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



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

For fuck's sake. Unless they have some vaguely justifiable reason for buying these ridiculous polluting status symbols, they should tax the fuck out of them.  People driving them around crowded city streets should be made to feel as uncomfortable as people wearing fur. 



> SUVs make up more than 40% of new cars sold in the UK – while fully electric vehicles account for less than 2%. Globally, there are more than 200m SUVs, an increase of 35m in 2010, accounting for 60% of the increase in the global car fleet since 2010.
> 
> The report, Upselling Smoke, found the global trend of rapidly increasing sales of bigger and more polluting SUVs was jeopardising climate goals.
> 
> It calls for a tobacco-style advertising ban on cars with average emissions of more than 160gCO2/km, and any cars exceeding 4.8 metres in length. This would cover the dirtiest third of cars sold in the UK, the report says.












						Ban SUV adverts to meet UK climate goals, report urges
					

High-polluting cars are threat to public health, says New Weather Institute thinktank




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

And punish the selfish manufacturers recklessly pushing this shit on the public:



> The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car. But manufacturers are spending millions advertising the vehicles and increasing their share of the UK car market, according to the report by the New Weather Institute thinktank and climate charity Possible.
> 
> In the UK last year more than 150,000 new cars sold were over 4.8 metres long, too large to fit in a standard parking space.





> The report says the money spent on advertising by car companies – £1.2bn in the UK last year and $35.5bn (£26.6bn) across the world – is increasingly focused on pushing SUV vehicles. In the two years from September 2016 to 2018, Ford went from a roughly 50/50 split in its US advertising spend between cars and SUVs/pickup trucks, to allocating 85% of its ad spend to the latter.
> 
> 
> The report draws parallels between smoking and SUVs: “Tobacco causes damage to the consumers, and tobacco companies benefit from the way that they hook their most loyal customers … SUVs are marketed as providing protection for drivers, [but] their physical size, weight and pollution levels create a more dangerous and toxic urban environment for both drivers and pedestrians.”











						SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
					

If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Large estate cars can be just as bad. The SUV-targeting makes little sense, especially when popular models like the Toyota RAV4 have better emissions than a Ford Fiesta.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

If it's necessary to ban or punitively tax certain cars, how about doing it based on the actual harm they cause? SUVs are great for people with kids, older folks and those with mobility problems because they're much easier to get in and out of.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Large estate cars can be just as bad. The SUV-targeting makes little sense, especially when popular models like the Toyota RAV4 have better emissions than a Ford Fiesta.


And the rest of the SUVs?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 3, 2020)

Ironically enough people often get these things cos they make them feel safe. Not so safe for the rest of us, though... 

Study Says SUVs Are More Deadly Than Cars When Striking Pedestrians

Combo of extra momentum and shape causes a lot more fatalities.



> The sample determined that SUVs cause seven percent more serious injuries to pedestrians than passenger cars when struck at speeds quicker than 19 miles per hour. At speeds between 20 and 39 mph, 30 percent of pedestrians struck by SUVs died, compared with 25 percent who were hit by cars. One hundred percent of pedestrians in SUV collisions at speeds of 40 mph or greater died, versus 54 percent who were struck by cars.



US study, but probably the same here - cars are the same weight and shape.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> And the rest of the SUVs?



Tax cars based on mpg (and other measures of pollution/harm), not on their shape.


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

I’m not sure how much this is manufacturer driven... it reflects a shift in consumer demand that has been going on, particularly in the US, for a while now. Sedans etc slumped, and no manufacturer is going to try and push designs that people just aren’t buying. I mean obviously it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, but yeah.


----------



## pesh (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> And the rest of the SUVs?


you can do London to Durham on a single tank in a Landrover these days


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

I swapped my Volvo V40 hatchback for a Volvo XC40 SUV. It has the same size petrol engine (1.5L) but better MPG. My mum can now get out unaided without embarrassing herself, being a newer car it also has superior pedestrian and cyclist detecting auto emergency braking.  By what logic should it have been punitively taxed compared to say a Volvo V90 estate, a heavier car with 20% worse mpg?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Tax cars based on mpg (and other measures of pollution/harm), not on their shape.


Surely we should be striving for smaller cars on the road, not ones that get bigger and bigger and don't even fit in car parking spaces any more. And, of course they bigger they are, the more materials and energy that goes into their construction, and the less efficient they are.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Surely we should be striving for smaller cars on the road. not ones that get bigger and bigger and don't even fit in car parking spaces any more. And, of course they bigger they are, the more materials and energy that goes into their construction and the less efficient they are.



Sure, tax cars by size or weight, but not on how high the seats are.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I swapped my Volvo V40 hatchback for a Volvo XC40 SUV. It has the same size petrol engine (1.5L) but better MPG. My mum can now get out unaided without embarrassing herself, being a newer car it also has superior pedestrian and cyclist detecting auto emergency braking.  By what logic should it have been punitively taxed compared to say a Volvo V90 estate, a heavier car with 20% worse mpg?


You seem to be basing your argument entirely around your own personal concerns. How many top of the range Range Rovers are do you think are bought with the concerns of elderly parents in mind? Far batter to work on quieter, smaller electric  vehicles that solve that problem.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, tax cars by size or weight, but not on how high the seats are.


I don't recall making any mention of the height of a car's seats.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I don't recall making any mention of the height of a car's seats.



You wont find any SUVs with seats lower than in an estate car or hatchback. The defining characteristic of a SUV is ride height.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> You seem to be basing your argument entirely around your own personal concerns. How many top of the range Range Rovers are do you think are bought with the concerns of elderly parents in mind? Far batter to work on quieter, smaller electric  vehicles that solve that problem.



People buy SUVs largely because they are more practical. If small electric SUVs are obviously better than large diesel estate cars, why the whole anti-SUV argument?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I swapped my Volvo V40 hatchback for a Volvo XC40 SUV. It has the same size petrol engine (1.5L) but better MPG. My mum can now get out unaided without embarrassing herself, being a newer car it also has superior pedestrian and cyclist detecting auto emergency braking.  By what logic should it have been punitively taxed compared to say a Volvo V90 estate, a heavier car with 20% worse mpg?



It's just a silly "report" in the Guardian by an outfit called the New Weather Institute (  who?) who seem to be a bunch of climate change hippies.

It's an opinion piece based on not very much.

Basically, it's mostly bollocks masquerading as a news item.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> People buy SUVs largely because they are more practical. If small electric SUVs are obviously better than large diesel estate cars, why the whole anti-SUV argument?


It's like you're just refusing to read what's in the opening post.

"The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "

" It calls for a tobacco-style advertising ban on cars with average emissions of more than 160gCO2/km, and any cars exceeding 4.8 metres in length. "

and - importantly -

“...there’s a problem: we’ve been switching to buying SUVs even faster, and as a result the average carbon emissions of a new car sold in the UK have been going up instead of down for the past four years.”


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> People buy SUVs largely because they are more practical. If small electric SUVs are obviously better than large diesel estate cars, why the whole anti-SUV argument?


So you think personal 'practicality' always trumps the environment and carbon emission targets?

And I don't see anyone arguing for more 'large diesel estate cars.' I'd be happy to see the back of them.









						Diesel ban? The future of diesel cars in the UK and beyond | Auto Express
					

We look back at diesel’s problems and forward at the future for diesel cars. Will they be banned or is there life in the black pump yet?




					www.autoexpress.co.uk
				












						Ban on petrol and diesel car sales brought forward
					

Boris Johnson unveils the plan as he launches a "year of climate action" alongside Sir David Attenborough.




					www.bbc.co.uk
				



.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's just a silly "report" in the Guardian by an outfit called the New Weather Institute (  who?) who seem to be a bunch of climate change hippies.
> 
> It's an opinion piece based on not very much.
> 
> Basically, it's mostly bollocks masquerading as a news item.


What about SUVs killing pedestrians? Is that mostly bollocks as well?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> It's like you're just refusing to read what's in the opening post.
> 
> "The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "
> 
> ...



Great, let's target Skoda Superb taxis! As Spymaster says it's just silly.  

People are switching to SUVs because they're more practical. If the average carbon emissions of new cars are going up, let's tax carbon emissions more.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What about SUVs killing pedestrians? Is that mostly bollocks as well?



Yes, that research was a small sample of OTR SUVs in the US, and the article even mentioned they didn't account for pedestrian safety measures on new cars in Europe like active bonnets.

Thanks to tech advances, a new SUV sold here is going to be much safer for pedestrians than most cars just a few years old.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

We could start by undoing the recent VED changes. The tax was based on CO2 bands but is now a flat rate with an extra tax for cars over £40k.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> People are switching to SUVs because they're more practical.



You might have done so, but that doesn't guarantee all other SUV buyers will have the same motivations as you. Since SUVs do vary a lot in size (as you point out), cost, appearance and features, people will surely buy them for a range of reasons.

fwiw Ford Predator-style pickup trucks seem more risible. They nearly never have anything in the back except a pristine black tarp cover which looks like it never gets removed.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

From a SUV driver



> A massive carbon footprint
> 
> According to a summary analysis of a report by the International Energy Agency that was released on November 13, SUVs are the second-biggest cause of the rise in global carbon dioxide emissions during the past decade. Only the power sector is a bigger contributor.
> 
> ...


And:


> People often buy vehicles for reasons that have very little to do with functionality. For many people, an SUV is a status symbol. And that is also true—perhaps even more so—for people who drive hybrid or all-electric passenger cars. A 2007 survey of Toyota Prius buyers found that more than half said they purchased a Prius because “it makes a statement about me.” Some of them are now incensed that Toyota is siding with the Trump administration against California’s efforts to improve fuel economy.





> “Excessive consumption” is an apt description for the glut of SUV sales worldwide. SUV purchasing has been called an “arms race,” in which people are buying bigger vehicles mostly for one reason: Everyone else is.











						SUVs Are Worse for the Climate Than You Ever Imagined
					

But if you drive one, you can still reduce your carbon footprint—and you can vote for climate change policies with even bigger impact.




					www.wired.com


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What about SUVs killing pedestrians? Is that mostly bollocks as well?


That's not what the piece in the OP is arguing. It's arguing from an emissions perspective stuff like this:


> "The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "



Which is pure bollocks. Plenty of SUVs have better fuel consumption and lower emissions than cars. And how do they define an "average" car?

This is just made-up silliness for climate twats to get aerated about.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Doodler said:


> You might have done so, but that doesn't guarantee all other SUV buyers will have the same motivations as you. Since SUVs do vary a lot in size (as you point out), cost, appearance and features, people will surely buy them for a range of reasons.
> 
> fwiw Ford Predator-style pickup trucks seem more risible. They nearly never have anything in the back except a pristine black tarp cover which looks like it never gets removed.



People buy Ford Predator-style pickup trucks because they get ludicrous tax benefits thanks to HMRC:









						Double-cab pick-up truck tax benefits explained | Auto Express
					

HMRC’s VAT and Benefit-in-Kind tax rules for double cab pick-ups make them seriously attractive as company vehicles




					www.autoexpress.co.uk


----------



## nogojones (Aug 3, 2020)

Doodler said:


> You might have done so, but that doesn't guarantee all other SUV buyers will have the same motivations as you. Since SUVs do vary a lot in size (as you point out), cost, appearance and features, people will surely buy them for a range of reasons.
> 
> fwiw Ford Predator-style pickup trucks seem more risible. They nearly never have anything in the back except a pristine black tarp cover which looks like it never gets removed.


I think they're more of a tax dodge than anything. If you have a small business/self employed and you can argue a case for needing a van/ truck, then these beasts can be written off as an expense


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> People buy Ford Predator-style pickup trucks because they get ludicrous tax benefits thanks to HMRC:



Thanks for the link.


----------



## Johnny Doe (Aug 3, 2020)

nogojones said:


> I think they're more of a tax dodge than anything. If you have a small business/self employed and you can argue a case for needing a van/ truck, then these beasts can be written off as an expense



They are a sensible motor for some occupations that also make decent vehicles for personal use. I got a new Nissan Navara in 2013, to support my drainage business meaning I could make equipment deliveries to my sites myself. Fast forward to 2015 and it was excellent for carrying two buggies and holiday suitcases for a family of four.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 3, 2020)

People are entitled to buy whatever size or configuration of vehicle they want, because we all have different needs from a vehicle. The solution to polluting SUV's is not banning them but offering less (and preferably none) polluting SUV's powered by electric batteries/fuel cell/hybrids in their place. The Tesla Cybertruck (admittedly the fugliest vehicle that has ever been sold) comes with optional solar panels that can extend range or power plugged in devices.



editor said:


> People often buy vehicles for reasons that have very little to do with functionality


I have no problem with this, I want a world in which everyone can make this choice not just some people, A world in which no-one gets to isn't any more desirable than the current one.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> I have no problem with this, I want a world in which everyone can make this choice not just some people, A world in which no-one gets to isn't any more desirable than the current one.


But what if those personal choices negatively impact on other - usually poorer - people? Have they just got to suck it up so that rich folks can carry on clogging up city streets with their shiny, oversized Range Rover SUVs?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> But what if those personal choices negatively impact on other - usually poorer - people? Have they just got to suck it up so that rich folks can carry on clogging up city streets with their shiny, oversized Range Rover SUVs?



Is it pollution and harm, or shininess and owner wealth that concerns you most? If it’s the former then targeted taxation would surely help. If the latter then banning SUVs and sports cars would just result in more blinged up saloons and panel vans.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> But what if those personal choices negatively impact on other - usually poorer - people? Have they just got to suck it up so that rich folks can carry on clogging up city streets with their shiny, oversized Range Rover SUVs?


You've kind of missed the point there, the world I would like to see then the other people who wouldn't be poorer would also be able to make that choice (it does not necessarily follow they will). The scenario you are suggesting is of course how the real world we currently live in now works and buying expensive vehicles is limited to a few and the poorer people do indeed just have to suck it up. Surely working towards an equal wealthy world is preferable to an equal poor one?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is it pollution and harm, or shininess and owner wealth that concerns you most? If it’s the former then targeted taxation would surely help. If the latter then banning SUVs and sports cars would just result in more blinged up saloons and panel vans.


I think I've made my concerns and priorities very clear, as have you.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> You've kind of missed the point there, the world I would like to see then the other people who wouldn't be poorer would also be able to make that choice (it does not necessarily follow the will). The scenario you are suggesting is of course how the real world we currently live in now works and buying expensive vehicles is limited to a few and the poorer people do indeed just have to suck it up. Surely working towards an equal wealthy world is preferable to an equal poor one?


There's more than a little bit of scope creep going on here - I would have thought that the way this site is run should give ample pointers to the kind of world I'd like to see, but doesn't the runaway growth of SUVs - and the clear negative environmental impact - bother you in the slightest?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is it pollution and harm, or shininess and owner wealth that concerns you most? If it’s the former then targeted taxation would surely help. If the latter then banning SUVs and sports cars would just result in more blinged up saloons and panel vans.


You’re going to find the goalposts in constant motion here.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> There's more than a little bit of scope creep going on here - I would have thought that the way this site is run should give ample pointers to the kind of world I'd like to see, but doesn't the runaway growth of SUVs - and the clear negative environmental impact - bother you in the slightest?


The runaway growth of polluting vehicles concerns me yes but the only viable solution to that has to be a technical one i.e. more advanced vehicles that pollute less. Banning or trying to ban certain types of vehicles is an idea that is dead before it gets out of the starting blocks.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

Do people in the UK buy SUVs because they're a practical choice, as platinumsage argued earlier?

Larger SUVs are definitely not practical, according to Which? research summarised here:

Five reasons why you shouldn't buy an SUV

The reasons include poor handling, high fuel consumption, being too wide for width restrictions, and 'astronomical' repair costs.

Smaller SUVs presumably evade most or all of these problems, but this does suggest that practicality is unlikely to guide most purchases of the larger SUVs.


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what the piece in the OP is arguing. It's arguing from an emissions perspective stuff like this:
> 
> 
> Which is pure bollocks. Plenty of SUVs have better fuel consumption and lower emissions than cars. And how do they define an "average" car?
> ...



It’s clearly not bollocks. Aerodynamics is an actual thing. A taller vehicle is going to have a higher coefficient of drag. There are design elements within that might, for example, make a well designed modern SUV better than a 1980s hatchback. But in general, assuming a similar design, a lower vehicle is going to be less draggy and more efficient.

There are other things at play of course... I mean it’s going to be a large, polluting object regardless. Assuming similar carrying capacity. And I highly doubt the old people carriers were remotely efficient designs. Of course electric suvs are a thing too and, realistically, will be the kind of thing that fuels wider uptake, given market demands. But yeah, going down the road of ‘SUVs can be as efficient as badly designed/old cars’ is a bit pointless.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

The gf has a SUV, it’s 2.2ltr automatic, semi 4wd, 198bhp and you can get 7 adults in it comfortably.

She likes it for the raised driving position and says it makes her feel safe if ever she was in an accident.

Since the lockdown she’s been working from home so it’s rarely moved off the drive apart from trips to the park and shopping etc.

Company she works for have indicated staff will be required to work from office after Covid which means a 45mins drive each way adding unnecessary congestion and pollutants to the atmosphere.

I think when she eventually changes car she’ll stick with another SUV tho maybe a electric hybrid.


----------



## gosub (Aug 3, 2020)

What % were hybrid?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> She likes it for the raised driving position and says it makes her feel safe if ever she was in an accident.


Not so good for anyone she hits. 



> Sport-utility vehicles, once exclusively hulking and heavy truck-based modes of transport, have largely evolved into the lighter and more manageable car-based crossover models that now dominate the nation’s driveways. And while their designs have adopted lower bumpers in recent years to lessen the threat to passengers in other vehicles in a collision, a just-released report indicates that even crossover SUVs remain every bit as lethal to pedestrians as ever.
> 
> That’s according to a study of 79 vehicle crashes in three Michigan cities conducted by the industry-supported Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in Arlington, VA. As it is, pedestrian traffic fatalities have risen by 53 percent from 2009 to 2018, the latest year for which such information is available. That means pedestrians now account for around one-fifth of all vehicle-related fatalities.
> 
> The sample determined that SUVs cause seven percent more serious injuries to pedestrians than passenger cars when struck at speeds quicker than 19 miles per hour. At speeds between 20 and 39 mph, 30 percent of pedestrians struck by SUVs died, compared with 25 percent who were hit by cars. One hundred percent of pedestrians in SUV collisions at speeds of 40 mph or greater died, versus 54 percent who were struck by cars.












						Study Says SUVs Are More Deadly Than Cars When Striking Pedestrians
					

Their upright, largely horizontal front ends are at issue.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

And: 



> Some vehicle types are inherently more risky for people around the vehicle. For example, larger cars such as sports utility vehicles (SUVs, often referred to as 4x4s) cause much more damage if they hit someone. A pedestrian hit by a large SUV is twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian hit by a normal sized car [5]. In collisions between an SUV and a smaller car, the person in the smaller car is 12 times more likely to be killed than the person in the SUV [6]. This is because SUVs are generally heavier and stiffer than normal cars, and therefore cause more damage on impact. They are also taller, so pedestrians hit by SUVs are more likely to suffer head or chest injuries, which are more likely to be fatal [7].
> 
> Larger vehicles like SUVs also have bigger blind spots, so drivers are more likely to fail to see vulnerable road users, particularly children who are smaller and harder to spot.











						Knowledge centre
					

The road safety charity. For safe and healthy journeys




					www.brake.org.uk


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Aug 3, 2020)

This myth about SUV's being safer needs to be nipped in the bud.  Marty1's comment about his gf feeling safer is the giveaway.  They roll over more easily and the visibility for the driver  is much worse.  They are stronger and heavier, so in a collision with a smaller vehicle, they will come off less badly.  With a few exceptions (farmers, people who tow things, builders who stick machinery in the back of a half cab) they are a misguided fashion statement by insecure people who can't be bothered to inform themselves of the real benefits and disadvantages to the things.  Plus, a lot of their drivers are self-entitled bullies who think that other road users (especially small cars, cyclists and pedestrians) have no place on the road at all.  I would tax them, unless the owner can demonstrate a specific need from a carefully made list.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> It’s clearly not bollocks. Aerodynamics is an actual thing.


ever seen a bus? or an hgv? lol.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> And:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of those risks have been mitigated on new vehicles by e.g. mandatory reversing cameras, active bonnets and object-detection.

Meanwhile nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains, but not even basic mitigation such as the secure fencing found in many other countries has been attempted.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 3, 2020)

Struwwelpeter said:


> Plus, a lot of their drivers are self-entitled bullies


lol.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Meanwhile nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains, but not even basic mitigation such as the secure fencing found in many other countries has been attempted.



What?  British railways are almost completely fenced off, whereas in parts of Europe ungated level crossings and unfenced railway lines are the norm.  Also, what's your source for 'nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains'?  I can believe that if it includes suicides, but it looks way too high otherwise.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> It’s clearly not bollocks. Aerodynamics is an actual thing. A taller vehicle is going to have a higher coefficient of drag. There are design elements within that might, for example, make a well designed modern SUV better than a 1980s hatchback. But in general, assuming a similar design, a lower vehicle is going to be less draggy and more efficient.
> 
> There are other things at play of course... I mean it’s going to be a large, polluting object regardless. Assuming similar carrying capacity. And I highly doubt the old people carriers were remotely efficient designs. Of course electric suvs are a thing too and, realistically, will be the kind of thing that fuels wider uptake, given market demands. But yeah, going down the road of ‘SUVs can be as efficient as badly designed/old cars’ is a bit pointless.


All of which totally misses the point. But thanks for the aerodynamics lesson!

If you have an SUV which returns 30mpg for 200g/km (of which there are many), it's more efficient and cleaner than a car which returns 20mpg for 300g/km (of which there are many). The premise started at in the article in the OP is completely arbitrary. It is clickbait for morons.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> What?  British railways are almost completely fenced off, whereas in parts of Europe ungated level crossings and unfenced railway lines are the norm.  Also, what's your source for 'nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains'?  I can believe that if it includes suicides, but it looks way too high otherwise.



A lot of people commit suicide by train.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

Doodler said:


> A lot of people commit suicide by standing in front of trains.



Obviously.  Hence my question to platinumsage about whether they're included.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> Obviously.  Hence my question to platinumsage about whether they're included.



Yes, but where are the automatic pedestrian-detection cameras around high-risk crossing points etc? And the fencing is mostly shit compared to e.g. Japan or any high-speed lines.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, but where are the automatic pedestrian-detection cameras around high-risk crossing points etc? And the fencing is mostly shit compared to e.g. Japan or any high-speed lines.



I asked you for a source, not more unsupported assertions.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, but where are the automatic pedestrian-detection cameras around high-risk crossing points etc? And the fencing is mostly shit compared to e.g. Japan or any high-speed lines.



There is a large element of truth in your whataboutery.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No you didn't! What do you want a source for?



This.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

The problem is not SUV’s, it’s cars in cities.

When I get my next car it will likely be an SUV. It will mean I can take myself, 2 kids, 3 bikes, 3 bodyboards and a mountain of camping kit around the country in comfort.

What I won’t do is use it to take the kids to school, travel the 8 miles to work or pop to Sainsbury’s.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> This.



Ok 

454 pedestrians on road: https://assets.publishing.service.g...orted_road_casualties_-_Main_Results_2018.pdf
296 suicides, trespassers, level crossing users: Transport accidents and casualties (TSGB08) (mostly suicides)


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Ok
> 
> 454 pedestrians on road: https://assets.publishing.service.g...orted_road_casualties_-_Main_Results_2018.pdf
> 296 suicides, trespassers, level crossing users: Transport accidents and casualties (TSGB08)


And you actually think that's some sort of meaningful comparison in the context of the debate here? You may as well add cliffs.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Massive advances are being made in new cars on improving pedestrian safety, and these will no doubt be reflected in the casualty figures in time.
Nothing done about the railways at all though. Putting some Samaritan signs up won't cut it in the era of people-detecting auto-brakes.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Ok
> 
> 454 pedestrians on road: https://assets.publishing.service.g...orted_road_casualties_-_Main_Results_2018.pdf
> 296 suicides, trespassers, level crossing users: Transport accidents and casualties (TSGB08) (mostly suicides)



As I thought, the figures do include suicides, which account for the vast majority of railway fatalities.  To take 2019-20 as an example, 271 suicides and 40 fatalities from all other causes.

In other words, unless you're actively trying to harm yourself or do something very stupid at a level crossing, the risk of death or injury from a train is miniscule.  Far smaller than on the roads.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Massive advances are being made in new cars on improving pedestrian safety, and these will no doubt be reflected in the casualty figures in time.
> Nothing done about the railways at all though. Putting some Samaritan signs up won't cut it in the era of people-detecting auto-brakes.


You're actually continuing  with this specious comparison? Jeez.  

*UK road casualties*
*Key facts:*

*In 2018, there were 1,784 people killed on the roads in Britain;*
*In 2018, 25,511 people were seriously injured on the roads in Britain;*
In 2018, there was a total of 160,597 casualties of all severities in road traffic crashes;
In 2018, the highest number of fatalities were car users, both drivers and passengers, who accounted for 44% of road deaths;
In 2018, of the 1,784 road deaths, the majority (58%) occurred on rural roads.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> As I thought, the figures do include suicides, which account for the vast majority of railway fatalities.  To take 2019-20 as an example, 271 suicides and 40 fatalities from all other causes.
> 
> In other words, unless you're actively trying to harm yourself or do something very stupid at a level crossing, the risk of death or injury from a train is miniscule.  Far smaller than on the roads.



What a ridiculous thing to say. It's not about whether the people dying are in a particular frame of mind, it's about reducing deaths by investing in technological solutions.

Following your argument, kids who run out into the road shouldn't be counted, because a sensible person wouldn't do that.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> You're actually continuing  with this specious comparison? Jeez.
> 
> *UK road casualties*
> *Key facts:*
> ...



