on the equality of the Danish tax system, or the status of Singapore.
I was just saying taxing car purchases is another idea to disincentivize cars.
I wasn't commenting on the equality of the Danish tax system, or the status of Singapore.
I was just saying taxing car purchases is another idea to disincentivize cars.
In rural places car is neccessity everywhere in the world, but in urban it is not
I live in a smallish city in Mexico. For many years I had a Honda City, and I hated it the whole time because the streets are awful.
Which means I was always scraping the bottom of my car. Potholes, uneven pavement, damaged pavement etc. It was so bad the plastic coverings underneath tore apart and now I was dragging plastic everywhere I went.
Needless to say for my next car my main priority was ground clearance. I ended up getting a Jeep and now my problems are solved.
So that's my only point, I agree we should all have small eco cars. I would love to have a 2 seater and save on gas. But you have to live in a place with good infrastructure. A lot of cities in the third world are basically "off road" in practicality.
Especially in the third world a car can be an extraordinary purchase, people need their cars to not get damaged easily.
Which means I was always scraping the bottom of my car. Potholes, uneven pavement, damaged pavement etc. It was so bad the plastic coverings underneath tore apart and now I was dragging plastic everywhere I went.
Needless to say for my next car my main priority was ground clearance. I ended up getting a Jeep and now my problems are solved.
So that's my only point, I agree we should all have small eco cars. I would love to have a 2 seater and save on gas. But you have to live in a place with good infrastructure. A lot of cities in the third world are basically "off road" in practicality.
Especially in the third world a car can be an extraordinary purchase, people need their cars to not get damaged easily.
The equivalent in the developed world is when there are so many speed bumps that it incentivizes having a SUV! My city is a bit like that.
I don’t think the size differences are as drastic as that. An opel Astra hatchback is 4374mm long and 2062mm wide, while a Volvo XC90 is 4950mm long and 1923mm wide. As long as they both fit comfortably in a normal parking space the dimensions are not going to contribute meaningfully to more congestion or other inconvenience.
In the Netherlands I often see people with Dodge rams that are noticeably wider and longer than every other passenger car. If this was a large or growing category I can see myself being inconvenienced and annoyed more
In the Netherlands I often see people with Dodge rams that are noticeably wider and longer than every other passenger car. If this was a large or growing category I can see myself being inconvenienced and annoyed more
I suppose Volvo SUVs are maybe not at the sharp end of this complaint. They aren't obnoxiously oversized. I realized that when I saw an obnoxiously oversized American urban pick up truck.
XC90 ain't small but ferries 7 people, there are plenty of larger SUVs that carry less inside.
XC90 ain't small but ferries 7 people, there are plenty of larger SUVs that carry less inside.
XC90 is one of the less offensive examples for sure. However, it could be lower to the ground and still have the same carrying capacity. People just love that rugged off road look though. Perhaps they haven’t come to terms with the fact that the adventurous stage of their life is over now.
Cars should be taxed based on their weight and there should be much stricter standards regarding visibility.
There is no reason why most of us should subsidise a few people’s status symbol and their entirely unnecessary use of public resources. Ultimately you should not be able to buy these, at least in their current form, as they serve no purpose whatsoever besides inflating their owner’s ego at a significant cost to others. We are not talking about pickup trucks and light trucks used in the countryside: these monstrosities are designed for motorways and paved roads and will never see as much as a dirt road.
There is no reason why most of us should subsidise a few people’s status symbol and their entirely unnecessary use of public resources. Ultimately you should not be able to buy these, at least in their current form, as they serve no purpose whatsoever besides inflating their owner’s ego at a significant cost to others. We are not talking about pickup trucks and light trucks used in the countryside: these monstrosities are designed for motorways and paved roads and will never see as much as a dirt road.
Even better tax based on weight to number of permanent seats ratio. 7 seaters for larger families shouldn't be penalised, but structure it so manufactures can't just throw a couple of fold down seats in the back of a large SUV as a work around.
But everything about road tax needs to change with the reduction of fuel duty due to electric cars. The public haven't seen this coming yet, but it's going to be a difficult transition.
But everything about road tax needs to change with the reduction of fuel duty due to electric cars. The public haven't seen this coming yet, but it's going to be a difficult transition.
No, why should I subsidize somebody else's children any more than I should subsidize somebody else's ego booster?
Ignoring the fact that this wouldn't even work because SUVs would just get extra seats to work around the tax structure.
7-seat private buses wear down the road just as much as private tanks, so tax them equally.
Ignoring the fact that this wouldn't even work because SUVs would just get extra seats to work around the tax structure.
7-seat private buses wear down the road just as much as private tanks, so tax them equally.
Because somebody else's ego booster mobile won't grow up to be a delinquent that commits crimes that directly or indirectly affect you (unless it's evil K.I.T.T.).
Whether societal family planning should, at all, play into road taxes is quite the question, but it's widely accepted that society should bother to educate its children.
Whether societal family planning should, at all, play into road taxes is quite the question, but it's widely accepted that society should bother to educate its children.
As long as we're inventing new taxes, we should tax friction-based braking systems and components, to the point that regenerative braking becomes the norm on all new cars. We're wasting so much energy using friction to stop, rather than electromagnetic fields to induce stopping and regenerating batteries.
I agree entirely, FWIW.
Sounds like a good way to end up with unintended consequences like happened with the chicken tax and the Subaru Brat.
> Cars should be taxed based on their weight
Why weight in particular?
Two arguments here: 1. SUVs are already taxed on weight indirectly - they consume more fuel which is heavily taxed (50+% in most of Europe). 2. SUVs are already taxed higher because they're more expensive.
In some places in the world (e.g. some parts of Switzerland) there's already a tax on car weight. I do not see it being particularly effective.
> there should be much stricter standards regarding visibility. SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
Two arguments here: 1. SUVs are already taxed on weight indirectly - they consume more fuel which is heavily taxed (50+% in most of Europe). 2. SUVs are already taxed higher because they're more expensive.
In some places in the world (e.g. some parts of Switzerland) there's already a tax on car weight. I do not see it being particularly effective.
> there should be much stricter standards regarding visibility. SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
> Why weight in particular?
Kinetic energy (thus fuel consumption and particles from brakes) and road wear scale with weight. It's not perfect but it's most of the way there.
> Two arguments here: 1. SUVs are already taxed on weight indirectly - they consume more fuel which is heavily taxed (50+% in most of Europe).
This does not solve the issue with externalities: fuel cost absolutely does not offset the cost to society caused by car use, same for accidents and road wear.
> 2. SUVs are already taxed higher because they're more expensive.
They are not taxed higher, they have exactly the same VAT as any other car (give or take specific government schemes to incentivise things like hybrids and TVs).
> SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
SUVs have terrible visibility and situation awareness because of huge blind spots and higher sitting positions for the driver (which is better on motorways, but terrible in cities). They are also much worse for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.
Kinetic energy (thus fuel consumption and particles from brakes) and road wear scale with weight. It's not perfect but it's most of the way there.
> Two arguments here: 1. SUVs are already taxed on weight indirectly - they consume more fuel which is heavily taxed (50+% in most of Europe).
This does not solve the issue with externalities: fuel cost absolutely does not offset the cost to society caused by car use, same for accidents and road wear.
> 2. SUVs are already taxed higher because they're more expensive.
They are not taxed higher, they have exactly the same VAT as any other car (give or take specific government schemes to incentivise things like hybrids and TVs).
> SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
SUVs have terrible visibility and situation awareness because of huge blind spots and higher sitting positions for the driver (which is better on motorways, but terrible in cities). They are also much worse for pedestrians and cyclists in case of a collision.