All the more reason for people to ditch their aging estate/hatchback cars and buy new SUVs stuffed with life-saving technology and cleaner engines.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Most of those risks have been mitigated on new vehicles by e.g. mandatory reversing cameras, active bonnets and object-detection.
> 
> Meanwhile nearly half of UK pedestrian fatalities are caused by trains, but not even basic mitigation such as the secure fencing found in many other countries has been attempted.


1. If those features are fitted to normal cars then I suspect the mitigation point would be eroded somewhat.

2. This is bullshit. 331 people died on the railways in 2018-19. 27 members of the public, 302 suicides, 2 workers. 





__





						Rail safety | ORR Data Portal
					





					dataportal.orr.gov.uk
				




In 2018 there were 456 pedestrian deaths on the road. 








						Knowledge centre | Brake
					

Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages




					www.brake.org.uk


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say. It's not about whether the people dying are in a particular frame of mind, it's about reducing deaths by investing in technological solutions.
> 
> Following your argument, kids who run out into the road shouldn't be counted, because a sensible person wouldn't do that.



What the fuck are you on about?  

e2a - actually, don't bother.  I've better things to do.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> What the fuck are you on about?



This



Roadkill said:


> In other words, *unless you're actively trying to harm yourself or do something very stupid* at a level crossing, the risk of death or injury from a train is miniscule.  Far smaller than on the roads.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> This



I'd have thought my words were pretty self-explanatory, really.  The point is that fatalities on the railway (suicides excepted) are at such a low level that all the 'technological solutions' you mention won't do much to reduce them.  The risk on the roads is far, far greater.  In other words, drop the railway whataboutery.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> I'd have thought my words were pretty self-explanatory, really.  The point is that fatalities on the railway (suicides excepted) are at such a low level that all the 'technological solutions' you mention won't do much to reduce them.  The risk on the roads is far, far greater.  In other words, drop the railway whataboutery.



Fine - if you think reducing the large numbers of railway suicides in similar ways to pedestrian road fatalities isn't worth it, I can understand why don't want to bother defending that.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)




----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

From 2017: SUV drivers in a study conducted in Vienna were more likely than non-SUV drivers to be observed jumping red lights, not wearing seatbelts and using mobile phones::

SUV driving 'masculinizes' risk behavior in females

The study admits it can't say much about cause and effect (in contradiction to its title), but a useful list of references is included.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Fine - if you think reducing the large numbers of railway suicides in similar ways to pedestrian road fatalities isn't worth it, I can understand why don't want to bother defending that.


Comparing suicides with road fatalities is really fucking bizarre, but exactly how would you propose reducing the numbers of railway suicides? What ' technological solution,' for example, would prevent someone jumping over a bridge into the path of a train?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Lots of narrow lanes round here. On most of them a normal sized car can just about pass pedestrians safely, but a range rover can't. I make a point of not budging for SUVs too big to get past me. I'm not climbing into the brambles just because some inadequate needs a big car with a four litre engine to feel important.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Doodler said:


> From 2017: SUV drivers in a study conducted in Vienna were more than non-SUV drivers to be observed jumping red lights, not wearing seatbelts and using mobile phones::
> 
> SUV driving 'masculinizes' risk behavior in females


So, a decent reason to ban women from driving SUVs, in Austria?

Or do you think Austrian women should be banned from SUVs all over the world?

Maybe just ban women drivers?


> The study admits it can't say much about cause and effect ....



Really? You don't say!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 3, 2020)

my current SUV lite wheels put out half the emissions that my Volvo estate did. not as long either, but taller and better for the occupants. No i dont drive it 300m to the shops either.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Comparing suicides with road fatalities is really fucking bizarre, but exactly how would you propose reducing the numbers of railway suicides? What ' technological solution,' for example, would prevent someone jumping over a bridge into the path of a train?



Trackside cameras near all high-risk areas alerting train drivers to the presence of line-side pedestrians. Most suicide victims loiter by or on the tracks away from platforms waiting for a suitably fast train.

If reducing pedestrian fatalities is important, this should be something to focus on rather than singling out new SUVs. Or perhaps delivery vans, which typically have worse or totally absent pedestrian protection.

It seems the article is more about “i don’t like people having big shiny cars” rather than “let’s reduce pedestrian deaths” or similar.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> So, a decent reason to ban women from driving SUVs, in Austria?
> 
> Or do you think Austrian women should be banned from SUVs all over the world?
> 
> Maybe just ban women drivers?



You should construct strawmen for a living, you obviously enjoy doing it!


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Trackside cameras near all high-risk areas alerting train drivers to the presence of line-side pedestrians. Most suicide victims loiter by or on the tracks away from platforms waiting for a suitably fast train.


You do understand that trains can take *up to a mile to stop* and that someone can jump onto a countryside bridge parapet in seconds? 

So your 'technological solution' is 100% pointless, ineffective and redundant.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> You do understand that trains can take *up to a mile to stop* and that someone can jump onto a countryside bridge parapet in seconds?
> 
> So your 'technological solution' is 100% pointless, ineffective and redundant.



They often travel a mile in far less than a minute, cameras on trackside land would help enormously.


----------



## baldrick (Aug 3, 2020)

If you're comparing SUVs negatively to fully electric cars you have to recognise that there's an infrastructure burden required to make people shift over to fully electric.

We bought a brand new car just before lockdown and really wanted to make the switch over to an electric vehicle. But as lots of other people do in this country, we live in a terrace and there is no way we could get a charging point installed without it being an obstruction. So it didn't happen. Lots of people will have this problem and by making electric vehicles 'out of reach' if you like to anyone who doesn't have a driveway, like loads of other green initiatives it prices people out who would otherwise like to do the right thing.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Doodler said:


> You should construct strawmen for a living, you obviously enjoy doing it!


Says the bloke who just linked to the most abominable, irrelevant, piece of junk on the thread (apart from the article in the OP)!


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> They often travel a mile in far less than a minute, cameras on trackside land would help enormously.


Explain how these hundreds of thousands of trackside cameras would somehow prevent someone committing suicide by jumping off a bridge straight into the path of a 100mph train. Thanks. 

Oh and who's going to pay for all this pointless technology?


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Says the bloke who just linked to the most abominable, irrelevant, piece of junk on the thread (apart from the article in the OP)!



It certainly seems to got under your skin somehow. It's just an article.


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> All of which totally misses the point. But thanks for the aerodynamics lesson!
> 
> If you have an SUV which returns 30mpg for 200g/km (of which there are many), it's more efficient and cleaner than a car which returns 20mpg for 300g/km (of which there are many). The premise started at in the article in the OP is completely arbitrary. It is clickbait for morons.



Ok. This quite simple. SUVs generally have a higher COD than lower cars. This means that, on average, they are going to be less efficient in terms of fuel consumption than a lower car with a similar capacity. I don’t really care that much about the original article, they’re splitting hairs between running an SUV and anything else. But you _are_ talking out of your arse.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Explain how these hundreds of thousands of trackside cameras would somehow prevent someone committing suicide by jumping off a bridge straight into the path of a 100mph train. Thanks.
> 
> Oh and who's going to pay for all this pointless technology?



I don't have all the answers but I'm sure the hundreds of fatalities each year warrant more attention than banning adverts for private cars of a certain shape.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 3, 2020)

Tax all engines above 1.8 to death
Force all cars to have a max speed limit of 70mph
Special license to drive SUVs, achievable after going on a week long cunt awareness course, theory and practical.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> Ok. This quite simple. SUVs generally have a higher COD than lower cars. This means that, on average, they are going to be less efficient in terms of fuel consumption than a lower car with a similar capacity. I don’t really care that much about the original article, they’re splitting hairs between running an SUV and anything else. But you _are_ talking out of your arse.


You're saying the right things but still missing the point. You've got this half right. The article relates to fuel consumption and emissions (massive clue there). If you think I'm taking out of my arse you're silly. This is really straightforward and I'm not sure how to simplify it further for you.

When you say "similar capacity" are you referring to engine capacity? We could open a whole new can of worms here.


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> You're saying the right things but still missing the point. You've got this half right. The article relates to fuel consumption and emissions (massive clue there). If you think I'm taking out of my arse you're silly. This is really straightforward and I'm not sure how to simplify it further for you.



Fuel consumption and emissions are tied directly to weight and aerodynamics.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> Fuel consumption and emissions are tied directly to weight and aerodynamics.



Let's all shove our elderly relatives into super low-drag sports cars then shall we?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I don't have all the answers but I'm sure the hundreds of fatalities each year warrant more attention than banning adverts for private cars of a certain shape.


The two are completely unrelated issues. Your attempts to link mental health issues with private car ownership as a means of proving that railways are somehow worse than SUVs is in shockingly bad taste.


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

Again, I’m ignoring the article, I totally agree that taxing based on vehicle shape is stupid.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Let's all shove our elderly relatives into super low-drag sports cars then shall we?


Innit? 

He's usually not this fucking stupid, to be fair.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> clickbait for morons.


New strapline?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Let's all shove our elderly relatives into super low-drag sports cars then shall we?


Sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing the page now that this fucking huge strawman has just been constructed in the middle of it.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> Fuel consumption and emissions are tied directly to weight and aerodynamics.


But it's not the _only_ factor is it?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Let's all shove our elderly relatives into super low-drag sports cars then shall we?


When I were a lad literally every car on the road was a fiat 126. And elderly relatives were happy for it. Try telling kids that today....


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Innit?
> 
> He's usually not this fucking stupid, to be fair.



The only thing I’m taking issue with is you saying that:

"The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "

is bollocks. It isn’t. It is generally the case. The design of SUVs imposes fundamental physical limits on how efficient they can be. Sure, you can take specific examples, there are rather obviously plenty of low profile very aerodynamic cars that are ludicrously inefficient.

But more broadly, I tend to agree that SUVs are kind of just nicer to be in. Better visibility, more space, easier access. I think that is largely why people chose them. Status may be part of it, but you could say the same about many of the cars that manufacturers are moving away from.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> The only thing I’m taking issue with is you saying that:
> 
> "The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "
> 
> is bollocks. It isn’t. It is generally the case.



What is "the average car" in this case?

Which SUVs are they referring to?


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> What is "the average car" in this case?
> 
> Which SUVs are they referring to?



It’s badly worded, but it’s not that hard to work out what they’re getting at.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> It’s badly worded, but it’s not that hard to work out what they’re getting at.


It's very fucking easy to see what they're getting at!

They want to write something bad about SUVs to give all the little armchair eco-warriors stiffies, so they're making blanket statements that are full of shit. 

The vast majority of SUVs on UK roads are the likes of RAV4s, Qashquais, XCs, Ecosports, etc. Not Range Rovers and X6's. The OP article is tilting at (all) SUVs, and that IS bollocks.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Not so good for anyone she hits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hopefully she won’t hit anyone.

Article makes some fair points tho based on American SUV’s which I think may be more chunkier than over here.

A plus point for gf’s SUV is that we are going out for dinner with my parents and two kids later today, so six of us can get into it rather than taking two vehicles - saving on environmental impact and infrastructure.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> The two are completely unrelated issues. Your attempts to link mental health issues with private car ownership as a means of proving that railways are somehow worse than SUVs is in shockingly bad taste.



I didn't attempt to link mental health issues with anything. My post was prompted by Roadkill attempting to exclude people "actively trying to harm themselves or doing something very stupid" from the causality statistics. Both road and rail deaths involve these things and such deaths shouldn't be treated differently.

Likewise I wasn't trying to "prove that railways are somehow worse than SUVs", simply that if you're genuinely concerned with reducing such deaths then there are for more low-hanging fruit in the area of railway transport than there is in private vehicle shape.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> A plus point for gf’s SUV is that we are going out for dinner with my parents and two kids later today, so six of us can get into it rather than taking two vehicles - saving on environmental impact and infrastructure.


I really don't think such occasional trips go particularly far in offsetting the overall environmental impact of owning a large SUV, if indeed this trip actually exists.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> A plus point for gf’s SUV is that we are going out for dinner with my parents and two kids later today, so six of us can get into it rather than taking two vehicles - saving on environmental impact and infrastructure.


Fuck the savings on environmental impact.

It's easier and far more comfortable to own, organise, travel in, and park, a single vehicle than two cars; or piss about with public transport or taxis. If I had a large family and luggage to tote around I wouldn't think twice about getting one.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 3, 2020)

Electric cars for all, powered by mains electricity, is utter and absolute bollocks.

Firstly, where is the electricity coming from, last Winter we had brown outs.

Secondly, where is all the secure charging infrastructure coming from.

Hydrogen is the way forward.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's very fucking easy to see what they're getting at!
> 
> They want to write something bad about SUVs to give all the little armchair eco-warriors stiffies, so they're making blanket statements that are full of shit. The vast majority of SUVs on the roads are the likes of RAV4s, Qashquais, XCs, Ecosports, etc. Not Range Rovers and X6's. The OP article is tilting at (all) SUVs, and that IS bollocks.



SUVs have their place, but that isn't Chelsea.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

The world is facing an environmental catastrophe but some people are still arguing for their right to drive around in trendy oversized cars that are clearly making things worse, all because they find it more 'practical' for their personal needs.

The fact that SUV sales are soaring at such a time is fucking depressing.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck the savings on environmental impact.
> 
> It's easier and far more comfortable to own, organise, travel in, and park, a single vehicle than two cars; or piss about with public transport or taxis. If I had a large family and luggage to tote around I wouldn't think twice about getting one.



They last forever if looked after - gf’s is 10 yrs old but almost as good as they say she bought it new from the dealership.

It averages about 33mpg but if you put it into sport mode and manually tap up and down the gears - or just leave it till it redlines it drops to about 19mpg - plus you can tow a caravan if that’s your fancy.

Pretty versatile.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> SUVs have their place, but that isn't Chelsea.


It depends on the SUV and the needs of the individual really. Obviously nobody sensible would advocate a Range Rover for the daily drive from Chelsea to the office in Surrey and back but I can see plenty of reasons why a mum might buy a Qashqai or something similar to tote the pups and pushchairs around. Some people will probably say that they are more harmful to the environment but then everything we do has an impact and we have to decide how we trade things off. For example, using class A drugs or long haul flights is likely to be just as, if not more, environmentally and socially destructive than owning an SUV in London


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Electric cars for all, powered by mains electricity, is utter and absolute bollocks.
> 
> Firstly, where is the electricity coming from, last Winter we had brown outs.
> 
> ...



Looks like UPS are one of the first to move to full electric delivery vehicles but they are doing less than 300 miles per day.



Cars need to do much more than that imo - at least the same as diesel/petrol and have charging stations everywhere - still doesn’t negate power outages tho.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

Was never a fan, but then came across the RSQ8 by Lumma and have changed my mind. The MPG of around 12-15 is a bit hmm, but even Swampy would clamour to get behind the wheel of this bad boy...


----------



## nogojones (Aug 3, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Electric cars for all, powered by mains electricity, is utter and absolute bollocks.
> 
> Firstly, where is the electricity coming from,


Long cables


----------



## pesh (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Was never a fan, but then came across the RSQ8 by Lumma and have changed my mind. The MPG of around 12-15 is a bit hmm, but even Swampy would clamour to get behind the wheel of this bad boy...
> 
> View attachment 224878


that looks like Max Power were running some kind of fantasy hatchback team back in the 90s and someones accidentally made one.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

Cars should be priced in a way that disincentivises/allows progressive taxation to offset negative social impacts. That's a matter of emissions, resources used for production, danger to pedestrians, and space consumption etc.  It's not really about the style of the car, for which many people have legitimate reasons to choose an SUV (which don't ought to be lumped in as a homogeneous mass - a hybrid RAV4 is quite different from a diesel 1990s Land Rover).


----------



## nogojones (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Was never a fan, but then came across the RSQ8 by Lumma and have changed my mind. The MPG of around 12-15 is a bit hmm, but even Swampy would clamour to get behind the wheel of this bad boy...
> 
> View attachment 224878


That's a bit much. In the right circumstances I'd drive an SUV, but that's just silly


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

nogojones said:


> That's a bit much. In the right circumstances I'd drive an SUV, but that's just silly




They have sensibly upped the BHP from 592 to 700, which of course allows for safer overtaking. Can't put a price on safety


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The MPG of around 12-15 is a bit hmm
> 
> View attachment 224878


That is disgusting.


----------



## nogojones (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They have sensibly upped the BHP from 592 to 700, which of course allows for safer overtaking. Can't put a price on safety


they've put a price on the styling though. Was it designed by a 14year old?


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

Lamborghini Urus is a serious piece of kit.



Prices start at £180,000 

I’ve only seen two on the road up here but expect they’re two a penny down that London.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2020)

I'm don't think I'm even sure what an SUV is then. I thought they were huge things. Is this just a rebranding of people movers?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Was never a fan, but then came across the RSQ8 by Lumma and have changed my mind. The MPG of around 12-15 is a bit hmm, but even Swampy would clamour to get behind the wheel of this bad boy...
> 
> View attachment 224878




That's a hatchback. There's a trend these days for adding 15mm of ride height, some black plastic on the wheel arches and calling it an SUV. It's wrong and should stop.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm don't think I'm even sure what an SUV is then. I thought they were huge things. Is this just a rebranding of people movers?



Sports Utility Vehicle.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Lamborghini Urus is a serious piece of kit.
> 
> View attachment 224880
> 
> ...


So now you want to turn it into a luxury car porn thread


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Sports Utility Vehicle.


Haven't you got dogs to fuck?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

maomao said:


> Haven't you got dogs to fuck?


And this kind of weird cross-thread beef is not really acceptable either


----------



## nogojones (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Lamborghini Urus is a serious piece of kit.
> 
> View attachment 224880
> 
> ...


I don't know if its got enough boot space to be that useful. I supose I could get the servants to bring the luggage separately


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Was never a fan, but then came across the RSQ8 by Lumma and have changed my mind. The MPG of around 12-15 is a bit hmm, but even Swampy would clamour to get behind the wheel of this bad boy...
> 
> View attachment 224878



I like how they've blacked out the Audi badge so nobody will know you're a wanker. Unless of course they can see any other part of the car.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Was never a fan, but then came across the RSQ8 by Lumma and have changed my mind. The MPG of around 12-15 is a bit hmm, but even Swampy would clamour to get behind the wheel of this bad boy...
> 
> View attachment 224878


A four door as well.

When I win the lottery the one below is mine:


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 3, 2020)

maomao said:


> Haven't you got dogs to fuck?


Is that necessary?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm don't think I'm even sure what an SUV is then. I thought they were huge things. Is this just a rebranding of people movers?



Sports Utility Vehicle. Presumably because they're mostly used to drop little Tyler and Sushi off at their tennis lessons.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2020)

It would be a better world if people just let other people get on with their choice of transport that they are happy with.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It would be a better world if people just let other people get on with their choice of transport that they are happy with.


You sound like the kind of person who thinks it would be better if people could still smoke indoors and let everyone else suffer the consequences.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Lamborghini Urus is a serious piece of kit.
> 
> View attachment 224880
> 
> ...



It's just a Posrche Cayenne. Which is just a Volkswagen Touareg. Which is almost exactly a quarter of the price.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Sports Utility Vehicle. Presumably because they're mostly used to drop little Tyler and Sushi off at their tennis lessons.


I know what it flipping stands for but when I first heard the term 15-20 years ago it seemed to mean pick up truck type things. These just look like Galaxies with go faster stripes.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> You sound like the kind of person who thinks it would be better if people could still smoke indoors and let everyone else suffer the consequences.


Not at all. I was an avid cyclist until illness stopped that but I got fed up of being called a pariah for doing that. These are all just topics that rile people from different parts of the spectrum. It’s the entire attitude towards other people that gets me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It would be a better world if people just let other people get on with their choice of transport that they are happy with.



I'd be happiest driving a wheat thresher up and down Dorking high street.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It would be a better world if people just let other people get on with their choice of transport that they are happy with.



We'll all be in canoes like it or not if people don't stop burning so much fucking petrol.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd be happiest driving a wheat thresher up and down Dorking high street.


Would it be horse-drawn?


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2020)

I’ve done.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Not at all. I was an avid cyclist until illness stopped that but I got fed up of being called a pariah for doing that. These are all just topics that rile people from different parts of the spectrum. It’s the entire attitude towards other people that gets me.



I saw a bloke on a mountain bike the other day that had some sort of petrol motor attached - was going a decent speed along the road as he passed with a trail of blue smoke behind him.  Bizarre.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2020)

My current mode of personal transport btw.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Would it be horse-drawn?



A horse produces 18kg methane a year. It's a 30x more potent greenhouse gas so equates to 540kg of Co2 annually. A SUV might make 130g/Km, giving 1300kg of CO2 annually for the average mileage.

Two horses is slightly better than an SUV, but if you need four horses to pull your wagon then a SUV is obviously the better choice.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> View attachment 224887
> My current mode of personal transport btw.



Cool enough tho is it classified as an SUV?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> View attachment 224887
> My current mode of personal transport btw.



The CO2 figures for those 1.3 engines are pretty shocking by today’s standards, and higher than many new large SUVs


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

This whole thread exists to give editor plausible deny-ability when he claims this is not really his new motor...


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I didn't attempt to link mental health issues with anything. My post was prompted by Roadkill attempting to exclude people "actively trying to harm themselves or doing something very stupid" from the causality statistics. Both road and rail deaths involve these things and such deaths shouldn't be treated differently.
> 
> Likewise I wasn't trying to "prove that railways are somehow worse than SUVs", simply that *if you're genuinely concerned with reducing such deaths then there are for more low-hanging fruit in the area of railway transport than there is in private vehicle shape*. [emphasis added]



That is complete and utter bollocks.  The figures a couple of pages back go to show that the number of deaths on the roads in 2018 (1,784) was more than five times the number on the railways even if you include suicides.  If you don't it's more than _forty_ times, and that still includes people doing daft things at level crossings, despite lights, barriers and the rest of it.

What you are effectively arguing here is that we should ignore hundreds of preventable deaths on the roads each year and spend untold millions of pounds on motion sensors, cameras and the rest of it to prevent - probably - a couple of dozen deaths on the railway.  Are you for real?!


----------



## JimW (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> A horse produces 18kg methane a year. It's a 30x more potent greenhouse gas so equates to 540kg of Co2 annually. A SUV might make 130g/Km, giving 1300kg of CO2 annually for the average mileage.
> 
> Two horses is slightly better than an SUV, but if you need four horses to pull your wagon then a SUV is obviously the better choice.


That's because you'be not factored in the manufacture and supply chain on the one hand versus the carbon footprint of two horses fucking on the other. Also easier and greener to dispose of the gee gees and even tasty if you're French.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm don't think I'm even sure what an SUV is then. I thought they were huge things. Is this just a rebranding of people movers?


I think this is the problem that a lot of people are having in this thread.

SUV has just become a catch all term for any tall car with a big boot and the vaguest of “off road” styling.

A V8 Range Rover really is in a different league to a QashQai...


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> That is complete and utter bollocks.  The figures a couple of pages back go to show that the number of deaths on the roads in 2018 (1,784) was more than five times the number on the railways even if you include suicides.  If you don't it's more than _forty_ times, and that still includes people doing daft things at level crossings, despite lights, barriers and the rest of it.
> 
> What you are effectively arguing here is that we should ignore hundreds of preventable deaths on the roads each year and spend untold millions of pounds on motion sensors, cameras and the rest of it to prevent - probably - a couple of dozen deaths on the railway.  Are you for real?!



This isnt about road deaths in general though, it’s about road deaths caused by a specific shape of car. 

Far easier to save lives on the railway than save lives by banning adverts for particular shaped cars.


----------



## JimW (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> This isnt about road deaths in general though, it’s about road deaths caused by a specific shape of car.
> 
> Far easier to save lives on the railway than save lives by banning adverts for particular shaped cars.


Since the vast majority of rail fatalities are suicides you'll just shift the problem elsewhere after your tech innovations. people aren't dying there for a last glimpse of the track before they go, just choosing it because it's relatively easy and likely to work.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

JimW said:


> That's because you'be not factored in the manufacture and supply chain on the one hand versus the carbon footprint of two horses fucking on the other. Also easier and greener to dispose of the gee gees and even tasty if you're French.



Also add in the grazing acreage and the animal welfare problems that come with making horses do 10000 miles a year, to name but two.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> That is complete and utter bollocks.  The figures a couple of pages back go to show that the number of deaths on the roads in 2018 (1,784) was more than five times the number on the railways even if you include suicides.  If you don't it's more than _forty_ times, and that still includes people doing daft things at level crossings, despite lights, barriers and the rest of it.
> 
> What you are effectively arguing here is that we should ignore hundreds of preventable deaths on the roads each year and spend untold millions of pounds on motion sensors, cameras and the rest of it to prevent - probably - a couple of dozen deaths on the railway.  Are you for real?!


I thought he was a returnee until this thread. Now I'm pretty sure he is actually Dominic Cummings.


----------



## JimW (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Also add in the grazing acreage and the animal welfare problems that come with making horses do 10000 miles a year, to name but two.


Well then you have to add in all the tarmac and car parks. Didn't see Genghis Khan and his horde struggling to find a spot to park.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The CO2 figures for those 1.3 engines are pretty shocking by today’s standards, and higher than many new large SUVs


Exactly.
I’ll be bothered about that when they stop flying pet food in from the Far East.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2020)

JimW said:


> Well then you have to add in all the tarmac and car parks. Didn't see Genghis Khan and his horde struggling to find a spot to park.


Also the chemicals to produce the fertiliser horses make for free.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Exactly.
> I’ll be bothered about that when they stop flying pet food in from the Far East.


Bingo


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Far easier to save lives on the railway than save lives by banning adverts for particular shaped cars.



That's exactly what it isn't.   Not when nine in ten deaths are suicides and many of the rest are level crossing accidents caused by people taking a lethal risk to save a few minutes.  But:



maomao said:


> I thought he was a returnee until this thread. Now I'm pretty sure he is actually Dominic Cummings.



There is a third possibility:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





      Whatever the reason, though, this is all very tedious. I'm out.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> We'll all be in canoes like it or not if people don't stop burning so much fucking petrol.


Posts like this are the reason everyone thinks you're an idiot.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Exactly.
> I’ll be bothered about that when they stop flying pet food in from the Far East.




I'm gonna start driving mine in from the Far East instead, will need a car with some off-road ability, anyone got any recommendations?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A V8 Range Rover really is in a different league to a QashQai...


Precisely. And the uplift in SUV ownership mentioned in the stupid OP article is because more people are buying the latter type. Not the V8 stuff. This is why the article is a load of old wank.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Roadkill said:


> That's exactly what it isn't.   Not when nine in ten deaths are suicides and many of the rest are level crossing accidents caused by people taking a lethal risk to save a few minutes.  But:



Your desire to exclude suicides and risk-taking from deaths that can be prevented is bizarre. Blame doesn't come into it.



> There is a third possibility:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You keep saying that, yet you persist with your unsupportable argumentation.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It would be a better world if people just let other people get on with their choice of transport that they are happy with.


Nail on the head again. People who complain about "SUVs" without actually knowing anything about them, don't really give a fuck about their environmental impact. This is evidenced by the fact that as soon as it's pointed out to them that their initial witterings about pollution are nonsense, they'll swiftly find another reason to attack them. 

It's the lifestyles of the people who own them that they find objectionable, not the cars!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

This is a perfectly normal family car:



Will probably have something like a small 1.0 - 1.6l 3 or 4 cylinder engine, front wheel drive. Overall length and width exactly the same as any other hatchback out there. Just a bit taller.


This is a range Rover. May well have a 5.0L V8 and be the size and weight of a small planet.



Both are a "SUV".

Now, I'd still say neither has much right to be driving into the centre of any city, or even being used for the school run of less than 2 miles. But to argue against the first with the same arguments as the latter is just daft.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 3, 2020)

v8 range rovers slabs are utter wank. we all agree on that. latest hybrid suvs are seriously low tax because of their emissions. same size body are the non hybrid ones. should i still hate?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Nail on the head again. People who complain about "SUVs" without actually knowing anything about them, don't really give a fuck about their environmental impact. This is evidenced by the fact that as soon as it's pointed out to them that their initial witterings about pollution are nonsense, they'll swiftly find another reason to attack them.
> 
> It's the lifestyles of the people who own them that they find objectionable, not the cars!



Plenty of people on here seem to enjoy old camper vans etc, far more lethal and polluting even than a modern Range Rover.

It's obviously about lifestyle.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 3, 2020)

ffs, even the panamera hybrid gets 80. mpg and lower emissions than a mini..


----------



## JimW (Aug 3, 2020)

Nationalise all car manufacturer and offer three sizes of absolute wiffly hybrid in one colour only suited to various physical abilities and family sizes. Then ration them too just because. Added bonus that watching people work out where they've parked outside the supermarket can become a healthy outdoor national pastime.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

JimW said:


> Nationalise all car manufacturer and offer three sizes of absolute wiffly hybrid in one colour only suited to various physical abilities and family sizes. Then ration them too just because. Added bonus that watching people work out where they've parked outside the supermarket can become a healthy outdoor national pastime.



I am sure there will be more congestion when everyone gives up cycling after they discover how uncomfortable the national bicycle is.


----------



## JimW (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I am sure there will be more congestion when everyone gives up cycling after they discover how uncomfortable the national bicycle is.


Not under my rationing regime, it'll be like the streets of Pyongyang under the elder Kim.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> v8 range rovers slabs are utter wank. we all agree on that. latest hybrid suvs are seriously low tax because of their emissions. same size body are the non hybrid ones. should i still hate?



Yes. They take up too much room and they're a menace to other road users.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes. They take up too much room and they're a menace to other road users.



my current honda takes up less room than my exploration mondeo


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 3, 2020)

JimW said:


> Nationalise all car manufacturer and offer three sizes of absolute wiffly hybrid in one colour only



"You can have any colour you want, as long as it's also used for tobacco warning labels."


----------



## Looby (Aug 3, 2020)

Yeah my small SUV is only very slighty bigger than my Corsa hatchback.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Looby said:


> Yeah my small SUV is only very slighty bigger than my Corsa hatchback.



Probably should've just got another Corsa then, would have been cheaper.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

I think we're now talking about 'crossovers' which are just generic hatchbacks jacked up a bit to look more SUV like.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Looby said:


> Yeah my small SUV is only very slighty bigger than my Corsa hatchback.



No no, Loobs.

As idiots say, "The size, weight and drag of SUVs means they consume more fuel and emit more carbon dioxide than the average car "


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Probably should've just got another Corsa then, would have been cheaper.


So you know what she paid for the SUV then? 

You really do nothing to improve people's perceptions of your critical faculties with posts like this, Francis.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

Better yet, make driving tests more difficult and have periodic re-tests. Recent observations of people trying to steer with their knees while holding sandwiches, looking round to make eye contact with passengers in the back etc, suggest a good 10-15% of drivers can barely be trusted with a dodgem.


----------



## Looby (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Probably should've just got another Corsa then, would have been cheaper.


It didn’t meet my needs but thanks for your concern about my finances.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Doodler said:


> Better yet, make driving tests more difficult and have periodic re-tests. Recent observations of people trying to steer with their knees while holding sandwiches, looking round to make eye contact with passengers in the back etc, suggest a good 10-15% of drivers can barely be trusted with a dodgem.


Especially Austrian women in SUVs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Looby said:


> It didn’t meet my needs but thanks for your concern about my finances.



No problem.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Probably should've just got another Corsa then, would have been cheaper.



Maybe the SUV has lower emissions than a Corsa.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> Maybe the SUV has lower emissions than a Corsa.



Maybe you'd have lower emissions if you shut up.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Especially Austrian women in SUVs.



That sounds like a classic Clarksonism to be fair.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Maybe you'd have lower emissions if you shut up.



Maybe you're an imbecile.  Actually, no 'maybe' about it.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Doodler said:


> That sounds like a classic Clarksonism to be fair.


It does.

Shame on you for posting a study that supports it!


----------



## ska invita (Aug 3, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> It’s the entire attitude towards other people that gets me.


Yes but have you ever met other people? They're dicks


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 3, 2020)

ska invita said:


> Yes but have you ever met other people? They're dicks


And every other road user is a complete moron.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It does.
> 
> Shame on you for posting a study that supports it!



You're absolutely right and so for balance I shall mention in passing the US studies showing some interesting though not entirely surprising characteristics of male SUV drivers in that country.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is a perfectly normal family car:
> 
> View attachment 224895
> 
> ...



Hmmm... get your point but I’d say the Nissan is a cross over (ordinary 2wd on stilts) rather than a genuine SUV - merely for the fact that it’s front wheel drive.  I may be wrong but I thought a SUV had 4wd capability.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 3, 2020)

Was quite warm Sunday when I headed for Morrisons, parked in the pickup and set down spot was a Range Rover Sport with its engine running. May have had the aircon on. Half an hour later when I emerged, it was still there, the engine was still running.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I may be wrong but I thought a SUV had 4wd capability.


Nope. If that were the case a BMW X5 is not an SUV.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. If that were the case a BMW X5 is not an SUV.



X5’s are 4wd tho?  Or so I thought


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is a perfectly normal family car:
> 
> View attachment 224895
> 
> Will probably have something like a small 1.0 - 1.6l 3 or 4 cylinder engine, front wheel drive. Overall length and width exactly the same as any other hatchback out there. Just a bit taller.


It's a lot bigger in every dimension compared to what passed for a 'perfectly normal family car' 15 years ago.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Took a walk down my (very busy) road and I'd estimate one in three cars that I passed were what would be termed a SUV. And all but one had a single driver at the wheel, all doing their bit to make my town even more fucking polluted.









						Lambeth is the worst borough in central London for action on air pollution, according to Mayor’s report
					

Lambeth is among the worst boroughs for action on air pollution. According to the Mayor’s annual survey of London, Lambeth is breaking legal air pollution limits on two key measures – and the…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> X5’s are 4wd tho?  Or so I thought


Some are, and some are RWD.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Was quite warm Sunday when I headed for Morrisons, parked in the pickup and set down spot was a Range Rover Sport with its engine running. May have had the aircon on. Half an hour later when I emerged, it was still there, the engine was still running.



Annoys the fuck out of me that does. If you wait in a car and it’s hot just get out and go sit in the shade.

The gym/pool I go to is in the grounds of a posh school and it has hockey and tennis courts and football pitches that are also open to local clubs as well as the school. A number of times have seen one those ocean liner sized Volvo SUVs (always black, do they even do them in other colours??) sat outside with a mum watching TV with the engine running, I go in and get changed, swim for 30 minutes, shower and get dressed again and leave and the fucking thing is still there, ticking over so the TV can be watched. Makes me want to lob a brick through its window.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Some are, and some are RWD.




The gf’s Santa Fe is FWD for normal road driving but 4WD can be activated by the push of a button.  If it didn’t have the 4WD capability then it shouldn’t be classed as a SUV imo.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> The gf’s Santa Fe is FWD for normal road driving but 4WD can be activated by the push of a button.  If it didn’t have the 4WD capability then it shouldn’t be classed as a SUV imo.


Well this is quite the problem isn't it? There's no generally accepted definition of SUV so dickheads like those who wrote the article in the OP referring to "SUV's" is quite meaningless.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Well this is quite the problem isn't it? There's no generally accepted definition of SUV so dickheads like those who wrote the article in the OP referring to "SUV's" is quite meaningless.



Sports Utility Vehicle. Doesn’t actually mean anything. A car that facilitates your sport? My estate is pretty fucking handy if your sport of choice is hare coursing, seeing as it often has a Lurcher in the boot, but never gets called an SUV.


----------



## BristolEcho (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> And this kind of weird cross-thread beef is not really acceptable either



Is it really cross thread beef when it comes to Marty1? 

We always had MPV's growing up. Previa, galaxy, Espace or whatever it was called. Are these judged the same?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

BristolEcho said:


> We always had MPV's growing up. Previa, galaxy, Espace or whatever it was called. Are these judged the same?


No. And they're mostly larger and more polluting than midsize SUVs but you won't find the likes of SpookyFrank or others getting their knickers in a twist over them because they're not considered "posh" ... or something.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

I can't be arsed to nitpick over what a SUV is, but it sure strikes me as fucking stupid to have cars getting bigger and wider (and therefore, less inefficient and spewing out more fumes compared to a smaller, directly comparable car) when we're facing a climate catastrophe. 



> Some of Britain’s most popular cars have become too wide to fit through width restrictions on roads and in car parks.





> The report found that the 20 best-selling cars this year – which included the Ford Focus, the Mini Cooper and the Fiat 500 – had an average width of 6ft 5in, excluding wing mirrors.
> 
> When these cars were compared with the most popular vehicles in 1998 – including the Ford Mondeo, the Vauxhall Cavalier, the Rover 214 and the Nissan Micra – the average width came in at 5ft 5in.





> Further analysis compared the growth in like-for-like models over the last 20 years: the most popular models in 2018 with the exact same model 20 years ago. The Nissan Micra 2018 model is now 22 per cent wider than it was in 1998, 1.94m compared to 1m59cm.





> Direct Line warned that some family cars have expanded to such an extent over the years they cannot fit between the bollards on some of the tightest width restrictions. The narrowest are just 6ft 6in.
> 
> Rob Miles of Direct Line said: ‘This research shows that car shapes have changed dramatically, though roads remain the same width, so it is becoming harder to manoeuvre.’











						Wide load: most-popular car models increase in width by 17 per cent
					






					www.directlinegroup.co.uk
				



.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 3, 2020)

Oxford Dictionary says SUVs are big fugly oversized petrol guzzling cars driven by prats with a new level of self-superiority to add to their collection


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I can't be arsed to nitpick over what a SUV is, but it sure strikes me as fucking stupid to have cars getting bigger and wider (and therefore, less inefficient and spewing out more fumes compared to a smaller, directly comparable car) when we're facing a climate catastrophe.



They're wider because of safety regulations. There are better ways to cut CO2 than rolling back vehicle safety.


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> It's a lot bigger in every dimension compared to what passed for a 'perfectly normal family car' 15 years ago.



I'm not sure it is tbh... not for family cars of comparable function/capacity. That was the era of the people carrier, stuff like this:







And I can't imagine there is any car less aerodynamic than the Nissan Cube:






n.b Those may be 7 seater examples, dunno. But there were plenty of 5 seat things on those lines.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sports Utility Vehicle. Doesn’t actually mean anything. A car that facilitates your sport? My estate is pretty fucking handy if your sport of choice is hare coursing, seeing as it often has a Lurcher in the boot, but never gets called an SUV.



Most SUVs seem to be driven by blokes who look like their ideal sport would be darts. Even the most modest hatchback has boot space for several sets of darts and probably even a board as well.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

Cars are bigger because the crumple zones are no longer the occupants knees

The idea we should go back to the death traps of yesteryear is ridiculous.

Once again, the problem is not a particular type of car. The problem is how, and where private cars are used.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> They're wider because of safety regulations. There are better ways to cut CO2 than rolling back vehicle safety.


At least we've arrived at 'big SUV's are more polluting than small cars'.

It's still not necessarily true but progress had been made!


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> I'm not sure it is tbh... not for family cars of comparable function/capacity. That was the era of the people carrier, stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, you can pick individual examples - just like I could post up examples of mahoosive SUVs, and there's_ plenty_ to choose from - but the overall average size of the average car has absolutely increased by up to 20 per cent. How can that possibly be a good thing?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars are bigger because the crumple zones are no longer the occupants knees
> 
> The idea we should go back to the death traps of yesteryear is ridiculous.


Oh wait: so your argument is that the cars HAVE to be bigger and SUV sized otherwise they're not as safe. Really? 

And no one anywhere, ever at any time here has even suggested the "idea (that) we should go back to the death traps of yesteryear." You saying that is what's ridiculous.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars are bigger because the crumple zones are no longer the occupants knees
> 
> The idea we should go back to the death traps of yesteryear is ridiculous.



_Some people _don't seem to understand this basic fact.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> I'm not sure it is tbh... not for family cars of comparable function/capacity. That was the era of the people carrier, stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that top pic has my other pet hate: gardens ripped up to replaced by vast swathes of concrete for the precious cars, causing flash foods for poor sods down the street. 









						Why concrete + rain = flash floods
					

Weatherwatch: Britain’s front gardens are being paved for parking while back gardens become patios. But in Canada and the US, the Depave movement is tearing up hard surfaces




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Oh wait: so your argument is that the cars HAVE to be bigger and SUV sized otherwise they're not as safe. And no one anywhere, ever at any time here has even suggested the "idea (that) we should go back to the death traps of yesteryear." You saying that is what's ridiculous.



Adding extra airbags, beefing up frames, adding crumple zones necessarily increases size and weight. It's offset somewhat by material technology advances, but there are limits. Add to that that many modern cars have an engine _and_ a motor, as well as batteries and it's kind of remarkable that they've managed to continue to increase fuel efficiency.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

10 Images That Show Just How Fat Cars Have Become
					

Only when you line up modern cars next to their ancestors, do you realise just how obese the automotive sector has become




					www.carthrottle.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> the overall average size of the average car has absolutely increased by up to 20 per cent. How can that possibly be a good thing?


Because people don’t die inside them as often as they used to.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because people don’t die inside them as often as they used to.


Or against them.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because people don’t die inside them as often as they used to.


And you think that's entirely down to the size, yes?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 3, 2020)

I have definitely noticed this wider cars but still the same width parking space issue.


----------



## Cid (Aug 3, 2020)

With cars i'm kind of at the point where I don't really give a shit what anyone drives, and am basically going to drive whatever I can afford and fits my purpose. I'll try to minimise its use, and maybe get an EV if I they ever become remotely affordable (frankly fuck spending more than £5k on a car), but yeah. 10% shifts in consumer choice here or there are really going to be pissing in the wind until we start to come up with some better long-term solutions.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Oh wait: so your argument is that the cars HAVE to be bigger and SUV sized otherwise they're not as safe. Really?
> 
> And no one anywhere, ever at any time here has even suggested the "idea (that) we should go back to the death traps of yesteryear." You saying that is what's ridiculous.


To make cars safer they have been made larger, yes. It’s not the sole reason - people’s expectations of interior space, convenience and so on also plays a part - but simple physics and materials engineering, alongside far more stringent crash test requirements dictate to a large extent their size and shape.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars are bigger because the crumple zones are no longer the occupants knees
> 
> The idea we should go back to the death traps of yesteryear is ridiculous.
> 
> Once again, the problem is not a particular type of car. The problem is how, and where private cars are used.



Having spent a week in Germany my eyes have been opened; most cars here are German, why on earth wouldn’t you!?! But in the towns the bike is king, a good quarter are electric assist jobs to make it easy for most people to join in. And the traffic is excellent, fast & aggressive as hell on the motorways, in town peds and bikes get right of way. And being Germans everyone obeys these rules. I would so love the UK to make it as easy to cycle as here, for donks there has been talk of a
Cycle path from Godalming to Guildford, five miles. It hasn’t happened. But if the roads and driver behaviour could be altered we wouldn’t need one, I would cycle with my kids and panniers, go shopping, have some drinks and cycle home. But a crown court judge was slaughtered cycling that route recently, it’s dangerous, so isn’t going to happen. Really don’t know how we break this impasse.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> With cars i'm kind of at the point where I don't really give a shit what anyone drives, and am basically going to drive whatever I can afford and fits my purpose. I'll try to minimise its use, and maybe get an EV if I they ever become remotely affordable (frankly fuck spending more than £5k on a car), but yeah. 10% shifts in consumer choice here or there are really going to be pissing in the wind until we start to come up with some better long-term solutions.


I know someone who has had an old shape Toyota Corrolla for many years. It seems always working never in the garage so I asked her if she ever had problems with it? Well she said, I did have a puncture once!

This sort of reliability impresses me. I could see myself in an old shape Toyota Corrolla.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

And fuck this selfish argument that it's absolutely fine for cars to get bigger and less efficient and use up more energy and resources in their manufacture just so the drivers can be a bit safer when they drive around in their over-sized, road hogging vehicles.  How about cars slow the fuck down as a matter of course to make it safer for everyone?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> And you think that's entirely down to the size, yes?


Yes. Modern cars are filled with impact beams, deformable structures, airbags and so on. They have to go somewhere.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yes. Modern cars are filled with impact beams, deformable structures, airbags and so on. They have to go somewhere.


And amazingly, small cars have got safer too over the decades. Fancy that!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> And fuck this selfish argument that it's absolutely fine for cars to get bigger and less efficient and use up more energy and resources in their manufacture just so the drivers can be a bit safer when they drive around in their over-sized, road hogging vehicles.  How about cars slow the fuck down as a matter of course to make it safer for everyone?


It’s not either/or.

Making cars safer for their occupants is a good thing. Wanting better cities with lower speed limits is a good thing. Wanting car use reduced is a good thing.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

This is priceless stuff! 

Thread of the year candidate


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> And amazingly, small cars have got safer too over the decades. Fancy that!


They have. But people still want/need a family size car. One that can carry 4 people and a heap of luggage up the M1 to their nans for the week. A mini isn’t for everyone.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s not either/or.
> 
> Making cars safer for their occupants is a good thing. Wanting better cities with lower speed limits is a good thing. Wanting car use reduced is a good thing.


So the driver is safer at the coast of the pedestrians. Nice. 


> Sport-utility vehicles, once exclusively hulking and heavy truck-based modes of transport, have largely evolved into the lighter and more manageable car-based crossover models that now dominate the nation’s driveways. And while their designs have adopted lower bumpers in recent years to lessen the threat to passengers in other vehicles in a collision, a just-released report indicates that even crossover SUVs remain every bit as lethal to pedestrians as ever.
> 
> That’s according to a study of 79 vehicle crashes in three Michigan cities conducted by the industry-supported Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in Arlington, VA. As it is, pedestrian traffic fatalities have risen by 53 percent from 2009 to 2018, the latest year for which such information is available. That means pedestrians now account for around one-fifth of all vehicle-related fatalities.
> 
> The sample determined that SUVs cause seven percent more serious injuries to pedestrians than passenger cars when struck at speeds quicker than 19 miles per hour. At speeds between 20 and 39 mph, 30 percent of pedestrians struck by SUVs died, compared with 25 percent who were hit by cars. One hundred percent of pedestrians in SUV collisions at speeds of 40 mph or greater died, versus 54 percent who were struck by cars.












						Study Says SUVs Are More Deadly Than Cars When Striking Pedestrians
					

Their upright, largely horizontal front ends are at issue.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They have. But people still want/need a family size car. One that can carry 4 people and a heap of luggage up the M1 to their nans for the week. A mini isn’t for everyone.


But you know as well as I do that SUVs are rarely used for '4 people and a heap of luggage.' Most times around Brixton there's just one driver. Given the talk of penalising such drivers, what's your take on a single occupant in a huge car? 

"Average car and van occupancy in England amounted to roughly 1.6 in 2018. That year, the source rounded figures to the nearest decimal, making a comparison with previous years difficult. In 2017, there were 1.55 people in a car or van per journey "









						Average car and van occupancy England 2002-2018 Statistic | Statista
					

Average car and van occupancy in England amounted to roughly 1.6 in 2018.




					www.statista.com
				



.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> So the driver is safer at the coast of the pedestrians. Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everything there is an argument for lower speed limits and more pedestrianised areas in cities.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> But you know as well as I do that SUVs are rarely used for '4 people and a heap of luggage.' Most times around Brixton there's just one driver. Given the talk of penalising such drivers, what's your take on a single occupant in a huge car?
> 
> "Average car and van occupancy in England amounted to roughly 1.6 in 2018. That year, the source rounded figures to the nearest decimal, making a comparison with previous years difficult. In 2017, there were 1.55 people in a car or van per journey "
> 
> ...


Almost every post I’ve made in this thread has said the issue is with how people use their cars ffs


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Everything there is an argument for lower speed limits and more pedestrianised areas in cities.


Nothing there about the size of the car having an impact on casualties, then?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> But you know as well as I do that SUVs are rarely used for '4 people and a heap of luggage.' Most times around Brixton there's just one driver. Given the talk of penalising such drivers, what's your take on a single occupant in a huge car?
> 
> "Average car and van occupancy in England amounted to roughly 1.6 in 2018. That year, the source rounded figures to the nearest decimal, making a comparison with previous years difficult. In 2017, there were 1.55 people in a car or van per journey "
> 
> ...



So a massive car for big jobs and a smaller car each for husband and wife for pottling around in?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So a massive car for big jobs and a smaller car each for husband and wife for pottling around in?


Or a bike. Or public transport. Or a scooter. Or hire a van. Or get over this whole car ownership thing and join a car pool or use Zip cars, so zillions of cars don't have to be made every year. Just a thought.

How many of these 'big jobs' requiring a 'massive car' do you think the average family has every year, anyway?









						Car owners use vehicle for just nine hours per week, study finds
					

Research finds brand new cars lose 60 per cent of value over the first three years




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## weltweit (Aug 3, 2020)

Seems a suitable thread for a teuchter


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Nothing there about the size of the car having an impact on casualties, then?


If you want to get casualties down you lower cars to 20mph on urban streets.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 3, 2020)

From personal experience I am against parking on the pavement.

Park your car in the road, where it is permitted. Leave us dog walkers the pavements.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If you want to get casualties down you lower cars to 20mph on urban streets.


Using smaller cars would obviously help too, not that many drivers respect the 20mph zone around me anyway.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 3, 2020)

I like smaller cars, easier to park, usually get higher mpg, usually cheaper to tax and insure. 

And now that I am ancient and prefer no points on my licence, my 1.2 Corsa will drive along at 70mph just as fast as a Porsche 911.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Plenty of small cars are superb


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Or a bike. Or public transport. Or a scooter. Or hire a van. Or get over this whole car ownership thing and join a car pool or use Zip cars, so zillions of cars don't have to be made every year. Just a thought.
> 
> How many of these 'big jobs' requiring a 'massive car' do you think the average family has every year, anyway?



Every day since schools closed in a March I have take two kids and a dog out to exercise in remote spots within a 15 minute drive of my house. Often taking one or two bikes with me too.

There is no viable public transport here and to imagine there could be is the realm of the mad, yet we are only 30 miles from Charring Cross.

ideally, live in a city and not own a car, or own one for very occasional, fun use.

or not live in a city and have ONE car that can meet all your needs.

hope that some day some cunt has the balls to make cycling infrastructure good enough that I would be happy for my kids to join what are currently death trap roads to cycle to Guildford...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Seems a suitable thread for a teuchter



He doesn’t drive, so fuck him, like inviting a Catholic priest to a gangbang.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Using smaller cars would obviously help too, not that many drivers respect the 20mph zone around me anyway.



Until public transport is much more effective, reliable, comfortable and cheaper, people will continue to use cars.  And, if people are going to buy a car, they figure that a bigger one allows them to do all that a smaller one can, whereas the reverse isn't true.  A decent system of progressive taxation that really makes people think twice about using a car (except for those who really don't have a choice e.g. disabilities or a rural location) with the revenues pumped into public transport, might work in the medium term.  In the meantime, misinformed ranting about a particular style of car won't acheive anything.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 3, 2020)

editor not a trick question, but do you drive? Use cars at all? 

Obviously I know you are an Urban dweller, perhaps you have no need?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Using smaller cars would obviously help too, not that many drivers respect the 20mph zone around me anyway.


Once you get the speeds down that slow almost every modern car will have similar results in impacts. That’s the entire point of the legislation that governs modern car design. You get the injuries/deaths down further from that point with infrastructure changes.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> ... misinformed ranting about a particular style of car won't acheive anything.



It's funny though.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Once you get the speeds down that slow almost every modern car will have similar results in impacts. That’s the entire point of the legislation that governs modern car design. You get the injuries/deaths down further from that point with infrastructure changes.


Except there's plenty of fucking cunting drivers will who continue to ignore such speed restrictions. Like in my street just about every day, where there's been plenty of accidents recently.