Road wear scales with the fourth power of weight over an axle. Most fuel consumption is about overcoming drag rather than accelerating so you should expect it to scale with something like cross-sectional area, say weight^2/3, though making cars longer adds weight without much drag and making them boxier can add drag without much weight.
I don’t think fuel taxes are particularly good as indirect taxes on the externalities one might care about – road wear, vehicle deaths/life-changing injuries, noise, pollution, parking space in streets, passing room on narrow roads, etc.
I don’t think fuel taxes are particularly good as indirect taxes on the externalities one might care about – road wear, vehicle deaths/life-changing injuries, noise, pollution, parking space in streets, passing room on narrow roads, etc.
> Road wear scales with the fourth power of weight over an axle.
Cars are not getting more axles, even SUVs, so this is a constant multiplicative factor. I would be happy with a tax that scales as the fourth power of the mass, no problem. That would be actually quite dissuasive very quickly. Though even a linear scaling would be an improvement over the current situation.
> Most fuel consumption is about overcoming drag rather than accelerating so you should expect it to scale with something like cross-sectional area, say weight^2/3, though making cars longer adds weight without much drag and making them boxier can add drag without much weight.
Right. We should ideally account for aerodynamics and drag factors, which also keep getting worse year after year. One does not preclude the other.
> I don’t think fuel taxes are particularly good as indirect taxes on the externalities one might care about
I entirely agree.
Cars are not getting more axles, even SUVs, so this is a constant multiplicative factor. I would be happy with a tax that scales as the fourth power of the mass, no problem. That would be actually quite dissuasive very quickly. Though even a linear scaling would be an improvement over the current situation.
> Most fuel consumption is about overcoming drag rather than accelerating so you should expect it to scale with something like cross-sectional area, say weight^2/3, though making cars longer adds weight without much drag and making them boxier can add drag without much weight.
Right. We should ideally account for aerodynamics and drag factors, which also keep getting worse year after year. One does not preclude the other.
> I don’t think fuel taxes are particularly good as indirect taxes on the externalities one might care about
I entirely agree.
> Cars are not getting more axles, even SUVs, so this is a constant multiplicative factor. I would be happy with a tax that scales as the fourth power of the mass, no problem. That would be actually quite dissuasive very quickly. Though even a linear scaling would be an improvement over the current situation.
Sounds like we should tax EVs then: https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/06/27/evs-cause-twice-th...
The road tear on SUVs will not that that much larger, because they have wider tyres, so when you calculate kg / sqm you might get smaller value than for smaller cars.
Sounds like we should tax EVs then: https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/06/27/evs-cause-twice-th...
The road tear on SUVs will not that that much larger, because they have wider tyres, so when you calculate kg / sqm you might get smaller value than for smaller cars.
> Sounds like we should tax EVs then
No argument on my part: huge EV SUVs are also very bad.
No argument on my part: huge EV SUVs are also very bad.
What do you mean by constant multiplicative factor’. Are you saying that cars are perfectly balanced between front and back axels (surely a reasonable thing to want for tyre wearing if nothing else). The point about the scaling is that it is not linear: if you double the weight over an axle, you get 16 times the wear but perhaps 1.5-2x the fuel consumption. For this reason I dispute that fuel duty effectively taxes the (externalities due to the) weight of cars. Though I concede that wasn’t really the point you were making.
> What do you mean by constant multiplicative factor’. Are you saying that cars are perfectly balanced between front and back axels (surely a reasonable thing to want for tyre wearing if nothing else).
Right. An implicit assumption was that the weight repartition does not change much, i.e. that if 2/3 of the weight is supported by the front axle, that ratio would be similar for a hatchback and a SUV. This does not seem completely unrealistic when comparing ICEs with other ICEs or EVs with other EVs (though EVs will have a very different weight repartition compared to ICEs due to the way batteries and motors are integrated).
With this in mind, the front axle bears 2/3 * m_1 for a sedan of mass m_1 and 2/3 * m_2 for a SUV of mass m_2. So the effective weight (as seen considering only one axle) is just a linear function of the actual weight. It changes the magnitude, but it does not change the scaling.
Right. An implicit assumption was that the weight repartition does not change much, i.e. that if 2/3 of the weight is supported by the front axle, that ratio would be similar for a hatchback and a SUV. This does not seem completely unrealistic when comparing ICEs with other ICEs or EVs with other EVs (though EVs will have a very different weight repartition compared to ICEs due to the way batteries and motors are integrated).
With this in mind, the front axle bears 2/3 * m_1 for a sedan of mass m_1 and 2/3 * m_2 for a SUV of mass m_2. So the effective weight (as seen considering only one axle) is just a linear function of the actual weight. It changes the magnitude, but it does not change the scaling.
Ultimately, the people who pay any tax are the end-consumers. A tax like the one you're proposing impacts trucks, ambulances, and buses as well as commercial ride-sharing and taxis. The final cost of the tax will be reflected in the raised prices of groceries, EMS requests, and trips to the airport.
I’m not proposing a tax, to be clear. One problem with these sorts of taxes on driving is that drivers often see them as a ‘service charge’ they pay to use the roads and they then expect governments to plot that money into road maintenance/construction. I think it’s not great to have a tax whose revenue that people feel should be earmarked for certain things. Perhaps something like an emissions/inefficiency levy on car tax (and based on miles driven) would help but I doubt it would be politically tenable, especially with the current government trying to de-boris their policies (and so walk back on various green things).
I think part of the solution would be changing safety standards to better capture the dangers to other road users, changing liability rules/penalties to make such cars more expensive to insure (though probably the effect is too small to make much difference), having some fines scale with the value of the car (on the one hand I think people speeding, etc, in flashy cars should be particularly penalised. On the other, the UK already has some fines that are meant to scale with income and letting people off by driving smaller cars seems bad. Perhaps an alternative would be fines for certain infractions that are higher for cars that would do more damage were something to happen as a result of the driving), installing more bell bollards on corners so the people who aren’t good at staying on the road risk big dents instead of running over a toddler, and more enforcement against minor violations. Lots of those don’t specifically target oversized cars though.
I think part of the solution would be changing safety standards to better capture the dangers to other road users, changing liability rules/penalties to make such cars more expensive to insure (though probably the effect is too small to make much difference), having some fines scale with the value of the car (on the one hand I think people speeding, etc, in flashy cars should be particularly penalised. On the other, the UK already has some fines that are meant to scale with income and letting people off by driving smaller cars seems bad. Perhaps an alternative would be fines for certain infractions that are higher for cars that would do more damage were something to happen as a result of the driving), installing more bell bollards on corners so the people who aren’t good at staying on the road risk big dents instead of running over a toddler, and more enforcement against minor violations. Lots of those don’t specifically target oversized cars though.
> They are not taxed higher, they have exactly the same VAT as any other car (give or take specific government schemes to incentivise things like hybrids and TVs).
They're absolutely taxed higher. $100k SUV will cause a much higher VAT you need to pay than $50k sedan. So by buying a more expensive car you do contribute more taxes to the state funds.
> SUVs have terrible visibility and situation awareness because of huge blind spots and higher sitting positions for the driver (which is better on motorways, but terrible in cities).
Any sources on that? It's clearly not my experience. Most SUVs have much bigger side mirrors and the side windows are much larger (because the car is taller).
Please compare cars of similar length (so not large SUV vs a hatchback).
> This does not solve the issue with externalities: fuel cost absolutely does not offset the cost to society caused by car use, same for accidents and road wear.
The premise is: does the tax on the additional fuel spent by driving a SUV offset the cost to the society, comparing with driving a similarly-sized but non-SUV vehicle?
Making it a clear example: is driving a BMW X5 that much worse than driving a BMW 5 series (both are similar length, X5 is ~300 kg heavier)?