Do you think that the perceived extra safety of driving a bigger, heavier car might make some drivers take more risks?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yes. Modern cars are filled with impact beams, deformable structures, airbags and so on. They have to go somewhere.



This as I understand it is one of the major reasons why all modern cars are near-identical blobs. It's not nothing, the visual impact of so very many big ugly things cluttering up so much of our public space. It has an effect. The effect of so many people using their big ugly blobs to demonstrate their wealth and status is also not nothing.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Seems a suitable thread for a teuchter


I already looked at it and decided it was a waste of time. People saying that we should make railways safer instead, or that they need a car to take their bicycles from one part of the countryside to another. Everyone's just on a wind-up, and none of them are even any good at it. Boring. I do take it as a mark of my success in bringing the anti-car agenda more fully to urban75 though.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> ... to demonstrate their wealth and status is also not nothing.



Plenty of people doing the same with bikes, though.  I know a bloke who paid £3K for a pushbike!!


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Berlin doesn't seem so keen on SUVs



> While the UK government doesn’t record passenger vehicle type in collision injuries and deaths, British academics who analysed police collision data have identified pedestrians as 70% more likely to be killed if they were hit by someone driving a 2.4-litre engine vehicle than a 1.6-litre model.
> 
> “You’re saying if you’re hit by a large engine car you’re almost twice as likely to be killed,” says Adam Reynolds, one of the researchers.
> 
> Reynolds and Robin Lovelace, who jointly performed the analysis, are still looking into the figures. “Rather than making a declaration that SUVs are dangerous what we can say is large engine cars are dangerous,” he adds. The lack of collision data is “masking a deadly problem created by the car industry marketing and producing taller, heavier vehicles”, he told Forbes.











						'A deadly problem': should we ban SUVs from our cities?
					

Statistically less safe than regular cars and with higher CO2 emissions, campaigners argue the heavily-marketed cars have no place in urban areas




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 3, 2020)

These figures suggest that if you care about your loved ones, you should definitely be driving an SUV.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> Plenty of people doing the same with bikes, though.  I know a bloke who paid £3K for a pushbike!!


That’s... really nothing out the ordinary for a nice mid range road bike nowadays. The really expensive ones are over £10k now


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> This as I understand it is one of the major reasons why all modern cars are near-identical blobs. It's not nothing, the visual impact of so very many big ugly things cluttering up so much of our public space. It has an effect. The effect of so many people using their big ugly blobs to demonstrate their wealth and status is also not nothing.


Looking around your average carpark I’d say we’re actually in a period of quite decent design when it comes to cars. They’re certainly a lot more interesting to look at than the dull boxes of the late 90’s/early 00’s.

As for people using them for status? Well yes, they do. As people do with clothes, watches, shoes, phones, computers, houses and, well, _everything_. Welcome to capitalism.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That’s... really nothing out the ordinary for a nice mid range road bike nowadays. The really expensive ones are over £10k now


For a pushbike?!  That's nuts.  Whay are they so expensive?  Can only be a status thing, surely.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> These figures suggest that if you care about your loved ones, you should definitely be driving an SUV.
> 
> 
> View attachment 224934


Unless they happen to the kind of loved ones that use the pavement too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> For a pushbike?!  That's nuts.  Whay are they so expensive?  Can only be a status thing, surely.


Partly status, partly expensive carbon fibre.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> These figures suggest that if you care about your loved ones, you should definitely be driving an SUV.
> 
> 
> View attachment 224934


Wow, five times more likely to die in a mini-size car than a very large SUV!  To be honest, to offer your loved ones that protection at the cost of an increased risk to pedestrians seems a price worth paying, especially if you drive sensibly such that any pedestrian you hit is likely to be at fault e.g. stepping out whilst glued to their phone.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Partly status, partly expensive carbon fibre.



Buy what proportion of pushbike riders need expensive carbon?  Unless you're competing at a high level where marginal performace gains are critical, does it really make that much difference to the riding experience?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> Buy what proportion of pushbike riders need expensive carbon?  Unless you're competing at a high level where marginal performace gains are critical, does it really make that much difference to the riding experience?


Just like any hobby isn’t it, sometimes it’s nice to have the shiny toy.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> Buy what proportion of pushbike riders need expensive carbon?  Unless you're competing at a high level where marginal performace gains are critical, does it really make that much difference to the riding experience?


Same reason amateur photographers buy top of the range Leica cameras, I guess.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Just like any hobby isn’t it, sometimes it’s nice to have the shiny toy.



I guess.  (The other day I had a 20st bloke try to persuade me that it made sense for him to shave 6kg of the weight of a motorbike by spending £4K on aluminium wheels!)  But you gotta suspect a lot of the lycra boys' dick waving is akin yo audiophoolery.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 3, 2020)

SUVs around here are a status thing, driven by people who take no responsibility for their actions. They don't give a flying fuck about emissions or climate change. If you ask them to stop idling they lose their shit competely and tell you 'it's a free country'. Er, no, fuckwit, it's a country of laws and you're breaking the law on idling.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> Wow, five times more likely to die in a mini-size car than a very large SUV!  To be honest, to offer your loved ones that protection at the cost of an increased risk to pedestrians seems a price worth paying ...



Incompetent not to really.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 3, 2020)

Athos said:


> Wow, five times more likely to die in a mini-size car than a very large SUV!  To be honest, to offer your loved ones that protection at the cost of an increased risk to pedestrians seems a price worth paying, especially if you drive sensibly such that any pedestrian you hit is likely to be at fault e.g. stepping out whilst glued to their phone.


I didn't realise the difference was so great, and it does make me think that my next car should definitely be an SUV. Not a silly monster of a thing but if a mid-sized one affords so much more protection than a car, it's no wonder people are buying them, and I think I might join the ranks. 
I did wonder why so many people were driving them, and it makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 3, 2020)

SUV drivers have shown to be more aggressive, which I have certainly found to be true. Where I live every other car is an SUV and it is horrible to drive around them. So maybe it's safer for those in the SUV, but more dangerous for everyone else.

Is that an ok way to live? "I'm all right and who cares about everyone else? If they don't drive the same huge car as me they're irresponsible".


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> SUV drivers have shown to be more aggressive ....



I thought that was Audi drivers.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 3, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> SUV drivers have shown to be more aggressive, which I have certainly found to be true. Where I live every other car is an SUV and it is horrible to drive around them. So maybe it's safer for those in the SUV, but more dangerous for everyone else.
> 
> Is that an ok way to live? "I'm all right and who cares about everyone else? If they don't drive the same huge car as me they're irresponsible".


It would certainly be irresponsible not to consider the safety of your family when purchasing a car.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 4, 2020)

Ew, audis.

There are some really interesting studies linking car cost to aggressive and dangerous driving. One study found that for every $1000 dollars spent the driver became 3% less likely to yield at cross walks.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 4, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> It would certainly be irresponsible not to consider the safety of your family when purchasing a car.


Sure, don't  buy an old banger with no MOT.


----------



## Looby (Aug 4, 2020)

I really don’t understand why people drive like dicks but it’s certainly not limited to SUV drivers. 
I do think that the more expensive the car, the more likely the person driving it is an aggressive twat.

As for reasons for having an SUV (a small one). 
I needed a car with more space for my dogs to go in the boot but couldn’t have a much larger car on my drive. Any longer and it would be hanging over the pavement so an estate was out and I don’t like them anyway. 

I wanted a higher driving position because of an injury which causes me pain. I have to drive for my job and I need to be comfortable. I was in constant pain in my lower down manual car. 

I also need a car that is large enough to do my job and colleagues with smaller cars sometimes struggle. 


I don’t have my car for any status, because I think I’m better than anyone else (if that was the case I’d have an Audi), or because I don’t respect other drivers or pedestrians.

This thread would do a lot better and there would be more constructive discussion if the focus really was on the environmental impact of driving but it’s not, it’s about bashing so called status cars, speeding drivers, aggressive drivers, driving in cities and all sorts of other nonsense I really don’t understand.

No wonder it’s mostly the usual suspects posting and everyone else is giving it a wide berth, it’s so fucking tedious.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> Sure, don't  buy an old banger with no MOT.


Did you even look at the figures I posted? They don't mention old bangers with no MOT. They're talking about 1 - 3 year old vehicles.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 4, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Did you even look at the figures I posted? They don't mention old bangers with no MOT. They're talking about 1 - 3 year old vehicles.


Yes, I did look, I wasn't referring to the table. I'm saying it's _irresponsible _to buy a dangerous car. It's not irresponsible to not buy an extremely expensive car that's worse for the environment, other drivers and pedestrians.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> There are some really interesting studies linking car cost to aggressive and dangerous driving. One study found that for every $1000 dollars spent the driver became 3% less likely to yield at cross walks.


Well that's me convinced.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Looby said:


> This thread would do a lot better and there would be more constructive discussion if the focus really was on the environmental impact of driving but it’s not, it’s about bashing so called status cars, speeding drivers, aggressive drivers, driving in cities and all sorts of other nonsense I really don’t understand.


These threads are never about being constructive. They're trolls.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I didn't realise the difference was so great, and it does make me think that my next car should definitely be an SUV. Not a silly monster of a thing but if a mid-sized one affords so much more protection than a car, it's no wonder people are buying them, and I think I might join the ranks.
> I did wonder why so many people were driving them, and it makes perfect sense now.


What do you desperately need this extra protection from? Your own dangerous driving?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> What do you desperately need this extra protection from? Your own dangerous driving?


Other people's dangerous driving, and pedestrians walking into the road playing Pokemon Go.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> What do you desperately need this extra protection from? Your own dangerous driving?


Possibly the thousands of articulated lorries on the roads because people won’t stop consuming.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> Possibly the thousands of articulated lorries on the roads because people won’t stop consuming.


And that.


----------



## Athos (Aug 4, 2020)

Looby said:


> I do think that the more expensive the car, the more likely the person driving it is an aggressive twat.



Of course. They're expensive, so more likely to be driven by thrusting, powerful go-getters (with enough money to keep their family safe), whereas effete underachievers can't afford one (and so are often found pottering along on a pushbike).


----------



## Doodler (Aug 4, 2020)

Looby said:


> I do think that the more expensive the car, the more likely the person driving it is an aggressive twat.



Power corrupts.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

YouTube dashcam footage disagrees. The biggest mouth breathers are invariably people in small hatchbacks who throw their cars onto mini-roundabouts in front of others, leaning on their horns and shouting "give way you cuuuunt".


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, that research was a small sample of OTR SUVs in the US, and the article even mentioned they didn't account for pedestrian safety measures on new cars in Europe like active bonnets.
> 
> Thanks to tech advances, a new SUV sold here is going to be much safer for pedestrians than most cars just a few years old.


Sorry but your argument doesn't stack up. ANY new car sold is going to be safer than an old one due to tech advances, not just SUV's.
I do wonder though how on earth did we manage in the days before SUVs???
The low cost of leasing a car now means that they are within reach of more people, so for many they are just a status symbol.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

Athos said:


> Of course. They're expensive, so more likely to be driven by thrusting, powerful go-getters (with enough money to keep their family safe), whereas effete underachievers can't afford one (and so are often found pottering along on a pushbike).


I may be an underachiever on a pushbike but I'm not fucking 'effete'.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 4, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Other people's dangerous driving, and pedestrians walking into the road playing Pokemon Go.


Sounds like knife crime; I need a knife because other people have got them.









						Ban SUV adverts to meet UK climate goals, report urges
					

High-polluting cars are threat to public health, says New Weather Institute thinktank




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> Is that an ok way to live? "I'm all right and who cares about everyone else? If they don't drive the same huge car as me they're irresponsible".



According to some posters on this thread we should absolutely be living according to the principle of, 'I'm alright, fuck everyone and everything else'.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> And that top pic has my other pet hate: gardens ripped up to replaced by vast swathes of concrete for the precious cars, causing flash foods for poor sods down the street.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, this is an issue. However, I’d still rather people store their cars on their own property over blocking pavements and streets. The idea that we can just dump cars anywhere and everywhere has to change, both at home and when out and about.

Yet again though, this comes down to it being a problem with the number of cars out there, not what type they are.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Surprisingly on this thread editor is right about something car-related, more so than the people defending massive cars.

The safety stuff is mostly a load of bollocks. City cars like a Fiat 500 are pretty safe if in collision with another similarly sized vehicle or the environment. Whilst they're obviously bigger than an original 500 they're not exactly massive. Safety engineering added size and weight to the basic package of a car but isn't responsible for most of the increase as we see it today. Most of that is from customer comfort. Besides, many of our SUVs are just big fat bodies on a tiny platform; the Juke is a Micra.

Look at America from where our SUV trend originates. They're now all buying either SUVs or even worse fucking massive crew-cab pickup trucks, so much so that manufacturers have given up on traditional European sized cars like the Focus, never mind small ones which were never a success in the US. And that ill wind will cause the same here before long - the product of both normalisation and an arms race.

Vehicles much bigger than the meaningful need is a really bad thing for society - individualism literally writ large. It's bad for road safety, the environment and just basic everyday stuff like visibility or parking for people who don't play the same game. I hope it all fucks off and we learn to accept smaller cars again but probably not.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 4, 2020)

GoCompare research from 2018 agrees with Looby's experience.

"The research shows that overall, those driving luxury car brands are the most likely to cause a collision or be convicted of an offence on the road."

BMW drivers named most dangerous on UK roads


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> fucking massive crew-cab pickup trucks,


Ah. This is what I thought SUV meant. I saw one driving up Bishopsgate about 15-16 years ago and have had that in my head every time I heard 'SUV' till now.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> Ah. This is what I thought SUV meant. I saw one driving up Bishopsgate about 15-16 years ago and have had that in my head every time I heard 'SUV' till now.


Nah. The Americans just call them trucks, although obviously we would think of HGVs.

A 'truck'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

Athos said:


> Of course. They're expensive, so more likely to be driven by thrusting, powerful go-getters (with enough money to keep their family safe), whereas effete underachievers can't afford one (and so are often found pottering along on a pushbike).



Where do we start with this? The loathsome underlying politics or the hilariously Freudian choice of adjectives?


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Nah. The Americans just call them trucks, although obviously we would think of HGVs.
> 
> A 'truck'


Well the S and the U seem to be particularly misleading then. Unless you think driving a car can be classed as a sport in any way. Or that describing something as a 'utility vehicle' can just mean it has the same range of uses as a normal car. They should just call them 'V's.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looking around your average carpark I’d say we’re actually in a period of quite decent design when it comes to cars. They’re certainly a lot more interesting to look at than the dull boxes of the late 90’s/early 00’s.
> 
> As for people using them for status? Well yes, they do. As people do with clothes, watches, shoes, phones, computers, houses and, well, _everything_. Welcome to capitalism.



Most people don't leave their watches, shoes and phones lying around in the street. And those things can all be ignored. If you ignore cars, you die.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Surprisingly on this thread editor is right about something car-related, more so than the people defending massive cars.
> 
> The safety stuff is mostly a load of bollocks. City cars like a Fiat 500 are pretty safe if in collision with another similarly sized vehicle or the environment. Whilst they're obviously bigger than an original 500 they're not exactly massive. Safety engineering added size and weight to the basic package of a car but isn't responsible for most of the increase as we see it today. Most of that is from customer comfort. Besides, many of our SUVs are just big fat bodies on a tiny platform; the Juke is a Micra.
> 
> ...



If you need space in a car an estate is the way to go. At Christmas we were loaned a massive Merc SUV whilst our car went in for repairs, it was huge, designed to look powerful and intimidating, yet the cabin and boot were smaller than our estate car. It was sluggish away from the lights, rolled around like a boat and the MPG was shocking. They sell like hot cakes.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Yup. Except estates/wagons/whatever are almost dead because noone buys them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If you need space in a car an estate is the way to go. At Christmas we were loaned a massive Merc SUV whilst our car went in for repairs, it was huge, designed to look powerful and intimidating, yet the cabin and boot were smaller than our estate car. It was sluggish away from the lights, rolled around like a boat and the MPG was shocking. They sell like hot cakes.



Yeah my sister's got a fucking great Honda tank but the interior is hatchback-sized. Even the amount of boot space is pretty crap.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 4, 2020)

I can get more fishing gear in the WagonR than I can in the Qashqai. Plus I get less directed anger from Mrs S.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

Mind you hybrids have the same problem. The hybrid e-classes turned out to be totally shit for PCO work because you can't get even two people's luggage in the boot which is mostly taken up by battery.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Yup. Except estates/wagons/whatever are almost dead because noone buys them.


I loved all my estate cars, I’d have another tomorrow. Most useful private transport available.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> I loved all my estate cars, I’d have another tomorrow. Most useful private transport available.


And yet seen as not a proper 'status' car. I've had actual written complaints from customers for sending an e-class estate to do 'executive' work.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Doodler said:


> BMW drivers named most dangerous on UK roads


YEEEEHAAA!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> And yet seen as not a proper 'status' car. I've had actual written complaints from customers for sending an e-class estate to do 'executive' work.



You'd think they'd be happy all the time, what with all that status they have


----------



## Athos (Aug 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Where do we start with this? The loathsome underlying politics or the hilariously Freudian choice of adjectives?



Maybe start with the fact that it was clearly tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## Doodler (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> YEEEEHAAA!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

Athos said:


> Maybe start with the fact that it was clearly tongue-in-cheek.



But you post shit like that all the time.


----------



## Athos (Aug 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> But you post shit like that all the time.



Only because I know you rise to it every time.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Athos said:


> Maybe start with the fact that it was clearly tongue-in-cheek.


Although accurate in Frank’s case.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> And yet seen as not a proper 'status' car. I've had actual written complaints from customers for sending an e-class estate to do 'executive' work.



The RS6 only comes in estate form now, one is the most bad arsed motors you can buy today. The ability to do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds with four passengers and a brace of labradors in the back is something all right thinking people need...


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The RS6 only comes in estate form now, one is the most bad arsed motors you can buy today. The ability to do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds with four passengers and a brace of labradors in the back is something all right thinking people need...


I'm talking about the kind of arsehole who'll refuse to get in a brand new S class because it's the wrong colour. Or turn away a 7 series or A8 cause it's not a merc. There's some proper wankers out there.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> Mind you hybrids have the same problem. The hybrid e-classes turned out to be totally shit for PCO work because you can't get even two people's luggage in the boot which is mostly taken up by battery.


This and to some extent the 'SUVs have no space' problem is a product of evolutionary bodges rather than holistic design. Batteries shoehorned into conventional cars, rather than a car designed around batteries, inherently have space restrictions. SUVs with large bodies built on existing small platforms as a response to the market direction also inherit some of the small car restrictions, as well as some new ones from the awkward packaging.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm talking about the kind of arsehole who'll refuse to get in a brand new S class because it's the wrong colour. Or turn away a 7 series or A8 cause it's not a merc. There's some proper wankers out there.



I think you got them to the airport and I take over from there.

"He says his seat is not on the upper deck, he must have a seat on the upper deck!"

"It's a 777"

"He will not travel unless he can sit upstairs!"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I think you got them to the airport and I take over from there.
> 
> "He says his seat is not on the upper deck, he must have a seat on the upper deck!"
> 
> ...



Just strap the cunt to the fuselage.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I think you got them to the airport and I take over from there.
> 
> "He says his seat is not on the upper deck, he must have a seat on the upper deck!"
> 
> ...


Sling a chair on the roof.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just strap the cunt to the fuselage.




The best bit is when you get him in to the upper deck and he comes back and the complaint comes in, "Some others on the trip got a free upgrade to first, a BA promotion, why wasn't he offered that?" 

"First class is on the lower deck..."


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I think you got them to the airport and I take over from there.
> 
> "He says his seat is not on the upper deck, he must have a seat on the upper deck!"
> 
> ...


Have you ever actually had someone say that?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If you need space in a car an estate is the way to go. At Christmas we were loaned a massive Merc SUV whilst our car went in for repairs, it was huge, designed to look powerful and intimidating, yet the cabin and boot were smaller than our estate car. It was sluggish away from the lights, rolled around like a boat and the MPG was shocking. They sell like hot cakes.


In fairness, you’re comparing a twin turbo A6, one of the quickest and best handling estates on the roads, to a Merc ML, which is a shed designed to pull boats and caravans. A Macan Turbo would be a better comparison.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Have you ever actually had someone say that?




Yes, on many occasions. Some people who fly a lot can be massive bellends.

I have one prick who will not travel unless he can have seat 1A on European flights, to the extent that board meetings that have been arranged over 12 months in advance need to be moved to accommodate him.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, on many occasions. Some people who fly a lot can be massive bellends.
> 
> I have one prick who will not travel unless he can have seat 1A on European flights, to the extent that board meetings that have been arranged over 12 months in advance need to be moved to accommodate him.



Cocaine is a hell of a drug.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Cocaine is a hell of a drug.



Not sure he's a coke head, he is the VP of a pharmaceutical company though, so who knows when he's on.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

And it is the secretaries that say this shit to me, on the orders of their dick-brained bosses.

The savvy traveller calls me directly, sends me champers at Xmas and that. If flying is a large part of your life, building a rapport with the travel agent is a good idea.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> Have you ever actually had someone say that?


I've had someone miss their own private flight slot because they wouldn't get in a silver S class. (director of a posh art gallery)


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The RS6 only comes in estate form now, one is the most bad arsed motors you can buy today. The ability to do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds with four passengers and a brace of labradors in the back is something all right thinking people need...


The RS6 is probably the most awesomely silly car on the market. It is to estate cars what Concorde was to airliners.


----------



## Looby (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> YouTube dashcam footage disagrees. The biggest mouth breathers are invariably people in small hatchbacks who throw their cars onto mini-roundabouts in front of others, leaning on their horns and shouting "give way you cuuuunt".


Not my experience at all.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I think you got them to the airport and I take over from there.
> 
> "He says his seat is not on the upper deck, he must have a seat on the upper deck!"
> 
> ...



B77L and B77W have two crew rest areas with bunks on an upper deck at front and rear of Y-class. See if you can get him in there.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> They should just call them 'V's.


And pronounced with the middle and index finger


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Looby said:


> Not my experience at all.


All the stuff you hear about drivers of 'X' being bigger dickheads than drivers of 'Y' is nonsense and almost always selectively recalled or fabricated to suit whatever prejudice one is currently trying to support (see that preposterous claim upthread that drivers are 3% less likely to yield at crossings per $1000 they spend on their cars). In reality I suspect that percentage-wise, just as many twats drive Fords as Audis and estates as saloons. The exceptions are vehicles that have been retrofitted with styling mods, window tints, or aftermarket exhaust systems, all of which are sure signs of a fucktoad within.


----------



## Johnny Doe (Aug 4, 2020)

What sort of a person would go to this? (UK drive in rave)
					

2hrs before 12 is my preferred dancing hrs these days. Does it say you can't get out the car because then i wouldn't go. If you can dance around your designated parking spot, I'm in - if the music is my thing. I would be very happy to have somewhere out my house to go dance right now.  Yeah I'd...




					www.urban75.net
				




Drive in rave in a SUV? editor


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Been off urban for a few days, would like to congratulate and thank everyone for a thread that has certainly delivered so far.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, that research was a small sample of OTR SUVs in the US, and the article even mentioned they didn't account for pedestrian safety measures on new cars in Europe like active bonnets.
> 
> Thanks to tech advances, a new SUV sold here is going to be much safer for pedestrians than most cars just a few years old.


In terms of new car sales, the only valid comparison between new SUVs is with other new cars. That they're safer than old cars is neither here nor there wrt making sensible new car choices for driving in urban environments.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In terms of new car sales, the only valid comparison between new SUVs is with other new cars. That they're safer than old cars is neither here nor there wrt making sensible new car choices for driving in urban environments.



I was commenting on a study which compared older SUVs to older cars. SUVs used to be less safe for pedestrians than cars of an equivalent age, but that gap has narrowed so the study is irrelevant when considering the purchase of a new vehicle.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Stats show that over 60% of journeys in the UK are made by a single driver without passengers. Given that cars are getting bigger - and therefore less fuel efficient against directly comparable smaller cars - and cities continue to struggle with congestion and high pollution levels, do people think this is acceptable?









						UK: single occupant car journeys in England 2002-2018 | Statista
					

This statistic shows the single occupancy for cars and vans in England between 2002 and 2018.




					www.statista.com


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> All the stuff you hear about drivers of 'X' being bigger dickheads than drivers of 'Y' is nonsense and almost always selectively recalled or fabricated to suit whatever prejudice one is currently trying to support (see that preposterous claim upthread that drivers are 3% less likely to yield at crossings per $1000 they spend on their cars). In reality I suspect that percentage-wise, just as many twats drive Fords as Audis and estates as saloons. The exceptions are vehicles that have been retrofitted with styling mods, window tints, or aftermarket exhaust systems, all of which are sure signs of a fucktoad within.


It's the findings of a study, not a claim I made.








						Estimated car cost as a predictor of driver yielding behaviors for pedestrians
					

Pedestrian crashes are not equitably distributed; people of color and males are overburdened. The aim of this study was to examine if driver yielding …




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I was commenting on a study which compared older SUVs to older cars. SUVs used to be less safe for pedestrians than cars of an equivalent age, but that gap has narrowed so the study is irrelevant when considering the purchase of a new vehicle.


Do you have any links to robust research demonstrating the effectiveness of the new systems to mitigate the problems of SUV weight, stiffness and shape? I've had a look and can't find any.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> It's the findings of a study, not a claim I made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cars yielded more frequently for whites / females, eh?

Bloody Karen again, innit.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

I'd rather have a single big car than several cars of different sizes from which I'd choose the most suitably sized and shaped one for each journey.

An argument against single-occupancy cars could equally apply to quarter-full buses or any other transport mode not stuffed to the rafters at all times.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Stats show that over 60% of journeys in the UK are made by a single driver without passengers. Given that cars are getting bigger - and therefore less fuel efficient against directly comparable smaller cars - and cities continue to struggle with congestion and high pollution levels, do people think this is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


atm, I see a mass of single-occupancy cars in London. People afraid of using public transport, no doubt. Certainly the relative bliss of the empty roads at the height of lockdown is long-gone.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you have any links to robust research demonstrating the effectiveness of the new systems to mitigate the problems of SUV weight, stiffness and shape? I've had a look and can't find any.