They're absolutely taxed higher. $100k SUV will cause a much higher VAT you need to pay than $50k sedan. So by buying a more expensive car you do contribute more taxes to the state funds.
> SUVs have terrible visibility and situation awareness because of huge blind spots and higher sitting positions for the driver (which is better on motorways, but terrible in cities).
Any sources on that? It's clearly not my experience. Most SUVs have much bigger side mirrors and the side windows are much larger (because the car is taller).
Please compare cars of similar length (so not large SUV vs a hatchback).
> This does not solve the issue with externalities: fuel cost absolutely does not offset the cost to society caused by car use, same for accidents and road wear.
The premise is: does the tax on the additional fuel spent by driving a SUV offset the cost to the society, comparing with driving a similarly-sized but non-SUV vehicle?
Making it a clear example: is driving a BMW X5 that much worse than driving a BMW 5 series (both are similar length, X5 is ~300 kg heavier)?
> SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
SUVs provide drivers great overview of traffic, visibility of other cars, and long-range visibility. This is good. However their height severely limits the visibility of people and items near the car, which is very bad in cities where drivers often share space with cyclists, children and potted plants:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...
SUVs provide drivers great overview of traffic, visibility of other cars, and long-range visibility. This is good. However their height severely limits the visibility of people and items near the car, which is very bad in cities where drivers often share space with cyclists, children and potted plants:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...
People watch about 20 feet ahead of their vehicles, we don't need to build tall cars that let you see a bit further.
> SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
I find they usually have crap visibility other than ahead and over other cars (and only cars) because of the huge pillars to avoid a rollover crushing the roof in with the heavy body and high sides. And that's when driving, when parking, they're a deathtrap until bristling with cameras and sensors because they have massive blindspots all around them.
I don't find the ability to see over the other cars especially helpful because no matter how big an urban tank is, it can't see through a Transit van, let alone an HGV.
The best visibility is a convertible with no B-pillar, but most car-shaped cars (i.e. not crossovers) have better visibility in my experience.
I find they usually have crap visibility other than ahead and over other cars (and only cars) because of the huge pillars to avoid a rollover crushing the roof in with the heavy body and high sides. And that's when driving, when parking, they're a deathtrap until bristling with cameras and sensors because they have massive blindspots all around them.
I don't find the ability to see over the other cars especially helpful because no matter how big an urban tank is, it can't see through a Transit van, let alone an HGV.
The best visibility is a convertible with no B-pillar, but most car-shaped cars (i.e. not crossovers) have better visibility in my experience.
SUVs bonnets are the height of my 6 year old, she can easily be out of visibility, as there are plenty of non SUVs around I can see it's not the case for the them.
The exhaust is not at just the right height for kids in buggies when you cross the road.
The exhaust is not at just the right height for kids in buggies when you cross the road.
Yet in the countryside, the higher driving position gives better visibility, with grass verges etc blocking the view around corners. That is what I see from my 20 year old non status symbol 4x4.
Should I be taxed because my car is inappropriate for London, where it will never go?
Should I be taxed because my car is inappropriate for London, where it will never go?
If they tax rural registered vehicles less, people will register their SUVs in rural areas. If you live in the country you probably need a 4x4 or a pickup truck, depending also on the type of work that you do.
> If you live in the country you probably need a 4x4 or a pickup truck, depending also on the type of work that you do.
There already are exemptions and tax credits for professional equipment, right? It’s nothing that has not been solved already.
There already are exemptions and tax credits for professional equipment, right? It’s nothing that has not been solved already.
There are no exemptions for road tax, it is just deductable against income tax, which means you get some fraction of it back depending on your tax rate.
Unfortunately for me I am commuting to a job through the countryside, and therefore I can't deduct anything.
Unfortunately for me I am commuting to a job through the countryside, and therefore I can't deduct anything.
You’re right, people commuting with large cars would see the larger costs. The thing is, we need to provide less-polluting alternatives to commuting by cars and also disincentivise using large and heavy cars for daily trips. People commuting alone in a large car are an absurdity.
These alternatives could be better public transport, tax credit for small vehicles or car sharing, incentives for remote work as much as possible, none of which are completely outlandish.
These alternatives could be better public transport, tax credit for small vehicles or car sharing, incentives for remote work as much as possible, none of which are completely outlandish.
How about a tax credit for having a second smaller car if you already have an SUV?
> 1. SUVs are already taxed on weight indirectly - they consume more fuel which is heavily taxed (50+% in most of Europe)
In UK all electric cars are tax free be it a smart or a huge SUV and difference in electricity consumption AFIK less than in fuel consumption (thanks to recuperation) for ICE cars. Where I live in the UK I see little SUV in general but cars with green plates (electric) are disproportionately SUV.
In UK all electric cars are tax free be it a smart or a huge SUV and difference in electricity consumption AFIK less than in fuel consumption (thanks to recuperation) for ICE cars. Where I live in the UK I see little SUV in general but cars with green plates (electric) are disproportionately SUV.
Weight is an important metric as it has a big influence on two very important external affects.
Road wear/damage is proportional to roughly the fourth power of weight. However, this won't have much impact on SUVs directly, but on large lorries and buses. (It's easy to see the damage at bus stops where the slowing to a stop and starting from a stop, both noticeable deform the road after a time. This is also visible at traffic lights.
Tyre and brake pollution are very closely tied to the vehicle's weight, which leads to the issue of EVs producing almost as much total pollution as a lighter ICE vehicle even though they don't produce exhaust pollution. Tyre pollution is one of the most insidious types of pollution due to the size of the particulates and the chemicals used in tyres.
Road wear/damage is proportional to roughly the fourth power of weight. However, this won't have much impact on SUVs directly, but on large lorries and buses. (It's easy to see the damage at bus stops where the slowing to a stop and starting from a stop, both noticeable deform the road after a time. This is also visible at traffic lights.
Tyre and brake pollution are very closely tied to the vehicle's weight, which leads to the issue of EVs producing almost as much total pollution as a lighter ICE vehicle even though they don't produce exhaust pollution. Tyre pollution is one of the most insidious types of pollution due to the size of the particulates and the chemicals used in tyres.
> However, this won't have much impact on SUVs directly
Why not?
Even an increase from 1.5 tons to 2 tons results in 3.16x the damage on the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Why not?
Even an increase from 1.5 tons to 2 tons results in 3.16x the damage on the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
If that weight difference results in a noticeable tax difference, then lorries will be virtually priced off the road due to the tax. Realistically, the tax would have to be affordable for heaviest vehicles which would make the tax difference between 1.5 to 2 tons negligible.
Maybe one way round it is to have tax bands for heavy commercial vehicles and weight-based tax for cars and SUVs.
Edit: thought I'd try to work out an example of pricing.
If a fourth power tax rate on weight works out to a £100 difference between 2 tons and 1.5 tons, then an 8 ton vehicle would be paying over £37,000
Maybe one way round it is to have tax bands for heavy commercial vehicles and weight-based tax for cars and SUVs.
Edit: thought I'd try to work out an example of pricing.
If a fourth power tax rate on weight works out to a £100 difference between 2 tons and 1.5 tons, then an 8 ton vehicle would be paying over £37,000
> If that weight difference results in a noticeable tax difference, then lorries will be virtually priced off the road due to the tax.
That’s a red herring. Lorries don’t have to be taxed the same way as cars, and actually most of the time are not.
That’s a red herring. Lorries don’t have to be taxed the same way as cars, and actually most of the time are not.
> That’s a red herring. Lorries don’t have to be taxed the same way as cars, and actually most of the time are not.