Is this just for pedestrian safety or for safety in general you're after?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is this just for pedestrian safety or for safety in general you're after?


Pedestrian safety. But if you can provide some stats for occupant safety that might offset that, that would be fine. Ironically enough, SUVs can make their drivers feel nice and safe, but at the cost of extra danger for all the rest of us.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

In a couple of conversations with SUV drivers, it does seem common for them to think that paying some money to ensure the person they collide with dies rather than them is the mark of a responsible parent as opposed to, say, a sociopath.

<oh shit, was trying to avoid voicing an actual opinion on this thread>


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I'd rather have a single big car than several cars of different sizes from which I'd choose the most suitably sized and shaped one for each journey.
> 
> An argument against single-occupancy cars could equally apply to quarter-full buses or any other transport mode not stuffed to the rafters at all times.


Not true. Public transport may be quiet at particular times in the day across its service, but it is still providing for a social need at those times (one that many of those drivers could be taking advantage of, if they so chose). And outside special covid periods, regular public transport services that are mostly empty most of the time simply don't exist, or exist in tiny tiny tiny numbers, in case someone produces one obscure example from somewhere.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Is this just for pedestrian safety or for safety in general you're after?


I do hope these pedestrian safety stats also take into account the increased pollution that comes with all the extra bulk and weight when looked against directly comparable smaller cars because pollution is an even bigger killer than those railway suicides you were so obsessed about earlier.









						Public Health England publishes air pollution evidence review
					

The review aims to create a ‘clean air generation’ of children, and make sure new developments are clean by design.




					www.gov.uk
				



.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> It's the findings of a study, not a claim I made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> An argument against single-occupancy cars could equally apply to quarter-full buses or any other transport mode not stuffed to the rafters at all times.


 Nope. 

And to pit them against each other makes the kind of argument that would make Thatcher proud. 











						How our daily travel harms the planet
					

Private transport is one of the world’s biggest sources of greenhouse gases, with emissions rising year on year. It means the way you travel to work matters more than you think.




					www.bbc.com


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

A shocking stat:

A large car emits on average *85% more greenhouse gases per km *than a small vehicle, according to figures from the UK government.



> Transport emissions are still growing globally because of the growing appetite for SUVs over smaller vehicles, a trend which risks cancelling out the benefits switching to electric cars. A decade ago SUVs made up 17% of global yearly car sales, but now account for 39%. According to the International Energy Agency, this demand for larger cars was the *second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2018.*
> 
> “Not only are people driving more, but also the vehicles, unfortunately, aren't actually getting more carbon efficient,” says Heigh. “So that's a big problem.”











						How our daily travel harms the planet
					

Private transport is one of the world’s biggest sources of greenhouse gases, with emissions rising year on year. It means the way you travel to work matters more than you think.




					www.bbc.com


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Nope.



Well, yeah it could.
It's not a reason to chuck out any ideas aimed at reducing that element of inefficiency.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

8ball said:


> Well, yeah it could.
> It's not a reason to chuck out any ideas aimed at reducing that element of inefficiency.


Sorry, is there a point here? The newer buses are vastly more efficient and less polluting while cars are getting bigger and heavier and contributing to a huge rise in CO2 emissions.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> A shocking stat:
> 
> A large car emits on average *85% more greenhouse gases per km *than a small vehicle, according to figures from the UK government.
> 
> ...


What would your view on SUVs be if the infrastructure to make hybrids or full electric ones feasible?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pedestrian safety. But if you can provide some stats for occupant safety that might offset that, that would be fine. Ironically enough, SUVs can make their drivers feel nice and safe, but at the cost of extra danger for all the rest of us.



There won't be any academic research for the newest cars yet, so this is the best info there is:









						Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Protection | Euro NCAP
					

Euro NCAP assesses the pedestrian protection of cars tested. Learn more on the new AEB Pedestrian test and the Head, Upper, Lower leg impact tests




					www.euroncap.com
				




Then read the technical documents:









						What's New? | Euro NCAP
					

Get the most recent information relating to Euro NCAP test and assessment protocols and technical bulletins as soon as they are published by Euro NCAP.




					www.euroncap.com
				




Then you can read the comments given in the test reports for individual vehicles.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> What would your view on SUVs be if the infrastructure to make hybrids or full electric ones feasible?


I want fewer cars on the roads of all sizes, but clearly the bigger and heavier the car, the less efficient and more polluting it will be compared to smaller, similar cars,  and I can't see how anyone can think that is a good idea.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> I want fewer cars on the roads of all sizes, but clearly the bigger and heavier the car, the less efficient and polluting it will be compared to smaller cars,  and I can't see how anyone can think that is a good idea.


No, not "clearly". An all-electric SUV would obviously produce less harmful emissions than a petrol Mini. If environmentally friendlier SUVs were practical and pushed by manufacturers then everybody wins, right?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

Also agree that promoting car-sharing would be great but realistically people like their own car/driving/music/route


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Sorry, is there a point here? The newer buses are vastly more efficient and less polluting while cars are getting bigger and heavier and contributing to a huge rise in CO2 emissions.



My point is that the rule of efficiency vs. occupancy still applies whether transport is public or private.  It would be perverse to suggest otherwise.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Also agree that promoting car-sharing would be great but realistically people like their own car/driving/music/route



Funny how that has become such a thing, and how it has meshed with the decline of hitchhiking.
People used to pick up strangers for a bit of company, now they won't pick up a colleague.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> I want fewer cars on the roads of all sizes, but clearly the bigger and heavier the car, the less efficient and more polluting it will be compared to smaller, similar cars,  and I can't see how anyone can think that is a good idea.



A shame fully electric cars are bigger and heavier than their fossil fuel equiavelents due to all the batteries then isn't it.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

8ball said:


> My point is that the rule of efficiency vs. occupancy still applies whether transport is public or private.  It would be perverse to suggest otherwise.


Yes, but in case you hadn't noticed, public transport is getting more efficient while private transport is getting less efficient because of the huge rise in larger, heavier vehicles which has proven to be the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2018.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Also agree that promoting car-sharing would be great but realistically people like their own car/driving/music/route


Realistically, if we're actually serious about tackling the climate emergency, we can't afford to pander to such trivial whims.


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's me convinced.


No it’s true!
Old study (I’m sure I’ve posted this same thing a few times I love it) showing that the more expensive the car the more of a dangerous dickhead the driver in it is: Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior

and you’ll like this one








						Self-centered, stubborn and argumentative men are more likely to own luxury cars, says study
					

Researchers from the University of Helsinki wanted to pinpoint the personality types that tend to be drawn to luxury cars and have poor driving habits. For many people who drive high-end cars, "the car really seems to be an important identity issue," Jan-Erik Lonnqvist, lead study author and a...




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Realistically, if we're actually serious about tackling the climate emergency, we can't afford to pander to such trivial whims.


Good luck with non-pandering!


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Yes, but in case you hadn't noticed, public transport is getting more efficient while private transport is getting less efficient because of the huge rise in larger, heavier vehicles which has proven to be the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2018.



I think you'll find public transport has had a massive dip in efficiency recently.  I'm also not convinced about an overall background increase, but regardless of that, my point was simply that the point you tossed aside as irrelevant is in fact relevant.  In terms of the main thrust of the thread, I was pretty shocked that SUVs are such a high proportion of new cars - at first I thought I was seeing the title of a really old thread.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Realistically, if we're actually serious about tackling the climate emergency, we can't afford to pander to such trivial whims.


Big if innit.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> No, not "clearly". An all-electric SUV would obviously produce less harmful emissions than a petrol Mini. If environmentally friendlier SUVs were practical and pushed by manufacturers then everybody wins, right?


Why do you assume everyone wants the same levels of car ownership/congestion? There's plenty of problems with all electric cars too, and they're compounded when they're puffed up into SUV sizes.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Realistically, if we're actually serious about tackling the climate emergency, we can't afford to pander to such trivial whims.



If we're actually serious, then a lot more whims than that will need to be ditched imo.
We're not actually serious, though, are we?  The only meaningful climate protest body at this time is a middle-class art therapy group.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Thread takes off!

There's an extraordinary amount of nonsense being made up on here at the moment.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Why do you assume everyone wants the same levels of car ownership/congestion? There's plenty of problems with all electric cars too, and they're compounded when they're puffed up into SUV sizes.


Well, yeah, but the OP is about the climate problem, not car size.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Well, yeah, but the OP is about the climate problem, not car size.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Well, yeah, but the OP is about the climate problem, not car size.


But car size is _directly contributing_ to the climate problem. And I'm not arguing for huge SUVs to be replaced by huge electric SUVs either.



editor said:


> A large car emits on average *85% more greenhouse gases per km *than a small vehicle, according to figures from the UK government.
> 
> Transport emissions are still growing globally because of the growing appetite for SUVs over smaller vehicles, a trend which risks cancelling out the benefits switching to electric cars. A decade ago SUVs made up 17% of global yearly car sales, but now account for 39%. According to the International Energy Agency, this demand for larger cars was the *second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2018.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

Just to pop my credentials on the table my family and only car is a ten year old Toyota Yaris, pretty environmentally friendly


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Just to pop my credentials on the table my family and only car is a ten year old Toyota Yaris, pretty environmentally friendly


Hope we don't all have to do this


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> But car size is _directly contributing_ to the climate problem.


It's not the size, it's the type innit. And how many people are in it. A journey in an SUV with four people in it is pretty good for emissions per person


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Hope we don't all have to do this


Compulsory cycling for everyone without a valid medical excuse not to.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Hope we don't all have to do this


Lol. I can't even drive my environmentally sound car


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> But car size is _directly contributing_ to the climate problem.



Part of why size has increased (SUV trends aside) is down to all the safety gubbins they put in these days, but the curve bottoming out at 2017 (well after the nCAP doohickies etc.) does suggest more is going on.  It's not like there is more room inside either.  People are always surprised at how much I can get into my 20 year old Micra (admittedly pre nCAP).


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> It's not the size, it's the type innit. And how many people are in it. A journey in an SUV with four people in it is pretty good for emissions per person


Perhaps you missed the post where it was revealed that 60-62%% of vehicle journeys are single occupancy and that number has more or less remained the same for a decade.  Most SUVs don't have four people in them and four people don't always have to travel by SUV.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

Most journeys don’t involve four people all going to the same place, so it’s no surprise that both SUVs and buses rarely feature multiples of four occupants.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Perhaps you missed the post where it was revealed that 60-62%% of vehicle journeys are single occupancy and that number has more or less remained the same for a decade.  Most SUVs don't have four people in them and four people don't always have to travel by SUV.



I think things will look very much worse for this year relatively speaking - fewer journeys, but an avoidance of public transport due to this damn bug.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

Compulsory hitchhiking, like they have in Cuba? 

Except for Spymaster. He has to cycle.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Compulsory cycling for everyone without a valid medical excuse not to.


And castration for those who fail to comply.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Most journeys don’t involve four people all going to the same place, so it’s no surprise that both SUVs and buses rarely feature multiples of four occupants.





Buses do allow people to get on and off at different places, however.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> And castration for those who fail to comply.



Population timebomb solved.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2020)

It’s almost as if solving urban transportation issues and climate change is massively complicated, isn’t it?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Perhaps you missed the post where it was revealed that 60-62%% of vehicle journeys are single occupancy and that number has more or less remained the same for a decade.  Most SUVs don't have four people in them and four people don't always have to travel by SUV.


I didn't miss it, no, but given it's going to be difficult to get manufacturers to just stop making bigger cars or people buying them, a bit of asymmetric thinking has to be deployed to help the environment. I don't have any solutions and I'm all for fewer cars on the road, but there's a lot of arguing on this thread which has little to do with the OP point and more to do with emotional flannel about drivers and perceived notions of what they're like as people, etc. It's tiresome, as is starting a post with "So you WANT [negative thing not being argued] then, do you?" or "Did you bother to..."

I largely agree with reducing SUV and wider car use but don't see it helpful to ascribe made up bollocks to drivers, etc


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s almost as if solving urban transportation issues and climate change is massively complicated, isn’t it?



One thing that might help is that both individuals and businesses have discovered that there is less to fear than they thought about working from home at least some of the time.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> ... don't see it helpful to ascribe made up bollocks to drivers, etc


Then you're on the wrong thread!


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Most journeys don’t involve four people all going to the same place, so it’s no surprise that both SUVs and buses rarely feature multiples of four occupants.


So then any calculations on how efficient they are should be calculated with the likelihood that there won't be 4 people on board, but most likely one, or two at best.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s almost as if solving urban transportation issues and climate change is massively complicated, isn’t it?


I don't think it is that complicated at root - the things that need tackling are clear enough. 

What is tricky is balancing freedoms with necessary restrictions to protect the freedom of others not to be fucked over. At some point, we're going to have to give up on the idea that we all have the freedom to go where we want, how we want, when we want, if we can afford it. Cars brought that freedom to the masses, and I don't understate how huge that was, and how democratising it was, how socially levelling private car ownership has been compared to how things were before it. 

Now there's a need to start restricting that freedom in a way that doesn't just make it a case of the rich doing what they want when they want and the rest of us being restricted, which is how many 'softer' measures work - eg you still see rich city types driving around London in their Porsches and Aston Martins cos the congestion charge is nothing to them. That kind of exceptionalism for the rich needs to end.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Cars brought that freedom to the masses, and I don't understate how huge that was, and how democratising it was, how socially levelling private car ownership has been compared to how things were before it.



This will be fun.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... eg you still see rich city types driving around London in their Porsches and Aston Martins cos the congestion charge is nothing to them. That kind of exceptionalism for the rich needs to end.



And some leaving their cars wherever they like because parking fines mean nothing to them...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2020)

8ball said:


> And some leaving their cars wherever they like because parking fines mean nothing to them...


This is where my zero tolerance policy towards shit parking comes in. Just crush the cars. No warning, no fine. Just take them away on a flatbed directly to the crusher. The message would sink in remarkably quickly I reckon


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> So then any calculations on how efficient they are should be calculated with the likelihood that there won't be 4 people on board, but most likely one, or two at best.



It’s not hard to do the sums per passenger, but direct comparisons between cars and public transport are much more difficult because you’d need to take into account routing efficiency, opportunity cost etc..

For example in a SUV you can drive from work to pick the kids up from two different schools, drop one at their swimming club and then make it home in time to take the cat to the vet and pick up 10kg of cat litter and two fence posts on the way home. Measured only using per person per kilometre data it might seem more efficient in theory to do each leg by bus, but in practice the SUV is more efficient.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> I've had someone miss their own private flight slot because they wouldn't get in a silver S class. (director of a posh art gallery)


What did he object to? the fact it was an S class or that it was silver?  Personally my own reasons for being reluctant to get in an S class merc would be that I was expecting someone to come and turf me out of it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It’s not hard to do the sums per passenger, but direct comparisons between cars and public transport are much more difficult because you’d need to take into account routing efficiency, opportunity cost etc..
> 
> For example in a SUV you can drive from work to pick the kids up from two different schools, drop one at their swimming club and then make it home in time to take the cat to the vet and pick up 10kg of cat litter and two fence posts on the way home. Measured only using per person per kilometre data it might seem more efficient in theory to do each leg by bus, but in practice the SUV is more efficient.


The school run is one of the biggest things that need tackling. It's grown exponentially since I was at school, and many of those kids could be on the bus/walking/cycling. (As could the parents.)


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It’s not hard to do the sums per passenger, but direct comparisons between cars and public transport are much more difficult because you’d need to take into account routing efficiency, opportunity cost etc..
> 
> For example in a SUV you can drive from work to pick the kids up from two different schools, drop one at their swimming club and then make it home in time to take the cat to the vet and pick up 10kg of cat litter and two fence posts on the way home. Measured only using per person per kilometre data it might seem more efficient in theory to do each leg by bus, but in practice the SUV is more efficient.


Unless you can put a figure as what percentage of SUV drivers actually use their cars in this manner, every day, it's completely and utter nonsense. The stats clearly show that nearly two thirds of all vehicle journeys are with a single occupant, and they also show that a large car emits on average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle.

Moreover, the demand for larger cars was the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2018.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is where my zero tolerance policy towards shit parking comes in. Just crush the cars. No warning, no fine. Just take them away on a flatbed directly to the crusher. The message would sink in remarkably quickly I reckon



Seems like a waste of a nice car.  I'd sell them off cheap to NHS workers and bin men.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The school run is one of the biggest things that need tackling. It's grown exponentially since I was at school, and many of those kids could be on the bus/walking/cycling. (As could the parents.)


Absolutely. And parents driving their precious little ones half a mile in a massive bulky SUV deserve a special place in hell.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The school run is one of the biggest things that need tackling. It's grown exponentially since I was at school, and many of those kids could be on the bus/walking/cycling. (As could the parents.)



Round by me they have a 'walking bus' for the little ones.  It doesn't seem like something that would be hard for the Government to work into its current obesity guff, and they could pretend to care for the environment at the same time.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The school run is one of the biggest things that need tackling. It's grown exponentially since I was at school, and many of those kids could be on the bus/walking/cycling. (As could the parents.)


Shoot all the kids.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Shoot all the kids.



They are a massive environmental catastrophe to be fair - have you seen what they do to your carbon footprint?! 
We need mass infanticide if we are serious about protecting future generations!


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> What did he object to? the fact it was an S class or that it was silver?  Personally my own reasons for being reluctant to get in an S class merc would be that I was expecting someone to come and turf me out of it.



That it was silver. Black S-Class only for him. I have no idea why but he didn't get where he is today without being an unreasonable arsehole about absolutely everything. I've only spoken to that particular customer myself a couple of times (once was just after our driver had crashed his car with him in it so that wasn't fun) and don't have a particular bad impression but the account was full of cokeheads. Well-known private art gallery in St James. You can imagine the kind of cunts that work at a place like that.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

I suppose I am a little surprised at the depth of feeling. Not that many SUVs round here. Next door have one and my father in law has a Range Rover but that's all the people I know who have one. Expect in a city it's more noticeable and there are more of them on busier streets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> I suppose I am a little surprised at the depth of feeling. Not that many SUVs round here. Next door have one and my father in law has a Range Rover but that's all the people I know who have one. Expect in a city it's more noticeable and there are more of them on busier streets.


The cliched image of the 'Chelsea tractor' has some basis in truth. If you go to the richer bits of London you do see a lot of them.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The cliched image of the 'Chelsea tractor' has some basis in truth. If you go to the richer bits of London you do see a lot of them.


Thankfully I'm very far away from London.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> I suppose I am a little surprised at the depth of feeling. Not that many SUVs round here. Next door have one and my father in law has a Range Rover but that's all the people I know who have one. Expect in a city it's more noticeable and there are more of them on busier streets.


I usually see about one in three cars being what I'd term SUVs on my street, with some particularly hefty ones often parked right across the pavement outside my block at night because they can park wherever they like apparently.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> That it was silver. Black S-Class only for him. I have no idea why but he didn't get where he is today without being an unreasonable arsehole about absolutely everything. I've only spoken to that particular customer myself a couple of times (once was just after our driver had crashed his car with him in it so that wasn't fun) and don't have a particular bad impression but the account was full of cokeheads. Well-known private art gallery in St James. You can imagine the kind of cunts that work at a place like that.


Now that is just plain fucking stupid, the mind boggles at that.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

S☼I said:


> I suppose I am a little surprised at the depth of feeling. Not that many SUVs round here. Next door have one and my father in law has a Range Rover but that's all the people I know who have one. Expect in a city it's more noticeable and there are more of them on busier streets.



Just looked out the window (East Mids suburb) - out of 8 cars there are 2 you might call SUVs, definitely one.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

8ball said:


> Just looked out the window (East Mids suburb) - out of 8 cars there are 2 you might call SUVs, definitely one.


Show us a pic!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Aug 4, 2020)

Athos said:


> Of course. They're expensive, so more likely to be driven by thrusting, powerful go-getters (with enough money to keep their family safe), whereas effete underachievers can't afford one (and so are often found pottering along on a pushbike).



Pah!

(From an effete underachiever)


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Show us a pic!



Not sure how to use panoramic mode...


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

14 cars here, only one SUV (mine). 3 estate cars though, all bigger and heavier than my SUV, and of the remaining 10 cars, mostly small family cars, only two use less fuel per mile than mine, and none of those brake automatically if a clueless pedestrian steps in front. Basically everyone living near me is a planet-destroying murderer.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> 14 cars here, only one SUV (mine). 3 estate cars though, all bigger and heavier than my SUV, and of the remaining 10 cars, mostly small family cars, only two use less fuel per mile than mine, and none of those brake automatically if a clueless pedestrian steps in front. Basically everyone living near me is a planet-destroying murderer.


And this is a full on 4wd SUV not some family car with chunky styling?


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

15 cars (and 2 vans) visible from my front window and the chunkiest offering is a Kia Niro. Is that an SUV now?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> 15 cars (and 2 vans) visible from my front window and the chunkiest offering is a Kia Niro. Is that an SUV now?


It's a crossover or CUV. A sort of SUV-lite.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Show us a pic!


I’d be more interested in seeing a photo that showed 1 in 3 cars as an SUV on a Brixton street. I’m in Maida Vale and have just counted 1 in 13.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> And this is a full on 4wd SUV not some family car with chunky styling?



An XC40, and it's not an AWD version. Volvo calls it an SUV.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

The big one is a BMW X6 - think that counts.
The smaller one has gone but was about the same size as that ugly Nissan thing.

edit:  also two unambiguous estate cars


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I’d be more interested in seeing a photo that showed 1 in 3 cars as an SUV on a Brixton street. I’m in Maida Vale and have just counted 1 in 13.


This Maida Vale?   









						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This Maida Vale?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not far from there. Yes. I count about 4 or 5 SUVs in 40 or 50 cars there.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Not far from there. Yes. I count about 4 or 5 SUVs in 40 or 50 cars there.



This is very imprecise counting


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

8ball said:


> This is very imprecise counting


I’m on a phone so will take a closer look later. What do you make it (turn through 360 degrees and look down all the roads)?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Not far from there. Yes. I count about 4 or 5 SUVs in 40 or 50 cars there.


Time of day, week, etc matters as well, mind. Cars parked up for the night will be different from cars out and about in London on a weekday. Lots of SUV-owners will get the tube, or even cycle!!!, to work.


----------



## Looby (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> All the stuff you hear about drivers of 'X' being bigger dickheads than drivers of 'Y' is nonsense and almost always selectively recalled or fabricated to suit whatever prejudice one is currently trying to support (see that preposterous claim upthread that drivers are 3% less likely to yield at crossings per $1000 they spend on their cars). In reality I suspect that percentage-wise, just as many twats drive Fords as Audis and estates as saloons. The exceptions are vehicles that have been retrofitted with styling mods, window tints, or aftermarket exhaust systems, all of which are sure signs of a fucktoad within.


Maybe and it could be because of the area I live in too.
Fuckery like this doesn’t help though.
That’s the second Audi that’s ended up on that bollard.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Looby said:


> Maybe and it could be because of the area I live in too.
> Fuckery like this doesn’t help though.
> That’s the second Audi that’s ended up on that bollard.



Just...  how?


----------



## Looby (Aug 4, 2020)

8ball said:


> Just...  how?


Driving too fast. It’s 20 on my road and there’s no way they were doing 20. They claimed the sun blinded them. 
It’s a cut through and people tear up and down.


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2020)

I work in Chelsea and while I have never bothered to count them and do a mental calculation (maybe I’ll do it tomorrow), the proportion of resident parked cars that are SUVs is staggering.

Not only that, but most of those SUVs happen to be the full wanker type: Range Rovers, Porsche Cayennes, and the largest models peddled by Audi, BMW and Mercedes, which are about as environmentally friendly as a coal power station.

Up until a a few years ago a regular sight was a Range Rover with the personalised plate 10 MPG. I can only hope I don’t see it anymore because it was set on fire by a good samaritan, preferably with its owner inside.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Looby said:


> Driving too fast. It’s 20 on my road and there’s no way they were doing 20. They claimed the sun blinded them.
> It’s a cut through and people tear up and down.



How is that an excuse?
Shouldn't even be doing 20 if the sun is blinding you.

One of my bugbears is the number of drivers who seem to think the speed limit is a minimum for all conditions.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I’m on a phone so will take a closer look later. What do you make it (turn through 360 degrees and look down all the roads)?


FWIW, I make it about 12 SUVs and 46 cars, so 20%.

SUVs are a fairly recent trend - as an example, the Qashqai has been around since 2006, but they've got _much _more popular in just the last few years. By the time a lot of these cars are replaced, many will be enlarged.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 4, 2020)

SUV's are shit to drive but they're practical for families and old men with bad backs.  Plus they put some big engines in for said old men who don't have the mental toolkit to cope with the concept of ageing.

I think that covers everything.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2020)

Im surprised there isn’t a thread on here berating people with gas boilers in their homes and ceiling heights in excess of 2.1 meters. Massive hulking extravagent  houses with pointlessly heated space above people’s heads. Everyone should sleep in communal dormitories to save the planet.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Im surprised there isn’t a thread on here berating people with gas boilers in their homes and ceiling heights in excess of 2.1 meters. Massive hulking extravagent  houses with pointlessly heated space above people’s heads. Everyone should sleep in communal dormitories to save the planet.



Communal dorms are terrible for Covid.  One thing at a time.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Does this count?


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> 15 cars (and 2 vans) visible from my front window and the chunkiest offering is a Kia Niro. Is that an SUV now?


Peering out of the bedroom window I can see 8 smaller cars ranging from Mrs Q's Micra up to an A3, 3 larger cars,a Merc, a BMW and an Audi and 1 SUV which is too far out of my vision to get a closer look without risking falling out of the window so I can only see part of it. (think it's a Merc) so 1 SUV in 12 vehicles. When I go for my daily constitutional I will do a more comphrensive survey.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 4, 2020)

An additional thought is out on my daily walk I tend to notice how many electric vehicles there are rather than SUV's. There are at least 3 Tesla's, an electric Golf and several i3's and Nissan Leaf's


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Im surprised there isn’t a thread on here berating people with gas boilers in their homes and ceiling heights in excess of 2.1 meters. Massive hulking extravagent  houses with pointlessly heated space above people’s heads. Everyone should sleep in communal dormitories to save the planet.