Yes, but I can see it being unpopular to introduce a "road repair" tax that is justified based on drivers paying for the damage that they cause to roads and then not apply the same rules to the vehicles that cause the majority of the damage.
Yes, but I can see it being unpopular to introduce a "road repair" tax that is justified based on drivers paying for the damage that they cause to roads and then not apply the same rules to the vehicles that cause the majority of the damage.
If all cars are responsible for some small fraction of road damage, it probably isn't going to have much impact to carefully apportion that fraction of the damage.
They absolutely are taxed much heavier than most cars. Truck are charged on most highways in European Union, I expect UK has similar system. They pay per-km driven.
I am addressing the “but higher taxes will put companies out of business because lorries” straw man that appears a couple of times in the discussion. Taxes for family cars and for professional vehicles are effectively decoupled and can be adjusted independently.
> Two arguments here: 1. SUVs are already taxed on weight indirectly - they consume more fuel which is heavily taxed (50+% in most of Europe). 2. SUVs are already taxed higher because they're more expensive.
Those costs aren’t proportionate. Road wear increases exponentially as weight increases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
He may be referring to other vehicles visibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_SUVs
Those costs aren’t proportionate. Road wear increases exponentially as weight increases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> SUVs usually have great visibility because of large windows.
He may be referring to other vehicles visibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_SUVs
Or like my other note at
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38150286
Visibility needs depend on your environment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38150286
Visibility needs depend on your environment.
> Those costs aren’t proportionate. Road wear increases exponentially as weight increases.
Road wear depends on the weight and the surface area. SUVs have much wider tyres.
Road wear depends on the weight and the surface area. SUVs have much wider tyres.
Because damage to the road increases by something like the weight increase ^ 4.
Which means, as pointed out by e.g. zemvpferreira, proportionate-to-damage then either makes HGVs completely unviable or the wear component of tax for any passenger car negligible.
And HGVs really are the limiting factor on road design. We could ban SUVs maybe, we could ban cars and scooters and bicycles if various factions get their way, but if we ban HGVs - cities starve, in weeks if not days.
And HGVs really are the limiting factor on road design. We could ban SUVs maybe, we could ban cars and scooters and bicycles if various factions get their way, but if we ban HGVs - cities starve, in weeks if not days.
> if we ban HGVs - cities starve, in weeks if not days
Which is why nobody wants this. Though we ought to be chasing efficiency there as well because as you wrote lorries are a significant contributing factor.
Which is why nobody wants this. Though we ought to be chasing efficiency there as well because as you wrote lorries are a significant contributing factor.
The trouble with that is most of these people would just pay the tax anyway. So you'd only be increasing inequality on the road. In addition, lorries and vans that actually need to be heavy but are nevertheless a public good will be taxed more for no good reason. Taxing everyone based on their exact use of a utility is against the basic point of a public utility.
Instead I think the easiest and best option is just to ban SUVs from the public highway. It is essentially car obesity. Just bigger and heavier for no reason. They even look like obese versions of regular cars. Heavier vehicles have more responsibility and require stricter testing and licensing. Heavy vehicles should always be box shaped because that is the most efficient shape for carrying goods.
Instead I think the easiest and best option is just to ban SUVs from the public highway. It is essentially car obesity. Just bigger and heavier for no reason. They even look like obese versions of regular cars. Heavier vehicles have more responsibility and require stricter testing and licensing. Heavy vehicles should always be box shaped because that is the most efficient shape for carrying goods.
> lorries and vans that actually need to be heavy but are nevertheless a public good will be taxed more for no good reason
Almost all large vehicles that I see on the roads are privately owned and cause significant road damage (which is roughly proportional to the fourth power of weight). That means that tax payers are subsidising the profits of logistics companies and artificially reducing the cost to them of using public roads which could possibly change the economics of rail use instead.
Almost all large vehicles that I see on the roads are privately owned and cause significant road damage (which is roughly proportional to the fourth power of weight). That means that tax payers are subsidising the profits of logistics companies and artificially reducing the cost to them of using public roads which could possibly change the economics of rail use instead.
"Ultimately you should not be able to buy these, at least in their current form, as they serve no purpose whatsoever besides inflating their owner’s ego at a significant cost to others."
I am wary of this statement, because it could justify banning a wide range of consumer goods and services.
On another note, if SUVs are much more dangerous to others than other cars, insurance claims against SUV drivers and insurance premiums that they pay should reflect this. Why hasn't this happened?
I am wary of this statement, because it could justify banning a wide range of consumer goods and services.
On another note, if SUVs are much more dangerous to others than other cars, insurance claims against SUV drivers and insurance premiums that they pay should reflect this. Why hasn't this happened?
> it could justify banning a wide range of consumer goods and services
GP qualified their statement pretty precisely: no purpose other than ego, significant cost to others. What's the harm in banning anything that ticks both of these boxes?
GP qualified their statement pretty precisely: no purpose other than ego, significant cost to others. What's the harm in banning anything that ticks both of these boxes?
On the surface, it seems to make sense. I'm wondering if it falls apart quickly.
"I like it" and "because ego" is a hard line to carve. I usually hear ego-purchase and translate it to "you like it and I don't."
Lots of things are provided at a cost to others. Some argue the modern economy can't exist without exploiting someone. And there is all the things that ticks tragedies of the commons.
What could be made illegal using such a lens? Fashionable clothing seems fit (hell, the US killed off an entire species of pigeon because their feathers looked good on a hat; a hell of a cost to everyone). Mountain climbing or hiking to summit could be viewed as an ego thing and the trails have to be maintained and emergency personnel available -- all at significant costs.
Depending on how sensitive "cost to others is" and depending on how willfully something can only be attributed to ego makes this more slippery.
"I like it" and "because ego" is a hard line to carve. I usually hear ego-purchase and translate it to "you like it and I don't."
Lots of things are provided at a cost to others. Some argue the modern economy can't exist without exploiting someone. And there is all the things that ticks tragedies of the commons.
What could be made illegal using such a lens? Fashionable clothing seems fit (hell, the US killed off an entire species of pigeon because their feathers looked good on a hat; a hell of a cost to everyone). Mountain climbing or hiking to summit could be viewed as an ego thing and the trails have to be maintained and emergency personnel available -- all at significant costs.
Depending on how sensitive "cost to others is" and depending on how willfully something can only be attributed to ego makes this more slippery.
In the UK you’re taxed more on vehicle excise duty if a car costs more than £45,000 as it’s a luxury.
Only lasts 5 years, and doesn't affect cars with emissions < 150gCO2/km (which a lot of hybrids will fall into).
I'm not in the UK. But, you can pry my minivan from my cold dead hands.
I’m guessing you live somewhere with wider roads and more private vehicle-centric urban planning. That is not the UK.
> Cars should be taxed based on their weight
Not against that, but there should be an exception for electric vehicles, because these batteries are heavy.
Not against that, but there should be an exception for electric vehicles, because these batteries are heavy.
And yet they suffer from the exact same issues (energy consumption, particles, road wear, etc). What we need to incentivise is small EVs for daily trips, not huge wasteful things like Teslas because their owners have range anxiety for the 2 times a year they do more than 100 km in one trip.
The scale does not need to be the same, but in the end heavy EVs are much worse than lighter ones.
The scale does not need to be the same, but in the end heavy EVs are much worse than lighter ones.
Maybe an offset, not an exception imo.
Pollution must be taxed as well, and electric vehicles will have an advantage there.
No need to unnecessarily dictate technology. We want light cars and we don't want pollution.
No need to unnecessarily dictate technology. We want light cars and we don't want pollution.
Hell no, new Mercedes-Benz eActros 600 electric lorry has battery that weights 4500 kg. Add that tyres will wear out much sooner and produce more microplastics pollution killing rivers.
4500 kg is MORE THAN TWO Ford F-150
https://nimbnet.com/news/mercedes-benz-eactros-600-a-long-ra...
4500 kg is MORE THAN TWO Ford F-150
https://nimbnet.com/news/mercedes-benz-eactros-600-a-long-ra...
I think that if at all, this exemption should last until 2030 at maximum.
The reason is that batteries with densities sufficient to make EVs no heavier than ICEs exist (like https://amprius.com/products/ ) but they need investment for production to be scaled up - the 5GWh plant Amprius is planning will go entirely to niche applications, so it's not enough.
Meanwhile the Chinese are introducing cars with 700kg+ batteries:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeekr_009
This is counterproductive.
The reason is that batteries with densities sufficient to make EVs no heavier than ICEs exist (like https://amprius.com/products/ ) but they need investment for production to be scaled up - the 5GWh plant Amprius is planning will go entirely to niche applications, so it's not enough.
Meanwhile the Chinese are introducing cars with 700kg+ batteries:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeekr_009
This is counterproductive.
SUVs are typically shorter and lighter than mid to high class sedans. They just look big, but you can't fit a fridge inside, unlike many station wagons.
Those aren't SUVs, they are crossovers. Mostly based on hatchbacks, but worse in every objective way.
SUV means "Sport utility vehicle". The Sport part is straight up BS, but the utility part differentiates them from crossovers. An SUV is built on a truck frame or at least needs a strengthened chassis to give it some utility like towing or offroading.
SUV means "Sport utility vehicle". The Sport part is straight up BS, but the utility part differentiates them from crossovers. An SUV is built on a truck frame or at least needs a strengthened chassis to give it some utility like towing or offroading.
You're not from the UK are you?
Note to American readers:
The most popular "SUVs" in Britain are small crossovers that are compact or subcompact cars by American standards. The Ford Puma is currently the best-selling car in the UK and while it's marketed as an SUV, it's based on the same platform as the Ford Fiesta. It has big wheels and an SUV silhouette, but the base model has a 1 litre engine with a mild hybrid system and 4 wheel drive isn't even an option.
There's a strong marketing trend towards taller cars with a more imposing road presence, but most of these cars aren't actually very big. The psychology is quite interesting - auto makers are trying to make small cars look tough and rugged without actually making them wider, heavier, less efficient or more expensive; this has in turn led to a lot of people feeling intimidated by cars that are basically just compacts in cosplay.
The most popular "SUVs" in Britain are small crossovers that are compact or subcompact cars by American standards. The Ford Puma is currently the best-selling car in the UK and while it's marketed as an SUV, it's based on the same platform as the Ford Fiesta. It has big wheels and an SUV silhouette, but the base model has a 1 litre engine with a mild hybrid system and 4 wheel drive isn't even an option.
There's a strong marketing trend towards taller cars with a more imposing road presence, but most of these cars aren't actually very big. The psychology is quite interesting - auto makers are trying to make small cars look tough and rugged without actually making them wider, heavier, less efficient or more expensive; this has in turn led to a lot of people feeling intimidated by cars that are basically just compacts in cosplay.
As a london, uk resident, I recently got a hatchback-sized lexus hybrid "SUV", the ux 250h. Perfect for the place, possible to go to a motorway, high mpg, reliability. My kid is just fine in the back sit, I can see a second one fitting just fine.
my American friend laughed at me, saying something like "a family needs at least a range rover, you can afford one".
So it's not about reason, not about making a balanced choice or something. No, in many cases it's about "get it if you can".
my American friend laughed at me, saying something like "a family needs at least a range rover, you can afford one".
So it's not about reason, not about making a balanced choice or something. No, in many cases it's about "get it if you can".
Hey tell your friend I’m American with two kids and I don’t yet have my Range Rover. Can they throw me a few bucks? :)
How do you deal with the small boot space? Have you taken off the boot's floor and the polystyrene foam underneath it?
Dunno, we never felt the need to damage the car to get some more space :-) It just doesn't make sense to use a jumbo jet to get around Kent.
No damage needed, there's like 2x the boot space if you remove the floor plate that has the spare wheel space under it with some polystyrene filling to hold the tools in place. You can put them back again later. Maybe yours has the battery there? We have the petrol only model. I always thought the boot space was too small, as we always seem to fill it up.
Oh and it's not a SUV, it's a crossover. A pretty low one as well, it's quite confortable on the highway.
Oh and it's not a SUV, it's a crossover. A pretty low one as well, it's quite confortable on the highway.
Yes, we own a hybrid so some of that space is eaten by a battery. And the rest of it is taken by all the stuff we always keep around the car.
And yeah, it's kind of hard to classify UXs. Wiki says it's a "subcompact crossover suv" so go figure. Don't really care, for me it's just a nice reasonably sized car.
And yeah, it's kind of hard to classify UXs. Wiki says it's a "subcompact crossover suv" so go figure. Don't really care, for me it's just a nice reasonably sized car.
I still can’t get over the Puma. They seem to have swindled the large customer base of the Fiesta in to spending over £5,000 more for more or less the same car. They’ve stopped production of the Fiesta this year.
The "slightly tall hatchback" form factor is also the best form factor for electrification. A Fiesta doesn't have a lot of underfloor real estate.
Although the industry isn't so dishonest as to pretend that "consumers are more resistant to £30,000 hatchbacks than they are £30,000 'SUVs'" isn't a factor.
Yes, it's a real bugbear describing these as if they're the same as an F-150. Although I've seen more of those as well.
Although the industry isn't so dishonest as to pretend that "consumers are more resistant to £30,000 hatchbacks than they are £30,000 'SUVs'" isn't a factor.
Yes, it's a real bugbear describing these as if they're the same as an F-150. Although I've seen more of those as well.
But things like Land Rover models are popular, and are SUV sized no?
Larger SUVs do exist on the UK market, but they really aren't very popular because they're very inconvenient on our narrow roads and prohibitively expensive for most people. To my knowledge, the biggest passenger cars on the UK market are the Range Rover and the Hyundai Santa Fe, which I believe would be classed as mid-size SUVs on the US market. If you were to import something like an Escalade or a Navigator, you'd attract an awful lot of attention but you'd struggle to park it anywhere.
F150s and the like are getting increasingly popular.
When I see one actually carrying something in the back I'll let you know.
When I see one actually carrying something in the back I'll let you know.
There are a grand total of 192 Ford F150s currently registered in the UK, a substantial proportion of which aren't actually registered for road use. Mid-size pickups like the Ford Ranger, the Volkswagen Amarok and the Mistubishi L200 are significantly more common; these vehicles stand out as huge in a UK context, but aren't particularly big by American standards.
Yeah not even the handymen use those, they prefer a van
It's cheaper, easier to park and also due to the weather I'd say
It's cheaper, easier to park and also due to the weather I'd say
The local painter/decorator here has a fleet of L200s, some with open beds, some with covered 'van' beds. Every road he or his employees park on is instantly blocked.
It's irritating af.
It's irritating af.
Seeing those things and knowing the person bought an objectively worse version of a decent car causes me pain every single time.
But the only thing we can do about that is educate people.
But the only thing we can do about that is educate people.
> But the only thing we can do about that is educate people
For that you'd first need to stop the auto industry to actively miseducate them through ads.
For that you'd first need to stop the auto industry to actively miseducate them through ads.
Well they've stopped making the fiesta now, so there isn't a car version to actually buy.
That's sad, the fiesta is a fun car to drive. Also very economical, my diesel one uses 4.5l/100km consistently without paying much attention to it.