Bagsie top bunk.

I used to live in a modern house with low ceilings. It's unpleasant if you're very tall.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 4, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> SUV's are shit to drive but they're practical for families and old men with bad backs.  Plus they put some big engines in for said old men who don't have the mental toolkit to cope with the concept of ageing.
> 
> I think that covers everything.



Define: ‘shit to drive’.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Define: ‘shit to drive’.



Like driving a van.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

8ball said:


> Does this count?


Yes.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Im surprised there isn’t a thread on here berating people with gas boilers in their homes and ceiling heights in excess of 2.1 meters. Massive hulking extravagent  houses with pointlessly heated space above people’s heads. Everyone should sleep in communal dormitories to save the planet.


I think you've already won the competition for the most ridiculous comparison with your insistence that rail suicides are directly comparable to pedestrian deaths, so that hundreds of thousands of trackside cameras need to be immediately employed to protect people from jumping off a bridge in front of a speeding train.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Yes.



Cool.  Just calibrating (there seems to be a category called "crossover").

How about this:


----------



## souljacker (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> FWIW, I make it about 12 SUVs and 46 cars, so 20%.
> 
> SUVs are a fairly recent trend - as an example, the Qashqai has been around since 2006, but they've got _much _more popular in just the last few years. By the time a lot of these cars are replaced, many will be enlarged.



There's no way a qashqai can be considered an SUV. Ours has got the puniest little engine I've ever had the misfortune to drive. If that's classed as sport then I should be able to compete in the next Olympics.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

souljacker said:


> There's no way a qashqai can be considered an SUV. Ours has got the puniest little engine I've ever had the misfortune to drive. If that's classed as sport then I should be able to compete in the next Olympics.


Noone said it had to be a good level of sports. Maybe sports as in 'sports day'. Fits the 'angry dad' model too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Im surprised there isn’t a thread on here berating people with gas boilers in their homes and ceiling heights in excess of 2.1 meters. Massive hulking extravagent  houses with pointlessly heated space above people’s heads. Everyone should sleep in communal dormitories to save the planet.


My living room has a ceiling height of 5.2 metres


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2020)

My SiL drives a Qashqai. If that's an SUV then SUV is not a meaningful or useful category of vehicle.

Also I think the S is a bit of a red herring. I'm aware that some people think off road driving is a sport of some kind (it's not) but I'm sure the proportion of people with genuine 4wd vehicles in any London suburb who ever drive it off road is a tiny minority let alone those who do it in a sportlike manner.


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2020)

Didn't realise my Jimny is classed as an SUV. He'd be quite proud to qualify i think.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 4, 2020)

Very few SUVs on my estate (ungentrified zone 3 south London).  Characteristically, people here just don’t have especially new cars - which might be the difference (people here couldn’t afford to live in Brixton or leafy Surrey
Photo, fwiw.  I think one of the cars at the back of the shot might count as an SUV, and one did drive past just after i took the picture.


----------



## fredhurst (Aug 4, 2020)

The manufacturers market it as a "compact" SUV.  And then there are "subcompacts" and a bunch of other adjectives added to the acronym to make the car more attractive. Like you mentioned, a lot of these variant SUV types have veered off the traditional 4wd category.



maomao said:


> My SiL drives a Qashqai. If that's an SUV then SUV is not a meaningful or useful category of vehicle.
> 
> Also I think the S is a bit of a red herring. I'm aware that some people think off road driving is a sport of some kind (it's not) but I'm sure the proportion of people with genuine 4wd vehicles in any London suburb who ever drive it off road is a tiny minority let alone those who do it in a sportlike manner.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> My living room has a ceiling height of 5.2 metres



Imagine the environmental benefits we could make from giving up bipedal locomotion.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 4, 2020)

Mrs S bought a qashqai in 2007, she still has it. Only 100k in 13 years. She bought it brand new, the company she was buying it off went bust during the sale going through , the company that bought them out knocked £6k off the original price. She bought it because she has fused discs in her back. That’s the reason we ended up with one. It’s still running it’s a 1.6 petrol and could really use another gear. It’s a SUV wannabe lookalike.  It’s the Renault bits on the steering and suspension that need changing regularly.  Our neighbour has a Marlin Cabero? Two seat roller skate with a Rover 3.5 V8 lump in it with a Cosworth box. That seems more fun yet less environmentally friendly.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> FWIW, I make it about 12 SUVs and 46 cars, so 20%.


Just counted on the laptop. I reckon you're seeing SUVs that aren't there. You might want to get that checked out as I believe it's the modern day equivalent of thinking there's a giant white rabbit following you around. In the most scientifically controlled test yet done on this thread I also checked out all the cars on Lauderdale Avenue (SUV Central) just now and it was 22/136, so 16 percent. HIgher than I'd have thought, tbf.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

maomao said:


> My SiL drives a Qashqai. If that's an SUV then SUV is not a meaningful or useful category of vehicle.


Precisely. Now if that penny dropped with one or two _other_ people on this thread we might get somewhere, but I feel another goalpost shift coming on ...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Just counted on the laptop. I reckon you're seeing SUVs that aren't there. You might want to get that checked out as I believe it's the modern day equivalent of thinking there's a giant white rabbit following you around. In the most scientifically controlled test yet done on this thread I also checked out all the cars on Lauderdale Avenue (SUV Central) just now and it was 22/136, so 16 percent. HIgher than I'd have thought, tbf.


How dare you doubt me.

In the foreground: Lexus, RR, Cayenne, Honda. In the background: Merc GL in the middle of the street, blue Lexus, some other thing behind it, and I think a G-Wagen. Missed that one actually, and the Audi in front of the green MGB. Down Lanark Road: Ford Kuga, white Mitsubishi Outlander. Back on the main street: Volvo XC90, Peugeot 3008. Down the other Lanark Road, some Mazda turd. 14.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> How dare you doubt me.
> 
> In the foreground: Lexus, RR, Cayenne, Honda. In the background: Merc GL in the middle of the street, blue Lexus, some other thing behind it, and I think a G-Wagen. Missed that one actually, and the Audi in front of the green MGB. Down Lanark Road: Ford Kuga, white Mitsubishi Outlander. Back on the main street: Volvo XC90, Peugeot 3008. Down the other Lanark Road, some Mazda turd. 14.


We're looking at different things. I've got a Range Rover, Lexus, and Cayenne on Elgin between the shops. They are 3 out of 15 cars between Lanark and the roundabout. Then on Lanark (south) there's just one Lexus on the whole road of about 40 cars. At this point I realised that you're hallucinating so I stopped playing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Precisely. Now if that penny dropped with one or two _other_ people on this thread we might get somewhere, but I feel another goalpost shift coming on ...










???


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> We're looking at different things. I've got a Range Rover, Lexus, and Cayenne on Elgin between the shops. They are 3 out of 15 cars between Lanark and the roundabout. Then on Lanark (south) there's just one Lexus on the whole road of about 40 cars. At this point I realised that you're hallucinating so I stopped playing.


I can actually smell them. This is how I got my job as the SUV Finder General.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ???



From another angle you'd see Noddy taking a nap in the back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

I've got a soft spot for k cars. If I lived in Japan I'd probably buy one.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I can actually smell them. This is how I got my job as the SUV Finder General.
> 
> View attachment 224995
> 
> ...



2, 3, 4, and 5 are all past the roundabout. If you're going to count them you have to go further down Elgin and count the rest.

6 is a Prius.

11 and 13 are a bit suspect too.

I missed 7 (thought it was an estate) so I'll give you that.

And if you had gone down Lanark (south) there's 1 in 40 or 50 which would really have stuck the boot into your 20%!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all past the roundabout. If you're going to count them you have to go further down Elgin and count the rest.
> 
> 6 is a Prius.
> 
> ...


Unbelievable. I'm starting to suspect _you _might be a SUV.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

_And _I missed another one.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Unbelievable. I'm starting to suspect _you _might be a SUV.
> 
> View attachment 225002
> 
> View attachment 225003View attachment 225004


As I say, you cant have those unless you go down Elgin and count the others, and Lanark (south) completely writes off the 20% thing .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 4, 2020)

Aaaanyhoo. Quite a few.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I can actually smell them. This is how I got my job as the SUV Finder General.
> 
> View attachment 224995



I see what you mean but in this pic (above) the car marked 6 is very clearly a black Prius.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 4, 2020)

How many cars sold allegedly as SUVs are actually just good old shooting brakes?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I see what you mean but in this pic (above) the car marked 6 is very clearly a black Prius.


Not the Prius, the thing behind it.



Sprocket. said:


> How many cars sold allegedly as SUVs are actually just good old shooting brakes?


None. A shooting brake has two doors and don't let anyone convince you otherwise.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

View from my window now. it might be easier to count how many cars aren't SUVs.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2020)

How many of em are yours though?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> View from my window now. it might be easier to count how many cars aren't SUVs.
> 
> View attachment 225008



Someone's got a Toyota Pious, so at least there's that. 

Both of the SUV's on my street are owned by the rich buggers down the end of the road.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> How many of em are yours though?



Just the white ones, I reckon.  Pious, runabout and Range Rover for beach trips.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

mauvais said:


> How many of em are yours though?


It's my personal fleet on hand whenever I need to drive from work to pick the kids up from two different schools, drop one at their swimming club and then make it home in time to take the cat to the vet and pick up 10kg of cat litter and two fence posts on the way home.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> Very few SUVs on my estate (ungentrified zone 3 south London).  Characteristically, people here just don’t have especially new cars - which might be the difference (people here couldn’t afford to live in Brixton or leafy Surrey
> Photo, fwiw.  I think one of the cars at the back of the shot might count as an SUV, and one did drive past just after i took the picture.
> 
> View attachment 224989



Brand new Audi A7 there, an A6 for people who don’t need the space inside the car but still want a fuck off great big motor


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Five in a row SUV cluster on my street


----------



## hegley (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Five in a row SUV cluster on my street
> 
> View attachment 225041


Since when is a 1L Ford Focus an SUV?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Five in a row SUV cluster on my street
> 
> View attachment 225041


Errrrrr


----------



## fishfinger (Aug 4, 2020)

hegley said:


> Since when is a 1L Ford Focus an SUV?


Slightly Ugly Vehicle


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

hegley said:


> Since when is a 1L Ford Focus an SUV?


It looked like another pointlessly oversized car to me, but now you've brought this up, I looked it up and apparently, "The all-new *Ford Focus* Active crossover introduces *SUV*-inspired versatility to the confidence-inspiring, intuitive, and rewarding all-new *Focus* driving experience. "  Is that the car?

If it's failed the SUV test, I'll make it a 4 out of 5. Or more like a 4.5/5 in my book because it's still bigger than cars used to be.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> It looked like another pointlessly oversized car to me, but now you've brought this up, I looked it up and apparently, "The all-new *Ford Focus* Active crossover introduces *SUV*-inspired versatility to the confidence-inspiring, intuitive, and rewarding all-new *Focus* driving experience. "  Is that the car?
> 
> If it's failed the SUV test, I'll make it a 4 out of 5. Or more like a 4.5/5 in my book because it's still bigger than cars used to be.



None of them could fall in to the SUV category.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> None of them could fall in to the SUV category.


Big cars, then, right on trend with the current fuckwit fashion for making cars taller, heavier and bigger.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2020)

They... really aren’t. Just normal family hatchbacks.

If you’re gonna take potshots at things, at least know what to actually point the gun at.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 4, 2020)

I have returned from my daily walk around an area of the East Mids that a number of Urbs would be quick to dismis as middle class  bourgeoisie  and excluding the Q Fleet and my immediate neighbours in order to get a random sample I have tallied the first 100 vehicles I saw of which 16 were SUV's. All proper SUV's though (X Series, Range Rover, the Big Toyota one) none of the sheep in wolf's clothing ones like the Juke or the Kuga


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2020)

What actually is the definition anyway? Has to have four wheel drive and you sit high up is that it?


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They... really aren’t. Just normal family hatchbacks.
> 
> If you’re gonna take potshots at things, at least know what to actually point the gun at.


I'm taking 'potshots' at vehicles that have grown bigger and bigger in size over the years - mainly in the name of fashion and a mindset that puts the safety of the driver above that of pedestrians -  because they are contributing to the climate change that's going to fuck us all up.

Not sure I'd call a £28k Mercedes-Benz A-Class A200 a 'normal family hatchback' either...

(*I've checked:  it's an "A class premium hatchback" apparently, that looks about the size of a SUV to me).


----------



## hegley (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> It looked like another pointlessly oversized car to me, but now you've brought this up, I looked it up and apparently, "The all-new *Ford Focus* Active crossover introduces *SUV*-inspired versatility to the confidence-inspiring, intuitive, and rewarding all-new *Focus* driving experience. "  Is that the car?


No, it's just a bog-standard Focus by the look of it. And the Merc in the foreground isn't an SUV either. 

I wonder how much the increase in size in modern cars is mitigated by improved aerodynamics?


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

hegley said:


> I wonder how much the increase in size in modern cars is mitigated by improved aerodynamics?


In a city where 20mph speed limits are (supposedly) enforced? None, and I'd  imagine any benefits at urban speeds would be offset by the increased weight and size anyway.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Not sure I'd call a £28k Mercedes-Benz A-Class A200 a 'normal family hatchback' either...



me neither, far too small to carry a family. How do you get mum, dad, two kids, their push chairs and a
dog in one? You need a bigger car.

I understand that you and Spymaster are on mutual ignore so naturally you will have missed his point that all this SUV frothing comes from envy, your including the cost of Merc, daily mail style, tends to prove his point.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

hegley said:


> Since when is a 1L Ford Focus an SUV?





beesonthewhatnow said:


> Errrrrr





Bahnhof Strasse said:


> None of them could fall in to the SUV category.





beesonthewhatnow said:


> They... really aren’t. Just normal family hatchbacks.





hegley said:


> No, it's just a bog-standard Focus by the look of it. And the Merc in the foreground isn't an SUV either.



 Hmmmmm ...

 I think we might have spotted the issue here!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 4, 2020)

Presumably advances in materials will have helped offset the size of cars which now by law have to have far more safety equipment onboard.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2020)

bimble said:


> What actually is the definition anyway? Has to have four wheel drive and you sit high up is that it?


There isn’t one. Which is kinda the problem from the very start of this thread.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I understand that you and Spymaster are on mutual ignore so naturally you will have missed his point that all this SUV frothing comes from envy, your including the cost of Merc, daily mail style, tends to prove his point.



Yeah coz people in SUVs always look so happy.

You want to see envy, check out the look on the face of a bloke in a 50,000 pound land rover that's stuck in traffic as you sail past him on a 50 quid pushbike.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah coz people in SUVs always look so happy.
> 
> You want to see envy, check out the look on the face of a bloke in a 50,000 pound land rover that's stuck in traffic as you sail past him on a 50 quid pushbike.





Dress the setting further Frank. Is it chucking it down with rain at this point?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah coz people in SUVs always look so happy.
> 
> You want to see envy, check out the look on the face of a bloke in a 50,000 pound land rover that's stuck in traffic as you sail past him on a 50 quid pushbike.


 You're so full of shit, Francis.


----------



## Athos (Aug 4, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah coz people in SUVs always look so happy.
> 
> You want to see envy, check out the look on the face of a bloke in a 50,000 pound land rover that's stuck in traffic as you sail past him on a 50 quid pushbike.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 4, 2020)

hegley said:


> No, it's just a bog-standard Focus by the look of it. And the Merc in the foreground isn't an SUV either.
> 
> I wonder how much the increase in size in modern cars is mitigated by improved aerodynamics?
> 
> View attachment 225052


My age has coming crashing down around me with the realisation that I recognise most of the cars in that picture, I started learning to drive in a Triumph Herald (second to the back) and actually owned a Viva, Fuck the environment if anyone imagines I wll trade my current Audi for any of those shit boxes.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2020)

Athos said:


>


Like someone sat in air-conditioned luxury, probably on the phone to his missus or a mate on the other side of the world, or maybe listening to music and getting a back massage; is going to be envious of some scrote huffing and puffing his way past on a bike.


----------



## Athos (Aug 4, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Like someone sat in air-conditioned luxury, probably on the phone to his missus or a mate on the other side of the world, or maybe listening to music; is going to be envious of some scrote huffing and puffing his way past on a bike.



It one of the stupidest things Plank's ever claimed (and that's against some stiff competition).


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> me neither, far too small to carry a family. How do you get mum, dad, two kids, their push chairs and a
> dog in one? You need a bigger car..


Except - as research has clearly shown -  most cars_ aren't _stuffed full of mum, dad, two kids, their push chairs and a dog. Nearly two thirds have _no one but the driver in them. _



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I understand that you and Spymaster are on mutual ignore so naturally you will have missed his point that all this SUV frothing comes from envy, your including the cost of Merc, daily mail style, tends to prove his point.


No, you don't quote the words of a poster on mutual ignore to the other person, so you get a warning for such disruptive conduct.

But seeing as you've just pointed out that he's continuing to break the terms of mutual ignore by referencing me, then he gets another warning for breaking these rules once again.


*update: Oh, it's pushed him into a temp ban. Oh dear. never mind,


----------



## xenon (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> I want fewer cars on the roads of all sizes, but clearly the bigger and heavier the car, the less efficient and more polluting it will be compared to smaller, similar cars,  and I can't see how anyone can think that is a good idea.



unless it’s hydrogen powered. There are a couple of hydrogen powered SUs if I recall.
Anyway I agree with the general point. There are too many cars. doing  nothing except taking up space for 90% of the time. Public space.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Except - as research has clearly shown -  most cars_ aren't _stuffed full of mum, dad, two kids, their push chairs and a dog. Nearly two thirds have _no one but the driver in them. _
> 
> No, you don't quote the words of a poster on mutual ignore to the other person, so you get a warning for such disruptive conduct.
> 
> ...



You have banned him cos of what I have done? Seems legit.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You have banned him cos of what I have done? Seems legit.


No. He was warned once again for breaking the terms of mutual ignore. That was his decision to do so and it's not like he doesn't know exactly what he was doing.

And because he had already been warned several times before for doing the exact same thing, the last warning tipped him into an automatic ban.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2020)

And I did not quote his words, so that’s just bollocks too.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 5, 2020)

"The only reason you have principles is because you don't have enough money to be as selfish as me."

The ultimate arguement of the entitled.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2020)

Punishing people for the actions of others counts as a crime under the Geneva Conventions.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 5, 2020)

8ball said:


> Like driving a van.



_Like driving a van._


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 5, 2020)

maomao said:


> My SiL drives a Qashqai. If that's an SUV then SUV is not a meaningful or useful category of vehicle.
> 
> Also I think the S is a bit of a red herring. I'm aware that some people think off road driving is a sport of some kind (it's not) but I'm sure the proportion of people with genuine 4wd vehicles in any London suburb who ever drive it off road is a tiny minority let alone those who do it in a sportlike manner.



SUV is a marketing term not an engineering or technical definition. It is therefore useless as a basis for discussing fiscal measures to change people's behaviour.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 5, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Brand new Audi A7 there, an A6 for people who don’t need the space inside the car but still want a fuck off great big motor


I always think white cars are probably cheap/second hand.  I’m aware that this is illogical, but it’s what my brain does.  It’s because they look like they’re made of UPVC.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 5, 2020)

bimble said:


> What actually is the definition anyway? Has to have four wheel drive and you sit high up is that it?



I thought a genuine SUV had to sit high and have 4wd for off-road fun.

The likes of Nissan Qashqai’s which sit high like SUV’s but are 2wd only are classed as cross-overs. They are popular because they provide the raised seating position of SUV’s.

But I think Nissan do a 4wd capable version of the Qashqai too - so it’s complicated.

Maybe anything that sits high is now thought of as an SUV?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> "The only reason you have principles is because you don't have enough money to be as selfish as me."
> 
> The ultimate arguement of the entitled.



It‘s so easy to have principles about things that aren't part of your own lifestyle, that i wouldn’t even call them principles in that case. ”Celebs shouldn’t use private flights” and “parents should feed their kids every day” are easy assertions to make,  when you don’t have to face actual kidnap attempts or a pan of rice that needs to last to the end of the month.


----------



## Looby (Aug 5, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I thought a genuine SUV had to sit high and have 4wd for off-road fun.
> 
> The likes of Nissan Qashqai’s which sit high like SUV’s but are 2wd only are classed as cross-overs. They are popular because they provide the raised seating position of SUV’s.
> 
> ...


They were crossovers, that was the term used when the  Qashqai first came out, now they’re small SUVs. Mine is too. It doesn’t make a lot of sense but there we are.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> *update: Oh, it's pushed him into a temp ban. Oh dear. never mind,



Blimey, that's a bit harsh.


----------



## Athos (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Except - as research has clearly shown -  most cars_ aren't _stuffed full of mum, dad, two kids, their push chairs and a dog. Nearly two thirds have _no one but the driver in them. _
> 
> No, you don't quote the words of a poster on mutual ignore to the other person, so you get a warning for such disruptive conduct.
> 
> ...



Hang on, wasn't Bahnhof Strasse  saying you were proving Spymaster's point, rather than that Spymaster was referring to you in his posts? That warning (and resultant ban) is ridiculous.


----------



## andysays (Aug 5, 2020)

Without wishing to divert this thread, I'm starting to think that this forced ignore thing doesn't really work when one of those it's supposed to apply to is a moderator.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 5, 2020)

There's a blacked out range rover on a street near me with the personalized number plate 13ITCH.... lovely!


----------



## Doodler (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> ”Celebs shouldn’t use private flights” and “parents should feed their kids every day” are easy assertions to make,  when you don’t have to face actual kidnap attempts or a pan of rice that needs to last to the end of the month.



Ah you _do_ have a sense of humour.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> There's a blacked out range rover on a street near me with the personalized number plate 13ITCH.... lovely!



I saw a matte black 1998 Micra the other day. With a roof rack. Now that really did make me feel envy. I nearly offered the bloke cash for it right there.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Except - as research has clearly shown -  most cars_ aren't _stuffed full of mum, dad, two kids, their push chairs and a dog. Nearly two thirds have _no one but the driver in them. _
> 
> No, you don't quote the words of a poster on mutual ignore to the other person, so you get a warning for such disruptive conduct.
> 
> ...


You’ve somewhat misread this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

Meanwhile, in other 'drive whatever you like, the only reason not to like SUVs is envy' news:









						Rising temperatures will cause more deaths than all infectious diseases – study
					

Poorer, hotter parts of the world will struggle to adapt to unbearable conditions, research finds




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It‘s so easy to have principles about things that aren't part of your own lifestyle, that i wouldn’t even call them principles in that case. ”Celebs shouldn’t use private flights” and “parents should feed their kids every day” are easy assertions to make,  when you don’t have to face actual kidnap attempts or a pan of rice that needs to last to the end of the month.


Are you trying to say that people who can't feed their children don't think they should be able to in principle? Are you seriously drawing an analogy between that situation and owning an SUV?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> Are you trying to say that people who can't feed their children don't think they should be able to in principle? Are you seriously drawing an analogy between that situation and owning an SUV?



No, I'm saying it's easy for someone to talk about principles when that thing doesn't apply to them. e.g. "owning SUVs is against my principles", said by someone who doesn't need or want a SUV anyway, or "people should feed their kids every day" said by someone who has plenty of food.

City dwellers who don't need to cart people and stuff around and are happy to travel by metro/bus etc aren't principled by not owning a SUV.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, I'm saying it's easy for someone to talk about principles when that thing doesn't apply to them. e.g. "owning SUVs is against my principles", said by someone who doesn't need or want a SUV anyway, or "people should feed their kids every day" said by someone who has plenty of food.
> 
> City dwellers who don't need to cart people and stuff around and are happy to travel by metro/bus etc aren't principled by not owning a SUV.


For god's sake cut out the false equivalencies, it's as embarrassing as "so you want an environmental disaster then?"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, I'm saying it's easy for someone to talk about principles when that thing doesn't apply to them. e.g. "owning SUVs is against my principles", said by someone who doesn't need or want a SUV anyway, or "people should feed their kids every day" said by someone who has plenty of food.
> 
> City dwellers who don't need to cart people and stuff around and are happy to travel by metro/bus etc aren't principled by not owning a SUV.



Food is necessary for survival. Cunting about town in an armoured personnel carrier is not.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

As for the banning it's obvious Spymaster was prodding away (obvious to those of us not on forced ignore with him) at editor and it's his circus his rules I suppose, but issuing a banning shouldn't be done gleefully like that, it's poor form for a mod. Another mod should deal with disputes between a mod and someone else.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, I'm saying it's easy for someone to talk about principles when that thing doesn't apply to them. e.g. "owning SUVs is against my principles", said by someone who doesn't need or want a SUV anyway, or "people should feed their kids every day" said by someone who has plenty of food.
> 
> City dwellers who don't need to cart people and stuff around and are happy to travel by metro/bus etc aren't principled by not owning a SUV.


So I don't agree with SUVs on principle which means I would never want one which means it's not a principle.. 

That's some fancy logic.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> It looked like another pointlessly oversized car to me, but now you've brought this up, I looked it up and apparently, "The all-new *Ford Focus* Active crossover introduces *SUV*-inspired versatility to the confidence-inspiring, intuitive, and rewarding all-new *Focus* driving experience. "  Is that the car?


No.


----------



## bimble (Aug 5, 2020)

Is a tractor an SUV?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

bimble said:


> Is a tractor an SUV?


Only a Chelsea one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> But seeing as you've just pointed out that he's continuing to break the terms of mutual ignore by referencing me, then he gets another warning for breaking these rules once again.