That bring me to another point: Fuel economy ratings. My car is rated at 3.3l of average consumption. That's possible when hypermiling at night, but BS when considering traffic.
I reckon SUVs are even worse than my 50% increase over the rating because their weight makes engine braking less effective in traffic and aerodynamics tend to be less of a problem at the hypermiling speeds they do during the tests than at real world speeds.
That bring me to another point: Fuel economy ratings. My car is rated at 3.3l of average consumption. That's possible when hypermiling at night, but BS when considering traffic.
I reckon SUVs are even worse than my 50% increase over the rating because their weight makes engine braking less effective in traffic and aerodynamics tend to be less of a problem at the hypermiling speeds they do during the tests than at real world speeds.
Honda’s CR-V is one of the most popular SUVs in the US. It’s an all-wheel drive Civic wagon.
[deleted]
They also seem to have adjusted the Fiesta. I've had one as a rental car and felt like sitting on an elevated platform - which I didn't like. I thought: "So the Fiesta, of all models, is now a kind of SUV lite?!".
Interesting statistic, 6 out of 10 most safest vehicles today for pedestrians and cyclists in Europe are SUVs.
See below from Euro NCAP and sort by "Vulnerable Road Users" (green person walking icon)
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
See below from Euro NCAP and sort by "Vulnerable Road Users" (green person walking icon)
https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
I live in the UK countryside. I drive a Ford focus a lot of the time, it is nice to drive and does about 53mpg according to the trip computer. Unfortunately the undertray grounds out on some of the roads around here due to the camber. Many of our lanes are single track and the passing places are not maintained so they tend to have giant potholes and you can easily get stuck. I occasionally need to go down roads that knock the undertray clean off. I kept the Focus for my commute and bought an old 4x4 to deal with the rougher roads. This is great, but I pay double road tax (it is a lot on the old 4x4, despite it doing very few miles), double insurance, double MOT. I think I am doing the best I can in the circumstances, but I think I would be financially better off commuting in an SUV.
Why should I be financially penalised because these cars are inappropriate for London?
Why should I be financially penalised because these cars are inappropriate for London?
After all the talk about fake off-road capability, is a Land Rover Defender really the best example?
I thought that - there's alot of farms where I live in Yorkshire and the defender is the most commonly seen vehicle on them. They're primarily designed for off road mud baths and fit the bill well. I think most (not all) SUVs are designed to be large cars, with off road capability. I'm reminded of the Merc GLE bounce mode :D
[deleted]
Law should definitely restrict this so that we don’t end up with silly oversized cars like the US.
But deflating tyres does not seem to be the way to go. The majority of people just harden their stance if something like that hits them
But deflating tyres does not seem to be the way to go. The majority of people just harden their stance if something like that hits them
I'm glad people are resisting these somewhere in the world. Wish it would happen where I live.
Flattening tyres on other people’s cars could cause fatal road accidents. Consider these leaflets could get lost and the driver not realizing their tyre is flat (especially if it’s one on the back) when driving off. If you are an „activist“ you might potentially commit manslaughter.
No amount of environmental conscience gives you morally the right to potentially hurt other people.
No amount of environmental conscience gives you morally the right to potentially hurt other people.
I'd also like manufacturers to make smaller cars and stop with the "auto-besity" where even the same model of car gets larger and larger each year. The current Mini is an SUV!
The state of our roads are terrible, which encourages bigger tyres and cars with more ground clearance, and hence bigger cars.
They’re so bad that any MP or councillor who promises to fix potholes will get a lot of support.
But crossover are a good compromise. They’re still quite light, have efficient engines and aren’t really that different to their hatchback counterparts. I do think car manufacturers set their prices of this segment way too high, but the market has spoken (they sell tremendously well)
However I feel the need to feel more important and bigger is a considerable factor in their popularity too. They also reflect our growing waistlines.
They’re so bad that any MP or councillor who promises to fix potholes will get a lot of support.
But crossover are a good compromise. They’re still quite light, have efficient engines and aren’t really that different to their hatchback counterparts. I do think car manufacturers set their prices of this segment way too high, but the market has spoken (they sell tremendously well)
However I feel the need to feel more important and bigger is a considerable factor in their popularity too. They also reflect our growing waistlines.
Increase the fuel efficiency requirements. In America, SUVs are classified as a light truck. That's the problem. If SUVs had to meet the same fuel efficiency standards as a passenger vehicle, they would not exist.
I was nodding along until I read that they deflate XC90s. To me, that is a completely reasonable car if you have 3 children. I know people who buy Range Rovers just to drive to work, but not XC90s.
Personally, my family owned a Peugeot 406 Estate when I was a kid/teenager. According to Wikipedia the that is L 4576 mm, W 1760 mm, and H 1396 mm. For comparison, the XC90 is L 4953 mm, W 2008 mm, and H 1776 mm. The 406 has 526 l of trunk space, while the XC90 has 680 l.
With the 406 we did yearly trips to Southern Europe (from Denmark) with 5 people and gear for 2 weeks of vacation. IME people REALLY overestimate how much space they actually need. Hell, a colleague of mine has two kids in strollers. They're leasing a V60. She thinks the car is way too big, and she's looking forward to get a smaller car when their contract runs out.
The plural of anecdote isn't data, but I firmly believe people use the space to justify
With the 406 we did yearly trips to Southern Europe (from Denmark) with 5 people and gear for 2 weeks of vacation. IME people REALLY overestimate how much space they actually need. Hell, a colleague of mine has two kids in strollers. They're leasing a V60. She thinks the car is way too big, and she's looking forward to get a smaller car when their contract runs out.
The plural of anecdote isn't data, but I firmly believe people use the space to justify
This is the equivalent thought process as "everyone making my salary + £1 or more gets paid way too much money and should be taxed at 100%"
What car would you recommend to a family of five?
I have 2 kids and when we go for a trip the my Citroen c4 is full. Would I have one more kid it’s no way we can fit into this car, despite it has 5 seats.
Should we stop thinking about road trips and consider only plane/train/bus? Or should we consider only van/caravan?
I support the argument that unnecessary consumption should be penalised somehow, but I do not support blanket type rules that may discriminate absolutely reasonable people, like those with more than 2 kids.
I have 2 kids and when we go for a trip the my Citroen c4 is full. Would I have one more kid it’s no way we can fit into this car, despite it has 5 seats.
Should we stop thinking about road trips and consider only plane/train/bus? Or should we consider only van/caravan?
I support the argument that unnecessary consumption should be penalised somehow, but I do not support blanket type rules that may discriminate absolutely reasonable people, like those with more than 2 kids.
> What car would you recommend to a family of five?
Any mid-sized or larger station wagon. From experience, even riding along in a recent Skoda Superb is quite fun. There is also an enormous amount of space in the trunk, which most SUVs don't have.
Any mid-sized or larger station wagon. From experience, even riding along in a recent Skoda Superb is quite fun. There is also an enormous amount of space in the trunk, which most SUVs don't have.
I don't think you can drive a SUV in a city and fit 3 children in there. It's just too enormous, think about how massive it would be. We drove a van when I was small (VW sharan), which is the reasonable choice I think. I think SUV-type cars are generally too big for a city, except the smallest and a family should by a van as a van does generally not have such a large hood and it's height is not so high.
Big cars in a city have negative consequences for others. This is not only about enviromentalism, but increasing walkability, liveability and bike-ability in dense city environments. In my last city (Tübingen), you have to buy a "parking pass" as a resident to park in the neighbourhood. They recently greatly increased the price for an SUV, which I think is a good idea.
Big cars in a city have negative consequences for others. This is not only about enviromentalism, but increasing walkability, liveability and bike-ability in dense city environments. In my last city (Tübingen), you have to buy a "parking pass" as a resident to park in the neighbourhood. They recently greatly increased the price for an SUV, which I think is a good idea.