He didn't. You just banned him for _absolutely nothing_.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

Can't this be taken to one of the many pre-existing 'why was spymaster banned' threads?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> "The all-new *Ford Focus* Active crossover introduces *SUV*-inspired versatility to the confidence-inspiring, intuitive, and rewarding all-new *Focus* driving experience. "



Someone got paid to write that copy. Fucking hell.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can't this be taken to one of the many pre-existing 'why was spymaster banned' threads?


Because it was going so well up to then?


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Just to pop my credentials on the table my family and only car is a ten year old Toyota Yaris, pretty environmentally friendly



👍
There's a new Toyota Yaris mini SUV hybrid coming out this year.

Just saying... 🙂


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> 👍
> There's a new Toyota Yaris mini SYV hybrid coming out this year.
> 
> Just saying... 🙂


Not interested. Next vehicle we're getting will be a Hummer


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> 👍
> There's a new Toyota Yaris mini SYV hybrid coming out this year.
> 
> Just saying... 🙂



It's the giant Fiat 500s and giant Minis I don't understand. Even the normal Mini is pretty flabby, and overpowered for a small car.

And the proper 500 is one of the very few bits of non-shite car design of recent years, but the bigger ones are as fugly as everything else.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

Genuinely thinking of the Volvo XC40 for our next car, however. You can do the daily commute on full electric, which is nice, and there will be three of us going to college some days (and my lad is now 5 foot 10 and showing no sign of stopping growing).

It's an SUV though so I guess I want the apocalypse, will be dining with Judas eventually, etc


----------



## hegley (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can't this be taken to one of the many pre-existing 'why was spymaster banned' threads?


Well it might have been better if instead of the OP someone had just thought to make a contribution to this thread: Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better. rather than start a brand new thread that really had fuck all to do with SUVs and was just a personal version of aforementioned.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> As for the banning it's obvious Spymaster was prodding away (obvious to those of us not on forced ignore with him) at editor and it's his circus his rules I suppose, but issuing a banning shouldn't be done gleefully like that, it's poor form for a mod. Another mod should deal with disputes between a mod and someone else.


It's not glee, it's fucking exasperation.  I'd much rather he'd stopped his childish antics years ago. On any other site, his relentlessly disruptive conduct, personal attacks and rule breaking  would have resulted in a lifelong ban.

I'm fucking fed up with it.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Meanwhile, in other 'drive whatever you like, the only reason not to like SUVs is envy' news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This 'envy' claim really is the most pathetic and puerile argument.

If you don't like something that's become the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions in the last decade and is emitting an average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle, then it's all down to 'envy.'


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

#notallsuvs


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He didn't. You just banned him for _absolutely nothing_.


I'm sorry if after all this time you're still don't understand the how the rules of mutual ignore or how the warning system racks up points that eventually tip the offender into an automatic ban, but feel free to complain to other mods if you think I've banned him for _absolutely nothing_. For the record, on just the one he quoted_ five responses_ to my comments to make a negative point. 

I've certainly no interest in discussing it here or repeating myself to you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> This 'envy' claim really is the most pathetic and puerile argument.
> 
> If you don't like something that's become the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions in the last decade and is emitting an average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle, then it's all down to 'envy.'


From 2007 - 2017, car emissions dropped by 32%.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

andysays said:


> Without wishing to divert this thread, I'm starting to think that this forced ignore thing doesn't really work when one of those it's supposed to apply to is a moderator.


The only alternative is to permanently ban the poster then (like every other board and FB group I've even known would have done a long time ago). The measure is actually there to_ stop_ people being kicked off the board forever but if they can't stop themselves breaking those rules, they can hardly complain when they get punished.

And let's remember this particular poster has gleefully boasted in the past he he likes to keep pushing his luck and staying one pisstake post short of a ban, but he got unlucky this time.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> From 2007 - 2017, car emissions dropped by 32%.


And SUVs are undoing those advances. Didn't you read the article?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> And SUVs are undoing those advances. Didn't you read the article?


Large SUVs are. The smaller ones arent.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Large SUVs are. The smaller ones arent.


Nope. Even the 'smaller' ones heavier, taller, less fuel efficient and more polluting than directly comparable smaller cars because a SUV is, by just about any normal definition you want to come up with - bigger than it's non-SUV counterpart.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Nope. Even the 'smaller' ones heavier, taller, less fuel efficient and more polluting than directly comparable smaller cars because a SUV is, by just about any normal definition you want to come up with - bigger than it's non-SUV counterpart.


How do you directly compare a big car with a small car? They're not the same. It's like saying let's compare an average car to a tuk tuk


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> How do you directly compare a big car with a small car? They're not the same. It's like saying let's compare an average car to a tuk tuk



You've already made a direct comparison between them by framing this question in the first place.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

The ones like I mentioned that can do short distances using an electric motor only are surely better than a smaller petrol car


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> The ones like I mentioned that can do short distances using an electric motor only are surely better than a smaller petrol car



And an SUV that's not on fire emits less noxious fumes than a hybrid hatchback that is on fire.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> How do you directly compare a big car with a small car? They're not the same. It's like saying let's compare an average car to a tuk tuk


I said 'smaller' not 'small.'  Are you really going to argue that increasing size of vehicles mainly in the name of fashion and comfort is not a bad thing when we're hurtling towards a climate catastrophe? 

They're emitting an average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle. You OK with that?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

Fashion, comfort and SAFETY.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> The ones like I mentioned that can do short distances using an electric motor only are surely better than a smaller petrol car


Of course, but electric cars are burning up resources. We need an almighty shift away from private car ownership of any kind to  walking, cycling, electric bikes/scooters, green public transport etc etc.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Fashion, comfort and SAFETY.


Not so much if you're a pedestrian and not much extra SAFETY when you're only driving around in 20mph city zones, I fancy.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Of course, but electric cars are burning up resources. We need an almighty shift away from private car ownership of any kind to  walking, cycling, electric bikes/scooters, green public transport etc etc.


Sure, but that's not happening outside of cities. I couldn't bike or walk to work and the only public transport home is a big old bus which is utterly impractical for three people often carrying a lot of work stuff.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> They're emitting an average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle. You OK with that?


Which vehicles were used to arrive at this 85% figure?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Not so much if you're a pedestrian and not much extra SAFETY when you're only driving around in 20mph city zones, I fancy.


Not everyone lives in a city. 
Changes in laws mean vehicles are required to have more safety things implemented which have to go somewhere. These being present doesn't make a difference how fast a vehicle is going, or where.


----------



## andysays (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> The only alternative is to permanently ban the poster then (like every other board and FB group I've even known would have done a long time ago). The measure is actually there to_ stop_ people being kicked off the board forever but if they can't stop themselves breaking those rules, they can hardly complain when they get punished.
> 
> And let's remember this particular poster has gleefully boasted in the past he he likes to keep pushing his luck and staying one pisstake post short of a ban, but he got unlucky this time.



Thanks for your reply. I'm going to respond here and then I'll leave it.

I accept and agree with most of what you're saying, but I still think that when forced ignore leads to someone (anyone) being banned in this way, it's pretty much inevitable that you are going to appear as the villain, even if you're not.

If Spymaster (or anyone) genuinely needs a temp or a thread ban because of something you can point to that they've done, it would be far better to do that than because of some convoluted system where they've accumulated warning points by breaking some obscure rule where the two of you are not supposed to reply or refer to each other.

Forced Ignore might have seemed like a good idea, and an answer to a particular problem which genuinely exists, but I really don't think it's working.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Fashion, comfort and SAFETY.



Whose safety?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whose safety?


You obviously know the answer to this.
My point is that it's not a vehicle owner's fault if a car has to be bigger or safer if the law demands they be made so. You can't opt out of it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> You obviously know the answer to this.
> My point is that it's not a vehicle owner's fault if a car has to be bigger or safer if the law demands they be made so. You can't opt out of it.



All new cars have safety requirements. Being the size of a small tank is not one of them.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Which vehicles were used to arrive at this 85% figure?


I've already provided the link to the research.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> You obviously know the answer to this.
> My point is that it's not a vehicle owner's fault if a car has to be bigger or safer if the law demands they be made so. You can't opt out of it.


Where does the law demand that SUVs have to be made?


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

This report on the test faking by manufacturers is absolutely shocking and proves that their environmental claims should rarely be taken at face value. 



> New car CO2 regulations have delivered only about a 10% reduction in on-road emissions in the 20 years since the first Voluntary Agreement was established in 1998; and there has been effectively no improvement in the last five years. In spite of this, all carmakers achieved their 2015 new car CO2 targets and most are on track to achieve 2020/1 goals.
> 
> This has been achieved in very large part by exploiting the flexibilities in the testing procedure which has meant the gap between test results and real-world performance has grown from 9% to 42%, equivalent to 31gCO2/km of fake savings





> SUV sales have rocketed from 4% in 2001 to 26% in 2016, and the average SUV has emissions of 132gCO2/km compared to 118gCO2/km for a medium segment car. The increase in the average weight of new cars by 124kg from
> 2000 to 2016 has helped to bring about a rise in average emissions of around 10g/km.
> 
> The power of new cars has also increased sharply by 28%, increasing fuel consumption and emissions.
> ...





			https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2018_04_CO2_emissions_cars_The_facts_report_final_0_0.pdf


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Where does the law demand that SUVs have to be made?


It doesn't, but a certain size car (interior) now will have to go in a bigger body. There's undoubtedly a fashion thing going on and SUVs are heavily marketed but to listen to some of the arguments on here it's as simple as "selfish people who want to see the planet die and are happy to kill pedestrians while they wait"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> ...to listen to some of the arguments on here it's as simple as "selfish people who want to see the planet die and are happy to kill pedestrians while they wait"



I'm sure there are pros to SUVs, but they only apply to the people inside them. Everyone outside the car has to just take all the cons and lump it. You're making an individualist case, because that's the only case that can be made.


----------



## maomao (Aug 5, 2020)

Hmmm. I reckon a higher sitting position might have benefits to other road users. On a bike I always felt like drivers were down there by my knees and couldn't really see anything. Though maybe all the cars being taller too stops any advantage. Hard to tell.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> I've already provided the link to the research.


There's no mention of the vehicles used. It merely states a large car vs a small car. That could be a Nissan Micra vs a Rolls Royce, in which case the 85% figure is no surprise, I thought it would be much higher.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

maomao said:


> Hmmm. I reckon a higher sitting position might have benefits to other road users. On a bike I always felt like drivers were down there by my knees and couldn't really see anything. Though maybe all the cars being taller too stops any advantage. Hard to tell.



Being higher up makes it harder to see what's directly in front of you, which is a particular problem if like most SUV drivers the most intensive 'off road' activity you ever use it for is mounting pavements outside primary schools.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's no mention of the vehicles used. It merely states a large car vs a small car. That could be a Nissan Micra vs a Rolls Royce, in which case the 85% figure is no surprise, I thought it would be much higher.


I think the word 'average' may be the one you're looking for but seeing as it's been established that SUV manufacturers routinely fake their emission levels, it's probably safe to assume they're even more polluting that anyone thought.

That puts them on a par with the evil tobacco industry in my book.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Being higher up makes it harder to see what's directly in front of you.


No, it doesn't.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> I think the word 'average' may be the one you're looking for but seeing as it's s been established that SUV manufacturers routinely fake their emission levels, it's probably safe to assume they;re even more polluting that anyone thought.


There was no mention of average, it merely states small vs large. And if we're talking about an average SUV vs an average car, the that figure is nonsense, because an average SUV is an average car but shaped differently and maybe slightly higher from the ground.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> There was no mention of average, it merely states small vs large. And if we're talking about an average SUV vs an average car, the that figure is nonsense, because an average SUV is an average car but shaped differently and maybe slightly higher from the ground.


Here. try again. I've made it nice and big for you:

A large car emits on average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle, according to figures from the UK government. 









						How our daily travel harms the planet
					

Private transport is one of the world’s biggest sources of greenhouse gases, with emissions rising year on year. It means the way you travel to work matters more than you think.




					www.bbc.com
				




Of course, now its been established that SUV manufacturers cheat and fiddle the numbers anyway, it's almost certainly far higher.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

FFS:



> Volvo denied cheating after German environmentalists claimed their investigation showed that Volvo SUVs released up to 12 times the amount of nitrogen oxides allowed in the EU.
> 
> The similarities to "dieselgate" in 2015 are striking considering that DUH claims to have discovered an illegal measuring device in the car.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Here. try again. I've made it nice and big for you:
> 
> A large car emits on average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle, according to figures from the UK government.
> 
> ...


I think you're mistaking 'an average large car' with how much CO2, on average, that large car emits.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think you're mistaking 'an average large car' with how much CO2, on average, that large car emits.


Off you go to prove your case, then. But the real figures for Volvo above are shocking enough.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Here's the size of the problem 













						CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures (infographics) | News | European Parliament
					

Ever wondered how much CO2 is emitted by cars or whether electric vehicles really are a cleaner alternative? Check out our infographics to find out.



					www.europarl.europa.eu


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> The only alternative is to permanently ban the poster then (like every other board and FB group I've even known would have done a long time ago). The measure is actually there to_ stop_ people being kicked off the board forever but if they can't stop themselves breaking those rules, they can hardly complain when they get punished.
> 
> And let's remember this particular poster has gleefully boasted in the past he he likes to keep pushing his luck and staying one pisstake post short of a ban, but he got unlucky this time.


Given that you're the other part of the mutual ignore you're probably not going to be 100% objective. In these cases it might be best left to other mods? 

From your own post linked to earlier:


> This means that that those put on mutual ignore DO NOT_ respond, quote, comment or make any reference the other person in their posts_, and continuing to do so will result in a warning, eventually leading to an automatic temp ban if they accrue enough warning posts.


I hope you've given yourself some warning points as well


----------



## ska invita (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Cunting about town in an armoured personnel carrier is not.


But I've got a buggy


----------



## ska invita (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Here's the size of the problem
> 
> View attachment 225134
> 
> ...


Id like to see planes on there


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm sure there are pros to SUVs, but they only apply to the people inside them. Everyone outside the car has to just take all the cons and lump it. You're making an individualist case, because that's the only case that can be made.



Same with trains, buses, houses etc...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Same with trains, buses, houses etc...


It's not even remotely true with trains or buses.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

neonwilderness said:


> Given that you're the other part of the mutual ignore you're probably not going to be 100% objective. In these cases it might be best left to other mods?


He knows full well that he can not respond, mention or reference any of my posts, but he continues to do so on a pretty much daily basis.

There's plenty of other recent posts he could have got another warning for -  I generally ignore them - but there comes a point where someone is simply taking the fucking piss.

So he got another warning which tipped him into a ban. If he doesn't want to get any more warnings, the solution is really, really simple. Shut the fuck up with the endless rule breaking personal digs. There's plenty of other things to talk about here, after all.

And yes, I may not be 100% objective on every decision but this one is pretty clear cut.  I'm absolutely fucking fed up with his childish antics.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Here. try again. I've made it nice and big for you:
> 
> A large car emits on average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle, according to figures from the UK government.
> 
> ...



If CO2 emissions are what you object to, why not be against cars that emit high CO2, including massive saloons, and old hatchbacks with inefficient engines etc? Why go blindly after SUVs, some proportion of which will be more efficient than most cars on the road?

I suggested earlier in the thread about restoring the link between annual car tax rates and CO2 emissions, to replace the flat rate that was introduced in 2018. Surely measures like this will achieve more against climate change than fixating on size and shape?


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If CO2 emissions are what you object to, why not be against cars that emit high CO2, including massive saloons, and old hatchbacks with inefficient engines etc? Why go blindly after SUVs, some proportion of which will be more efficient than most cars on the road?
> 
> I suggested earlier in the thread about restoring the link between annual car tax rates and CO2 emissions, to replace the flat rate that was introduced in 2018. Surely measures like this will achieve more against climate change than fixating on size and shape?


Maybe because they're the fastest growing market segment by a country mile, they're more noticeable because of their ungainly bulk, weight and height, they're far more polluting than smaller new cars and now it's also been proven that the manufacturers are lying through their fucking teeth about just how bad they are, so the problem is even bigger than originally thought.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Maybe because they're the fastest growing market segment by a country mile, they're more noticeable because of their ungainly bulk, weight and height, they're far more polluting than smaller new cars and now it's also been proven that the manufacturers are lying through their fucking teeth about just how bad they are, so the problem is even bigger than originally thought.



A new Toyota Rav4, a noticably bulky and popular SUV: *width 1855mm, efficiency 49.5 mpg*



A new Kia Rio, an unassuming and basic hatchback : *width 1993mm, efficiency 46.3 mpg*


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> A new Toyota Rav4, a noticably bulky and popular SUV: *width 1855mm, efficiency 49.5 mpg*
> 
> View attachment 225155
> 
> ...


We're talking abut the entire SUV segment, not one or two individual cars, neither of which I would describe as being particularly small anyway. But if you like, I could fill this page with plenty of monster SUVs to underline the fact that the trend is for larger cars.

Six and a half wide is hardly what I'd describe as narrow - twenty years ago these kinds of cars would be under a foot less wide.  Why do you think its a good idea for cars to keep growing in size and weight and power when there's a climate emergency going on?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> We're talking abut the entire SUV segment, not one or two individual cars, neither of which I would describe as being particularly small anyway. But if you like, I could fill this page with plenty of monster SUVs to underline the fact that the trend is for larger cars.
> 
> Six and a half wide is hardly what I'd describe as narrow - twenty years ago these kinds of cars would be under a foot less wide.  Why do you think its a good idea for cars to keep growing in size and weight and power when there's a climate emergency going on?



Partly safety, with 1500+ fewer people dying on the roads each year, and partly because that’s what people want, like those ever bigger phones with colour screens that are being churned out these days causing their own environmental problems.

But since SUVs can be super efficient and even fully electric, why not focus on that aspect?


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 5, 2020)

Maybe a bit of history puts this thing in context better?

SUVs developed in the US when emissions standards were brought in for cars in some states (possibly in the 90s but maybe later). ‘Sports Utility Vehicles’ fell under the category of ‘truck’ which was not covered by the emissions law, so presented a loophole for assholes that wanted to carry on polluting. At the time, most vehicles in this class were more like a Land Rover Defender, but they developed more car-like features, until we are where we are now with crossovers and so on such that a thread like this has people spending the most time arguing over what the definition of one is, so fuzzy is the boundary now. I suspect somewhere there was a more precise definition when the original emissions reg busting versions appeared, but that’s lost to history.

Anyhow, it’s a vehicle type born out of reactionary attitudes, hence the historic hostility from more progressive types. Plus it’s blindly adopting trends/fashion from the US which is kind of tedious (although you could argue it started here with the Range Rover as the first ‘car type’ high 4x4).


----------



## nogojones (Aug 5, 2020)

And I was just about to congratulate Spymaster on making it to 15 pages on here. My original bet was under five pages before his freedom was revoked


----------



## Thora (Aug 5, 2020)

I’m not really a car person, but we need a new car and I have been looking at what I guess are “crossovers”.
I think they are popular with families as it is hard to find cars that fit three car seats in the back.


----------



## bimble (Aug 5, 2020)

I feel a bit defensive of my jimny. It’s apparently an suv because it has four wheel drive (which is a very  helpful thing if you live down the track I live down) but it’s really slow and really small, quite a lot smaller  than a fiat 500. So maybe it would be better to use size as the criteria for deciding which cars to hate the most ?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> For fuck's sake. Unless they have some vaguely justifiable reason for buying these ridiculous polluting status symbols, they should tax the fuck out of them.  People driving them around crowded city streets should be made to feel as uncomfortable as people wearing fur.
> 
> 
> View attachment 224832
> ...



agree 100 %.....  it felt like it might just shift that way a bit a decade or more back,  SUV dealerships getting burnt in the US etc, some 
hostility over here ...now they're everywhere, 1000's of them pouring down here  ( Devon ) for summer,  and the data confirms again that they're still a menace ( ie : no technological mitigation  developed over last decade + ) .... we need some of that hostility back


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

We don’t need hostility against SUV drivers any more than we need hostility against people who don’t wear masks for what may be genuine, legal reasons.

My SUV is cleaner and more efficient than most cars on the road, and I use it to transport my mum around who can’t get in or out of a normal car.

The last thing I need when going about my daily life is to be on tenterhooks about people thinking “look at that cunt in their evil SUV” or taking direct action ffs grow up and lobby your MP about VED rates or something.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

Dogsauce said:


> Maybe a bit of history puts this thing in context better?
> 
> SUVs developed in the US when emissions standards were brought in for cars in some states (possibly in the 90s but maybe later). ‘Sports Utility Vehicles’ fell under the category of ‘truck’ which was not covered by the emissions law, so presented a loophole for assholes that wanted to carry on polluting. At the time, most vehicles in this class were more like a Land Rover Defender, but they developed more car-like features, until we are where we are now with crossovers and so on such that a thread like this has people spending the most time arguing over what the definition of one is, so fuzzy is the boundary now. I suspect somewhere there was a more precise definition when the original emissions reg busting versions appeared, but that’s lost to history.
> 
> Anyhow, it’s a vehicle type born out of reactionary attitudes, hence the historic hostility from more progressive types. Plus it’s blindly adopting trends/fashion from the US which is kind of tedious (although you could argue it started here with the Range Rover as the first ‘car type’ high 4x4).


Some of this isn't exactly true - the US standards are lower for large vehicles compared to cars, and this includes SUVs, but they are not exempt, and it's still true now - but also I'm not sure that modern SUVs really fit right into this history.

American SUVs derived from more serious 4x4s which roughly originates with the WWII Jeep and also has some relationship with 'wagons' (estates).

So things like this (Ford Explorer, 1991) were popular in the early 90s:



Unlike a Land Rover, more family than agricultural, and unlike a Range Rover, not really glamorous or aspirational either. But they weren't the majority. In fact it was only in 2015 that, in the USA, SUVs plus trucks outsold normal cars.

Lots of reasons. Cars have become far more global than they used to be, so an underlying platform or better a complete product that suits tastes in North America _and _Europe is attractive to manufacturers, rather than letting the US alone have its weird vehicles, so we are encouraged to buy them, other products that fall outside this like estates or small cars are deprecated, and the normalisation/ubiquity of SUVs is then self-fulfilling. Additionally crossovers are easy to make out of normal passenger cars. Cars have become more white goods and have different values attached to them than they used to, so we don't care too much about cars that are ugly by traditional standards. Remember that at least in UK advertising terms talking about performance is basically forbidden so you have to talk about lifestyle and utility. And the utility of SUVs or crossovers is genuinely appreciated, particularly being able to load children into them, and partly as a result of the arms race they're considered safe.

If you wanted to suppress the trend then you'd start levying taxation by weight or dimensions but noone is interested in this for the reasons above.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

editor - genuine question - if you didn't live in a city with one of the best transport infrastructures in the world and had two or more children, what would you drive?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 5, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> _Like driving a van._




That van sounds like it’s fucked.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> editor - genuine question - if you didn't live in a city with one of the best transport infrastructures in the world and had two or more children, what would you drive?



Won't somebody think of the children?

Not the children outside the car though. Fuck them.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Won't somebody think of the children?
> 
> Not the children outside the car though. Fuck them.



SUV owners with actual children do allow them to cross roads and use bicycles. You seem to have a distorted view of the world and a weird attitude to risk.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Won't somebody think of the children?
> 
> Not the children outside the car though. Fuck them.


Still conferrin' with the flowers Frank


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

Loads more passengers and drivers die in car accidents than pedestrians anyway, so making cars safer seems a good plan if you cared about humans rather than just ones you've arbitrarily decided are worth more than others


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Loads more passengers die in car accidents than pedestrians anyway, so making cars safer seems a good plan if you cared about humans rather than just ones you've arbitrarily decided are worth more than others


If you mean passengers as distinct from drivers, then this isn't true in the UK. If you mean car occupants, it's only about 1.6 times more fatalities for them than pedestrians.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

mauvais said:


> If you mean passengers as distinct from drivers, then this isn't true in the UK. If you mean car occupants, it's only about 1.6 times more fatalities for them than pedestrians.


Yeah, I missed "and drivers" from my original post, have amended now. Still more people innit.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Yeah, I missed "and drivers" from my original post, have amended now. Still more people innit.


It is, but this is mostly due to the average age of cars. There are popular models of cars on sale now, that have been on sale for some time, that noone has ever been killed in. It's possible that we'll arrive at zero occupant deaths at some point. So what you're talking about has already happened.


----------



## Thora (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Won't somebody think of the children?
> 
> Not the children outside the car though. Fuck them.


My children are pedestrians more often than car occupants, so it isn't either/or.  But one of the issues with family cars is they need to be wider as car seats are wide.  By the time I was 10 I was squeezed in a middle seat with a lap belt but my 10 year old is in a high backed booster seat that needs a full sized seat with a three point harness to sit on.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Loads more passengers and drivers die in car accidents than pedestrians anyway, so making cars safer seems a good plan if you cared about humans rather than just ones you've arbitrarily decided are worth more than others



And excess deaths from air pollution?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Yeah, I missed "and drivers" from my original post, have amended now. Still more people innit.


Not loads more, though. Very, very far from it. A ratio of 2:3 is really very even. 

And given that it isn't a clear-cut case of either/or, it's a rubbish argument to make all round.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> And excess deaths from air pollution?



Renault Clio - 42 mpg







vs

Peugeot 3008 - 47.2 mpg






Both are petrol engines, but if you opt the hybrid version of the Peugeot 3008, you can allegedly achieve 235.4mpg.
So stop with this 'SUV big. Big bad.' nonsense.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 5, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not loads more, though. Very, very far from it. A ratio of 2:3 is really very even.
> 
> And given that it isn't a clear-cut case of either/or, it's a rubbish argument to make all round.


Was only responding to the emotional nuance free load of toss I was bowled


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

MPG ain't air pollution either, FWIW, although there is a relationship.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

S☼I said:


> editor - genuine question - if you didn't live in a city with one of the best transport infrastructures in the world and had two or more children, what would you drive?


I'd get the smallest, most efficient, least polluting practical vehicle I could afford. 