Xc90 length is 4953mm and width is 1923mm
VW sharan length is 4854mm and width is 1904mm
Therefore the difference in sizes is probably less than your palm. These cars are equally reasonable, it’s just a matter of personal preferences I think.
VW sharan length is 4854mm and width is 1904mm
Therefore the difference in sizes is probably less than your palm. These cars are equally reasonable, it’s just a matter of personal preferences I think.
then maybe I am wrong! I just see those enormous SUVs all the time (probably small for americans), clogging the street and not fitting into parking spaces. With enormous, wasteful hoods. If you're family is big we have fitted in a van just fine and could also drive to our vacations.
Honda FRV was good but it's kind of old now. If you have one more kid, a minivan (anything that's used as an airport shuttle) or a 7 seater like the Ford S-Max, Peugeot 5008, Seat Tarraco, Skoda Kodiaq.
[deleted]
As if having 3 kids is the norm ...
And outside of the ability to have a third row of seats the xc90s compared to the v90 are just more expensive with less trunk space and less fuel efficient ...
And outside of the ability to have a third row of seats the xc90s compared to the v90 are just more expensive with less trunk space and less fuel efficient ...
The Renault 5 was enough in the 80s for a family of 4. The XC90 is one of the biggest car I’ve ever seen. Why are small cars no longer acceptable?
My current situation and not based on the previous generation :) I know it's a genuine question, but it does strike me as odd we expect the current generation to be satisfied with the preferences of the previous.
Booster seat laws alone necessitate larger vehicles.
I have two kids and regularly pack our Honda CRV beyond the point that is possible with our Civic. The stroller alone is big, way bigger than the umbrella one from when I was a kid. The Civic seats with my two large booster seats which I'm legally required to use until the kids are like 8-10, can only fit 4 people despite two people being very small, and the CRV allows my to put my seat the way I like in most situations rather than having less leg room (6'3").
The civic gets about 10% better economy than the CRV and I don't think I'd
Booster seat laws alone necessitate larger vehicles.
I have two kids and regularly pack our Honda CRV beyond the point that is possible with our Civic. The stroller alone is big, way bigger than the umbrella one from when I was a kid. The Civic seats with my two large booster seats which I'm legally required to use until the kids are like 8-10, can only fit 4 people despite two people being very small, and the CRV allows my to put my seat the way I like in most situations rather than having less leg room (6'3").
The civic gets about 10% better economy than the CRV and I don't think I'd
> on the edge of Clapham Common
Clapham is the land where the war is fought between the SUV and the SUV impaling cones - placed strategically on the pavement to lure them and trap them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/slre54/driving_on_p...
Clapham is the land where the war is fought between the SUV and the SUV impaling cones - placed strategically on the pavement to lure them and trap them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/slre54/driving_on_p...
The problem is ironically only exacerbated by electrification as the market for EVs seems to be divided in two: You must seemingly choose between very small cars such as the MiEV, or the gargantuan likes of Teslas. There are no electrical MPVs or stationwagons. And with no carbon emissions, people have less qualms about picking the SUV, turning a blind eye to the production emissions and safety hazards.
There is something in the middle like VW ID Buzz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_ID._Buzz with the size of a SUV and quite a good range between 400 and 600 km. And without SUV safety issues like limited observability. Not too many Vans like this around, but I think they will gain popularity. Obviously Mercedes Vito will be a good base for EV Van.
I have hated SUVs for decades, and have denigrated their owners for all that time. I prefer light, small, nippy, manoeuvrable cars with small turning circles. (Like my Leyland Mini, or my Mazda Rotary R100 of days gone by.)
So here I am, the unproud owner of an SUV, myself. I was forced to give up a nice sedan/saloon that was only two and a bit years old, with less than 10,000 of my driving kilometres on it.
The reason for that was to store the components of my wifes mobility scooter. The nicer, smaller car just couldn't hack it. The scooter-storage necessity had turned a normal 4-door 5-passenger car with boot into basically a 2-seater car with practically no luggage space.
On the few occasions when I don't have to carry the scooter in the cargo-space of the SUV, I am still gob-smacked at the amount of empty space in that damned thing. And it's only a mid-sized SUV too.
So please don't vandalise those SUVs. You'd probably find that we're in complete agreement with you if we spent a few minutes over a beer or two.
So here I am, the unproud owner of an SUV, myself. I was forced to give up a nice sedan/saloon that was only two and a bit years old, with less than 10,000 of my driving kilometres on it.
The reason for that was to store the components of my wifes mobility scooter. The nicer, smaller car just couldn't hack it. The scooter-storage necessity had turned a normal 4-door 5-passenger car with boot into basically a 2-seater car with practically no luggage space.
On the few occasions when I don't have to carry the scooter in the cargo-space of the SUV, I am still gob-smacked at the amount of empty space in that damned thing. And it's only a mid-sized SUV too.
So please don't vandalise those SUVs. You'd probably find that we're in complete agreement with you if we spent a few minutes over a beer or two.
Forbid them, the cities aren't farmer fields.
I’m all for fewer people driving them (most are just lifted versions of normal cars now, but more uncomfortable and inefficient), but I’m very sure messing essential safety features (correctly pressurised tyres) is not how you get that point t across.
The point is not to slightly adjust the tire pressure to some dangerous state, but to completely deflate them to be a pain in the rear to re-inflate before driving off again.
Well, these guys are not professionals and it's completely possible for someone's tires to be partially deflated and the flyer to blow away, leading to a dangerous situation.
Regardless, what's more likely when someone deflates your tires and makes you miss an important event—that you'll suddenly take your car to the junkyard and buy a bicycle, or that you'll just have a more negative opinion of environmentalists?
Plus, you can't know why someone's driving a particular car. Maybe that used hybrid SUV was the easiest thing to modify for wheelchair use, the only thing they could afford that sat everyone in their family, or they really do need to tow something a few times a year.
Even in the UK, going onto someone else's property to disable/damage their cars will eventually lead to physical altercations.
Regardless, what's more likely when someone deflates your tires and makes you miss an important event—that you'll suddenly take your car to the junkyard and buy a bicycle, or that you'll just have a more negative opinion of environmentalists?
Plus, you can't know why someone's driving a particular car. Maybe that used hybrid SUV was the easiest thing to modify for wheelchair use, the only thing they could afford that sat everyone in their family, or they really do need to tow something a few times a year.
Even in the UK, going onto someone else's property to disable/damage their cars will eventually lead to physical altercations.
> activists operating under the group’s banner used power tools to puncture the tyres
While a punctured tyre will deflate, reinflation of the tyre after it has been adjusted with a drill or saw is unlikely to be a simple task.
While a punctured tyre will deflate, reinflation of the tyre after it has been adjusted with a drill or saw is unlikely to be a simple task.
Messing with other people’s cars is not great, there should be better solutions.
More uncomfortable? Why do you think people buy them?
What SUV is more comfortable than its wagon or saloon equivalent? I’d definitely rather be sat in a 5 series than an X5.
My comfort is largely a function of how high I sit. Iirc suvs just have deeper bigger foot wells, and are easier to get in and out of without squatting.
> Yet SUVs are selling better than ever.
We are talking about european SUVs which by american standards are small cars.
What to do? Expand cities, allow more housing because people don't want (but are forced by building codes) to live crammed in centuries old apartments, and they want the flexibility of a car that even works offroad (oh the luxury!). Why do we pretend that increasing the value of real estate is the only goal societies should have? People want to be happy. Emissions have become a convenient excuse to make life miserable. We have green technologies in cars and in housing to use, sustainability is no longer an excuse.
We are talking about european SUVs which by american standards are small cars.
What to do? Expand cities, allow more housing because people don't want (but are forced by building codes) to live crammed in centuries old apartments, and they want the flexibility of a car that even works offroad (oh the luxury!). Why do we pretend that increasing the value of real estate is the only goal societies should have? People want to be happy. Emissions have become a convenient excuse to make life miserable. We have green technologies in cars and in housing to use, sustainability is no longer an excuse.
I suggest a road use tax based on volume and mass. it would nudge the consumer to choose smaller, lighter vehicles. a side effect would be accelerating the development of lighter batteries for ev use.
When driving my Miata, the size of the other cars on the road is getting scarier every year. I'm in a somewhat rural part of Canada, so there are many oversized pickups. An additional consequence of higher vehicles is that their headlights are placed higher, and often other people's lights are at the same level as my eyes, making it really uncomfortable to drive at night because I get blinded all the time by these huge trucks coming from the opposite direction.
Is this motivated by environmentalism or is this about class?
Class... is a tricky definition here in the UK. For instance, the richest person I will ever know drives a crappy wee Japanese hatchback, whilst SUVs are often high-monthly fee status symbols for people who could spend their money 'better' elsewise. shrug
I'm in my 40's and the number of my friends who've done exactly that. We have the friends who spend their disposable on status and the friends who spend their disposable on Holidays (I'm vaca-class).
I think you actually mean - you have friends who derive status by spending their disposal income on cars, and friends who derive status by spending their disposable income on exotic holidays!
(I'm posting this from an exotic holiday in the Indian Ocean, my cousin lives in Essex and has a hire-purchase SUV.)
(I'm posting this from an exotic holiday in the Indian Ocean, my cousin lives in Essex and has a hire-purchase SUV.)
Old money vs. new money, etc.
Class is not easy to nail down in the UK. The high-income white people in my area of London ride bicycles
This is the Guardian so it's definitely about resentment of one form or another.
My meaning is the people who seem so angry about this tend to be ‘well educated’ middle class people jealous of working class people having a flashy lifestyle.
Tax motor vehicles based on the distance between a short driver (160 cm, say) and the nearest visible part of the road in front, and the nearest visible part of the road on the passenger side, without camera assistance.
This would directly target the features that make them unsafe, and it is in line with the safety improvements that are being imposed on buses and heavy goods vehicles.
This would directly target the features that make them unsafe, and it is in line with the safety improvements that are being imposed on buses and heavy goods vehicles.
Obligatory plug for cycling and cycling infrastructure. Getting people out of cars - all cars - is a necessity for preventing catastrophic climate change.
I simply can’t see cycling as the answer. Public transport, 100% yes. But when people suggesting cycling I feel like they’re asking for their hobby to be taxpayer subsidized.
How does it work for those who aren’t fully bodily abled? When it snows and rains? Traveling non-trivial distances? Hills?
How does it work for those who aren’t fully bodily abled? When it snows and rains? Traveling non-trivial distances? Hills?
We have lots of snow and hills here in Norway. I bike year around. Studded tires in the winter. I always find the argument a bit funny, because on the worst snow days the roads are littered with cars and accidents. While I bike happily past.
Electric bikes solves the hills-problem for those that don't want to get sweaty. I see lots of parents shipping their kids around on cargo bikes.
I hate the argument about "bodily abled". What about all those that cannot drive? Lots of conditions where that's the case. Or even factors as age (young, old), money (car is expensive). A car centric society is far more excluding than one made for active modes of transport and public transport.
Additionally, one can of course make provisions for those that need a car because of handicaps. Would you be fine if we banned cars in the city centre, except for those not bodily abled? My experience is that those pushing HC as an argument doesn't do it in good faith.
Electric bikes solves the hills-problem for those that don't want to get sweaty. I see lots of parents shipping their kids around on cargo bikes.
I hate the argument about "bodily abled". What about all those that cannot drive? Lots of conditions where that's the case. Or even factors as age (young, old), money (car is expensive). A car centric society is far more excluding than one made for active modes of transport and public transport.
Additionally, one can of course make provisions for those that need a car because of handicaps. Would you be fine if we banned cars in the city centre, except for those not bodily abled? My experience is that those pushing HC as an argument doesn't do it in good faith.
You make some fairly reasonable points, but it’s very clear you’re talking explicitly about cities which is a small (but significant) part of the problem. Realistically if you’re trying to get rid of vehicles, most modern cities are already well set up to do that.
I disagree that cars are more excluding than cycling; very few people of older age would be safe cycling compared to driving. Yes, bikes are far more affordable though.
Electric bikes could be quite revolutionary (I’ve owned various modes of electric personal transport - which I’ve turned into a “net 0” project and entirely charged off solar), but when you said “cycling” I don’t consider them to be part of that: many cities exclude powered vehicles from cycling infrastructure
I disagree that cars are more excluding than cycling; very few people of older age would be safe cycling compared to driving. Yes, bikes are far more affordable though.
Electric bikes could be quite revolutionary (I’ve owned various modes of electric personal transport - which I’ve turned into a “net 0” project and entirely charged off solar), but when you said “cycling” I don’t consider them to be part of that: many cities exclude powered vehicles from cycling infrastructure
I really think that cargo bikes should be banned forever as a huge threat for kids inside. I feel like this is invented for those who takes caring of environment as a religion and ready to sacrifice own kids for it. One could say that the danger for them is mainly from cars but you can say so about public transport. I.e bus or tram is dangerous for cargo bike occupants.
I really do not get this when I see cargo bike with two kids inside, two kids bikes hanging on the sides and bags of groceries pulled by one cyclists. What is the point? Prove that you are strong enough?
I really do not get this when I see cargo bike with two kids inside, two kids bikes hanging on the sides and bags of groceries pulled by one cyclists. What is the point? Prove that you are strong enough?
I follow all bicycle related accidents and deaths in my country (as a board member of our bike association), and I've never heard of any serious accidents related to this. It's a non-issue. And as you're saying, the main danger is cars. So having more people bike their kids around is safer for everybody, if they were to stop biking like that it would just be yet another dangerous car on the road.
Well, it awesome and great that you live in such a safe place. That does not change the fact that this type of transport is not safe for occupants.
And cars are not always the cause https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-bike-accident...
And cars are not always the cause https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-bike-accident...
> How does it work for those who aren’t fully bodily abled?
How does driving work for the many disabled people who can't drive?
With cycling infra, their options are much, much better: mobility scooters, tricycles, ebikes, micro cars, all riding on cycle paths. Add public transport and the fact cars still remain an option and it's objectively better.
https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42
How does driving work for the many disabled people who can't drive?
With cycling infra, their options are much, much better: mobility scooters, tricycles, ebikes, micro cars, all riding on cycle paths. Add public transport and the fact cars still remain an option and it's objectively better.
https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42
Yeah nice. I live in the country. I moved out of my preferred are due to rent increases. I would love to work nearby, but I have to drive 25 miles. I don't have perfect health. Should I cycle?
Causing harm, as stated in the article, is not the way you get there.
Bigger taller and heavier vehicles are safer in collision with smaller cars. In the society where drunk, stupid and agressive people are allowed to drive (which is clearly the case in the UK), it’s entirely logical to buy an SUV, as long as you’re concerned about the safety of your family
I don't think there is any other period where the front "face" of a car aimed to create such an ugly, intimidating impression (i am huge and i will tear you apart).
Their popularity speaks volumes about the true psychological state of a good fraction of moneyed society.
While wealth display is always a thing, the manner in which it is done is not preordained, it provides insights into the state of society.
Once car manufacturers realized the larger and scarier the better selling the trajectory was locked.