And just to be clear: I've absolutely no problem with people buying cars that suit their needs if that's the only practical option available to them. Cars can be useful - no, vital - things for people living in remote areas.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Renault Clio - 42 mpg
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But if it was smaller and lighter it would be far more efficient. You understand, that, yes?


And as for the Peugeot 3008:




> And we also ought to apply real-world thinking to projections of likely fuel economy because the fantasy-land official combined WLTP figures (up to 222.3mpg for the Hybrid and up to 235.4mpg for the Hybrid4) clearly aren't likely to be replicated by the average owner.
> 
> As a feather-foot, we suppose 80-90mpg might theoretically be possible but your realistic average is going to be much less than that - and certainly less than you'd get from the equivalent diesel model.
> 
> Rely on the petrol engine alone and you'd struggle to average 35mpg. You might have noticed from this that the 4WD version is more efficient - and that holds true for WLTP emissions - rated at up to 39g/km for the Hybrid4 and up to 41g/km for the Hybrid.





> . But things are rather blunted, as is usual with this class of car, by a somewhat prodigious kerb weight. The plug-in powertrain adds a substantial 360kgs over the weight of a 2.0 diesel 3008; or around half a tonne over a base petrol version. That's an awful lot of extra bulk to carry around and even with 520Nm of pulling power on tap, you feel that from behind the wheel, especially if you try and chuck this car about in the kind of manner a typical owner never would. You get four driving modes, with the one you'll be using most of the time being the 'Hybrid' setting that chooses the best mix of electric and petrol propulsion to suit the driving style whilst optimising efficiency.





			https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/car-reviews/peugeot/3008/3008-hybrid/
		


...and it looks like they're not going to be around for long anyway 



> Plug-in Hybrid technology may turn out to be one of the more short-lived of the motor industry's propulsion options. The first plug-in hybrids didn't arrive until around 2015 and there's talk of future legislation banning them by 2035


----------



## Thora (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> I'd get the smallest, most efficient, least polluting practical vehicle I could afford.


This is exactly what I want - and if anyone can suggest a cheap, efficient vehicle with 5-7 full seats and a big boot please do


----------



## Athos (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> I'd get the smallest, most efficient, least polluting practical vehicle I could afford.



Those attributes may not align.  If you had to pick one, would you choose a smaller hatchback with bigger emissions, or a larger SUV with smaller emissions?


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> Those attributes may not align.  If you had to pick one, would you choose a smaller hatchback with bigger emissions, or a larger SUV with smaller emissions?


Like I said,  I'd get the smallest, most efficient, least polluting practical vehicle I could afford, so why would I want the added bulk and weight of a fashionable SUV?


----------



## Athos (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Like I said,  I'd get the smallest, most efficient, least polluting practical vehicle I could afford, so why would I want the added bulk and weight of a fashionable SUV?



The smallest might not be the least polluting.  So, which of those criteria would you prioritise?  Would you go for a low emission hybrid SUV over a smaller petrol car with higher emissions?


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> The smallest might not be the least polluting.  So, which of those criteria would you prioritise?  Would you go for a low emission hybrid SUV over a smaller petrol car with higher emissions?


I'm not really interested in this whataboutery, sorry.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> But if it was smaller and lighter it would be far more efficient. You understand, that, yes?


Which, the Clio? It's one of the smallest cars you can get.



editor said:


> And as for the Peugeot 3008:





			https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/car-reviews/peugeot/3008/3008-hybrid/
		




> And we also ought to apply real-world thinking to projections of likely fuel economy because the fantasy-land official combined WLTP figures (up to 222.3mpg for the Hybrid and up to 235.4mpg for the Hybrid4) clearly aren't likely to be replicated by the average owner.
> As a feather-foot, we suppose 80-90mpg might theoretically be possible but your realistic average is going to be much less than that - and certainly less than you'd get from the equivalent diesel model.
> Rely on the petrol engine alone and you'd struggle to average 35mpg. You might have noticed from this that the 4WD version is more efficient - and that holds true for WLTP emissions - rated at up to 39g/km for the Hybrid4 and up to 41g/km for the Hybrid.
> 
> But things are rather blunted, as is usual with this class of car, by a somewhat prodigious kerb weight. The plug-in powertrain adds a substantial 360kgs over the weight of a 2.0 diesel 3008; or around half a tonne over a base petrol version. That's an awful lot of extra bulk to carry around and even with 520Nm of pulling power on tap, you feel that from behind the wheel, especially if you try and chuck this car about in the kind of manner a typical owner never would. You get four driving modes, with the one you'll be using most of the time being the 'Hybrid' setting that chooses the best mix of electric and petrol propulsion to suit the driving style whilst optimising efficiency.




That's why I said allegedly, and why I was only comparing the petrol versions.


----------



## Athos (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> I'm not really interested in this whataboutery, sorry.


Lol.  It's not whataboutery - it goes to the heart of the weakness of your 'argument' i.e. that you're using a particular body style as a proxy for emissions, which it isn't.  Which is why you can't answer.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 5, 2020)

Watching SUV and their relatives using British roads, carparks, etc is like watching overweight adults trying to use child desks - whose idea was it to make vehicles about 50% bigger without enlarging the country by a similar proportion?


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Partly safety, with 1500+ fewer people dying on the roads each year, and partly because that’s what people want, like those ever bigger phones with colour screens that are being churned out these days causing their own environmental problems.
> 
> But since SUVs can be super efficient and even fully electric, why not focus on that aspect?



Another plus for SUV’s is being better able to handle many of the UK’s pothole ridden roads - not to mention ever increasing in size and volume of speed bumps that the council have every 100 yards in some places.  I’ve come across some speed bumps that are so large that you have to virtually come to a complete stop before taking on - and that’s in a van, can’t imagine how potentially suspension destroying it would be in a little titchy car.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> We don’t need hostility against SUV drivers any more than we need hostility against people who don’t wear masks for what may be genuine, legal reasons.
> 
> My SUV is cleaner and more efficient than most cars on the road, and I use it to transport my mum around who can’t get in or out of a normal car.
> 
> The last thing I need when going about my daily life is to be on tenterhooks about people thinking “look at that cunt in their evil SUV” or taking direct action ffs grow up and lobby your MP about VED rates or something.



you'll see I mentioned ' SUV Dealerships', and was thinking more along lines of  pressure on corporations / businesses /  govt bodies etc...wld always make exceptions for narcissistic keyboard muppets given the chance tho eh


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

cantsin said:


> you'll see I mentioned ' SUV Dealerships', and was thinking more along lines of  pressure on corporations / businesses /  govt bodies etc...wld always make exceptions for narcissistic keyboard muppets given the chance tho eh



Again, why not focus on pollution and harm, rather than shape? SUVs are far more practical for many people than estate cars, which are generally equally heavy and similarly powered. When was the campaign against estate cars or did I miss that one?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2020)

cantsin said:


> you'll see I mentioned ' SUV Dealerships', and was thinking more along lines of  pressure on corporations / businesses /  govt bodies etc...wld always make exceptions for narcissistic keyboard muppets given the chance tho eh



What are SUV dealerships?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> *Another plus for SUV’s is being better able to handle many of the UK’s pothole ridden roads - not to mention ever increasing in size and volume of speed bumps that the council have every 100 yards in some places.*  I’ve come across some speed bumps that are so large that you have to virtually come to a complete stop before taking on - and that’s in a van, can’t imagine how potentially suspension destroying it would be in a little titchy car.



yr actually serious ?


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What are SUV dealerships?



not actually sure what you're getting at here ?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

The irony is that threads like this are definitely one of the reasons people buy SUVs, when they realise how safe they are and how they're not actually the 'gas-guzzling' monsters they maybe thought they were. I'd never have considered buying one if it wasn't for this thread.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2020)

cantsin said:


> not actually sure what you're getting at here ?



Dealerships tend to sell one brand, Audi, Mazda etc. Burn down the Audi dealership cos SQ7 and you stop them selling the A1. Very few manufacturers make only what people think of as SUVs.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> The irony is that threads like this are definitely one of the reasons people buy SUVs, when they realise how safe they are and how they're not actually the 'gas-guzzling' monsters they maybe thought they were. I'd never have considered buying one if it wasn't for this thread.



The other irony is that when a poster who can not be named suffers a temp ban he fills his time by dusting off a 3ltr Beemer and hooning around the British countryside. Zero fucks given to the environment with the banning.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> The irony is that threads like this are definitely one of the reasons people buy SUVs, when they realise how safe they are and how they're not actually the 'gas-guzzling' monsters they maybe thought they were. I'd never have considered buying one if it wasn't for this thread.



damn, of couse, threads like this are DEFINITELY one of the reasons people spend £40 K + on SUV's, . should have thought of that ...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

cantsin said:


> damn, of couse, threads like this are DEFINITELY one of the reasons people spend £40 K + on SUV's, . should have thought of that ...


Shit, I didn't realise they were all 40-50 grand. There go my dreams of buying a second hand one for a few grand. I'm glad you warned me.

Edit: Phew... I just realised you're wrong, and my dreams are intact. What a relief.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Dealerships tend to sell one brand, Audi, Mazda etc. Burn down the Audi dealership cos SQ7 and you stop them selling the A1. Very few manufacturers make only what people think of as SUVs.



a - 3 secs of Google search / 2nd result, suggests other wise : Europe's largest used 4x4 & luxury car dealership | Saxton 4x4
b - I was talking about Earth First etc actions 15 + ago, and the way the radical opposition to SUV's faded so quickly  afterwards ( don't imagine Earth First perps getting 20 yr stretches (IIRC) would have helped on the ' burn a dealership ' front  either - the system came down hard, so big dawgs like Saul G cld be free to follow their dreams)


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

cantsin said:


> damn, of couse, threads like this are DEFINITELY one of the reasons people spend £40 K + on SUV's, . should have thought of that ...



Studies have shown that the majority of car buyers are actually influenced by social media and things like this thread that they read on the internet.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Shit, I didn't realise they were all 40-50 grand. There go my dreams of buying a second hand one for a few grand. I'm glad you warned me.
> 
> Edit: Phew... I just realised you're wrong, and my dreams are intact. What a relief.



jeez, just remembering you were the one whingeing endlessly  about us having isolated / locals only surfs the last time I was here.....go away, plse, it wasn't meant to be, you and me


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2020)

cantsin said:


> a - 3 secs of Google search / 2nd result, suggests other wise : Europe's largest used 4x4 & luxury car dealership | Saxton 4x4
> b - I was talking about Earth First etc actions 15 + ago, and the way the radical opposition to SUV's faded so quickly  afterwards ( don't imagine Earth First perps getting 20 yr stretches (IIRC) wouldn't have helped on the ' burn a dealership ' front )



VW Golf, Ford Focus and Tesla’s for sale there. Burn the fucking lot of ‘em, Guardian reader motors.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 5, 2020)

Just to reiterate, I know editor already linked to this but seems people want to ignore how specifically bad SUVs are for the environment. 

SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal









						SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
					

If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions




					www.theguardian.com
				






' “An SUV is bigger, it’s heavier, the aerodynamics are poor, so as a result you get more CO2,” said Florent Grelier from the campaign group Transport & Environment. '


----------



## xenon (Aug 5, 2020)

We can still hate on the Chelsea tractor urban dwelling wankers though yeah? I mean not about the environment but just because they are obvious braying obnoxious posh gentrifying pricks.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 5, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> Just to reiterate, I know editor already linked to this but seems people want to ignore how specifically bad SUVs are for the environment.
> 
> SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
> 
> ...



yeah, but potholes, and Sauly G's dreams, and that wazzocks mum...


----------



## xenon (Aug 5, 2020)

They all have three children and an elderly mum to take shopping, I expect.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

cantsin said:


> You just made me look like a fool, so I'm refusing to engage further.


FFY.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> Just to reiterate, I know editor already linked to this but seems people want to ignore how specifically bad SUVs are for the environment.
> 
> SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
> 
> ...



As has been repeatedly stated the "SUV" category is hopeless for emissions-targeting purposes. You may as well target blue cars as causing more pollution than red ones.

If pollution is your concern try focusing on actual measures of pollution, like I don't know, pollution?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> Just to reiterate, I know editor already linked to this but seems people want to ignore how specifically bad SUVs are for the environment.
> 
> SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
> 
> ...


This graph is basically bollocks. I mean, it's probably true, but it doesn't show what you think it does or what anyone would take it to mean at first glance.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 5, 2020)

Old Slabs are cheap to buy. Most London dwellers buying suv slabs never go anywhere


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This graph is basically bollocks. I mean, it's probably true, but it doesn't show what you think it does or what anyone would take it to mean at first glance.


At first glance, despite the nasty, evil red bar, I assumed it meant more people are buying SUVs. Obviously, some people fall for the clickbait, but we're not all blessed with the power of rational thought.
Who would have thunk that going from a time when hardly anyone owned an SUV to a time where lots of people own them, would result in an increase in emissions from SUVs... 
It's amazing what you can do with statistics. You just have to find people gullible enough to not examine them, and if the graphs suit their agenda, all the better.


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> As has been repeatedly stated the "SUV" category is hopeless for emissions-targeting purposes. You may as well target blue cars as causing more pollution than red ones.
> 
> If pollution is your concern try focusing on actual measures of pollution, like I don't know, pollution?



The study measured MtCO2 produced. How would you like to measure pollution?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

xenon said:


> They all have three children and an elderly mum to take shopping, I expect.



Before SUVs surplus kids and the old were just left in the woods to die. There was simply no other option.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> The study measured MtCO2 produced. How would you like to measure pollution?



Id like to target it while disregarding vehicle shape.


----------



## Athos (Aug 5, 2020)

Thora said:


> This is exactly what I want - and if anyone can suggest a cheap, efficient vehicle with 5-7 full seats and a big boot please do



A Volvo XC90 has 7 seats and a big boot, and, being a hybrid, has low emissions and good fuel economy. And it's the safest car on the road (for occupants).  You can pick up a three year old second-hand one for under £30k.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Before SUVs surplus kids and the old were just left in the woods to die. There was simply no other option.



People literally had nowhere to put all the shit they didn't start keeping in their cars until they got big cars - they'd just be walking around everywhere with their arms full of sports equipment or whatever.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> At first glance, despite the nasty, evil red bar, I assumed it meant more people are buying SUVs. Obviously, some people fall for the clickbait, but we're not all blessed with the power of rational thought.
> Who would have thunk that going from a time when hardly anyone owned an SUV to a time where lots of people own them, would result in an increase in emissions from SUVs...


It's mainly that, but it also gives no idea of what might have happened without them. 'Other cars' has declined and we are left to surmise that aside from SUVs the car industry has been cleaning up its act. Well no, it's transferred to SUVs and the reason non-SUVs hasn't gone in the opposite direction by an almost equal amount is that overall car volumes are still increasing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

Yossarian said:


> People literally had nowhere to put all the shit they didn't start keeping in their cars until they got big cars - they'd just be walking around everywhere with their arms full of sports equipment or whatever.



I had to keep my skis on my feet at all times. It made getting through revolving doors a colossal ballache.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

Anyway just to balance out that accidentally supportive response to yet more objectionable bad science, I need to make clear that SUVs are shit cars for wanker libertarians and they should be destroyed.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Before SUVs surplus kids and the old were just left in the woods to die. There was simply no other option.



After SUVs all the children found walking on pavements are regularly rounded up and summarily executed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> A Volvo XC90 has 7 seats and a big boot, and, being a hybrid, has low emissions and good fuel economy. And *it's the safest car on the road (for occupants)*.  You can pick up a three year old second-hand one for under £30k.


And for pedestrians?

This is why the 'Chelsea Tractor' really should be called the 'Chelsea Tank'. In the case of SUVs, that safety for occupants comes at the expense of others. If you were to plough down the street in a tank, you'd be pretty safe inside, too. It's the ultimate thatcherite sentiment to think of safety only in terms of yourself and your family at this point in time and  space that you have some control over.


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 5, 2020)

Christ, urbans arguing the merits of SUVs and that you can get a s/h one for under 30k.

This place really does feel like an unrecognisable parallel world. Or praps I just never noticed this side of it before.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And for pedestrians?



If they really cared about their own safety they too would be in a seven-seater Volvo.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And for pedestrians?
> 
> This is why the 'Chelsea Tractor' really should be called the 'Chelsea Tank'. That safety for occupants comes at the expense of others. If you were to plough down the street in a tank, you'd be pretty safe inside, too.



Pedestrian safety is a function of the pedestrian safety systems and front end pedestrian impact mitigation. SUVs often do better than smaller cars on this because extra measures are needed to counteract the higher front end.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrian safety is a function of the pedestrian safety systems and front end pedestrian impact mitigation. SUVs often do better than smaller cars on this because extra measures are needed to counteract the higher front end.


Show me the robust research demonstrating this. Not SUV manufacturer sales pitches. Research.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrian safety is a function of the pedestrian safety systems and front end pedestrian impact mitigation. SUVs often do better than smaller cars on this because extra measures are needed to counteract the higher front end.


Ah good, some absolute bollocks in the other direction. I'd rather not quote Luddite cultists BRAKE at you. But this is grossly wrong.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrian safety is a function of the pedestrian safety systems and front end pedestrian impact mitigation. SUVs often do better than smaller cars on this because extra measures are needed to counteract the higher front end.



Keeping all other factors equal, would you prefer a blunt force trauma to your legs or to your chest cavity?


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> At first glance, despite the nasty, evil red bar, I assumed it meant more people are buying SUVs. Obviously, some people fall for the clickbait, but we're not all blessed with the power of rational thought.
> Who would have thunk that going from a time when hardly anyone owned an SUV to a time where lots of people own them, would result in an increase in emissions from SUVs...
> It's amazing what you can do with statistics. You just have to find people gullible enough to not examine them, and if they graphs suit their agenda, all the better.



The increase of emissions caused by SUVs shows that we could have had less emissions if people had bought a smaller car instead, because SUVs are so fuel inefficient. 

From the actual paper:

'On average, SUVs consume about a quarter more energy than medium-size cars. As a result, global fuel economy worsened caused in part by the rising SUV demand since the beginning of the decade, even though efficiency improvements in smaller cars saved over 2 million barrels a day, and electric cars displaced less than 100,000 barrels a day.'









						Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market – Analysis - IEA
					

Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market - A commentary by Laura Cozzi, Apostolos Petropoulos




					www.iea.org


----------



## xenon (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Before SUVs surplus kids and the old were just left in the woods to die. There was simply no other option.



transporting children in a mini Metro is basically child abuse. we just didn’t realise at the time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2020)

xenon said:


> transporting children in a mini Metro is basically child abuse. we just didn’t realise at the time.


Mind you, I used to sit up front on my mum's lap. No problem there at all.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

xenon said:


> transporting children in a mini Metro is basically child abuse. we just didn’t realise at the time.



My parents had a mini metro. They got away with it because, when we were children, we were actually quite small. 

The main safety feature was a top speed of 48mph.


----------



## Thora (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> A Volvo XC90 has 7 seats and a big boot, and, being a hybrid, has low emissions and good fuel economy. And it's the safest car on the road (for occupants).  You can pick up a three year old second-hand one for under £30k.


I think my idea of cheap and yours are slightly different   I was looking at Peugeot 2008s.


----------



## agricola (Aug 5, 2020)

xenon said:


> transporting children in a mini Metro is basically child abuse. we just didn’t realise at the time.



the Maestro was a much safer vehicle all round, especially the 1.3


----------



## weltweit (Aug 5, 2020)

Back when I was a biker it was Estate Volvos that we used to hate, because they were all about safety for the occupants, and as result drivers cocooned in their safety cells were free to drive like wankers ignoring others less protected than they were. 

And you don't get much less protected than being a biker, pedestrians excepted.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2020)

Thora said:


> I think my idea of cheap and yours are slightly different   I was looking at Peugeot 2008s.



Well, at least buying one of them is a crime that comes with the punishment built in.


----------



## Looby (Aug 5, 2020)

Thora said:


> I think my idea of cheap and yours are slightly different   I was looking at Peugeot 2008s.


I had a 2008. I liked it but then I had a tiny easily fixed problem which turned out to be a complete arseache because it was a french car and everything was on the wrong side

I think there’s a thread here somewhere but basically a fan went which meant I had no air con and no heating. It ended up being an easily fixed fuse but three garages refused to even look at it because they’d done other European cars where they’d had to dismantle the whole car to get to the fan because it was behind the steering column etc It would have cost me a fortune in labour and that put me right off it!
Also, if you’re going for an auto, the semi-auto gearbox is really clunky.

Apart from that, it was ok. 😄 The boot space was good.


----------



## xenon (Aug 5, 2020)

I’ve said this before but we never had new cars as a kid. Various 1970s models in the 80s. Bits of Ford Cortina on newspaper in the dining room. For People in a Second hand mini   driving miles for a summer holiday. I know white dog shit and that. But the idea because are strictly necessary and all I need is because XY and Z. I mean everyone’s got a reason why they need the thing. But as a society we have to deal somehow with coping with less personal car ownership.


----------



## Athos (Aug 5, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And for pedestrians?
> 
> This is why the 'Chelsea Tractor' really should be called the 'Chelsea Tank'. In the case of SUVs, that safety for occupants comes at the expense of others. If you were to plough down the street in a tank, you'd be pretty safe inside, too. It's the ultimate thatcherite sentiment to think of safety only in terms of yourself and your family at this point in time and  space that you have some control over.



Take a look at the Euroncap ratings for the safety of vulnerable road users.  There doesn't appear to be any significant correlation between body shape and safety rating for that criteria.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

Little Piranha said:


> The increase of emissions caused by SUVs shows that we could have had less emissions if people had bought a smaller car instead, because SUVs are so fuel inefficient.
> 
> From the actual paper:
> 
> ...


Here's another graph, showing how bad smart phones are, and the billions of kilos of CO2 it costs to produce them.



If only we'd all bought Nokia 3210s.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> Take a look at the Euroncap ratings for the safety of vulnerable road users.  There doesn't appear to be any significant correlation between body shape and safety rating for that criteria.


A EuroNCAP rating - on any factor - doesn't necessarily correlate to survivability. In the first instance it's essentially how compliant the manufacturer has been with current best practice within the context of the car type being tested, and even then, arriving at an apparently comparable percentage outcome based on often wildly different constituent parts is a bit weird. Read the detailed report for any given pair of cars and you'll start to see what I mean. If you think being hit by the biggest available Audi (Q8, 71%) will have consequences similar to being hit by the smallest (A1, 73%) then I suggest you cross the road more carefully.

If you do a cursory Google of 'SUV pedestrian safety' then you see the real world trends and they don't support this idea.


----------



## Thora (Aug 5, 2020)

Are people carriers/mpvs better or worse (pedestrian safety & environment) than suvs?


----------



## Athos (Aug 5, 2020)

mauvais said:


> A EuroNCAP rating - on any factor - doesn't necessarily correlate to survivability. In the first instance it's essentially how compliant the manufacturer has been with current best practice within the context of the car type being tested, and even then, arriving at an apparently comparable percentage outcome based on often wildly different constituent parts is a bit weird. Read the detailed report for any given pair of cars and you'll start to see what I mean. If you think being hit by the biggest available Audi (Q8, 71%) will have consequences similar to being hit by the smallest (A1, 73%) then I suggest you cross the road more carefully.
> 
> If you do a cursory Google of 'SUV pedestrian safety' then you see the real world trends and they don't support this idea.


Is the Euro NCAP rating based entirely upon survivability of impacts, or does it take into account safety features that avoid the collidision e.g. automatic braking?


----------



## Little Piranha (Aug 5, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Here's another graph, showing how bad smart phones are, and the billions of kilos of CO2 it costs to produce them.
> 
> View attachment 225200
> 
> If only we'd all bought Nokia 3210s.


I don't think anyone was saying that SUVs are they only polluting thing on the planet.

There is also a difference anyway. The vast proportion of people now have a smart phone, meaning that much communication is literally reliant on them, especially at work.

SUVs are not necessary.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> You can pick up a three year old second-hand one for under £30k.


wow as little as that


----------



## mauvais (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> Is the Euro NCAP rating based entirely upon survivability of impacts, or does it take into account safety features that avoid the collidision e.g. automatic braking?


Features are a factor. AEB is mandatory fit from next year though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 5, 2020)

xenon said:


> But as a society we have to deal somehow with coping with less personal car ownership.


No we don't.


Athos said:


> Take a look at the Euroncap ratings for the safety of vulnerable road users.  There doesn't appear to be any significant correlation between body shape and safety rating for that criteria.


Motorbike riders only have themselves to blame when they're involved in accidents involving only themselves. They were obviously riding too fast for the conditions, so here's an outlandish idea... Given that most accidents involving pedestrians are caused by the pedestrian, how about not walking out in front of cars? I do realise that accepting responsibility for your own actions isn't something that people like to do these days, but if you walk out in front of a car, why is it the car designer's fault if you die? Try not walking out in front of cars, it's much more conducive to waking up tomorrow. And at the same time I'll promise not to drive on pavements.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 5, 2020)

Athos said:


> Is the Euro NCAP rating based entirely upon survivability of impacts, or does it take into account safety features that avoid the collidision e.g. automatic braking?


Take a bigger, heavier, squarer, stiffer car and hit someone with it at a given speed and it will kill in far larger numbers, not just a little bit more. Add features to that bigger car that make a collision less likely and of course you make it safer. But you can also add exactly the same features to a smaller car, and that smaller car will be safer than the bigger car.

You're basically doing the same thing platinumsage was doing earlier when they compared a new SUV to older cars. Apples and oranges.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 5, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> My parents had a mini metro. They got away with it because, when we were children, we were actually quite small.
> 
> The main safety feature was a top speed of 48mph.


They had the sports model then?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Studies have shown that the majority of car buyers are actually influenced by social media and things like this thread that they read on the internet.


What are the studies prove the supposed influence on car buyers of non profit, non car focused UK forums? Can you name them, please? Thanks.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> What are the studies prove the supposed influence on car buyers of non profit, non car focused UK forums? Can you name them, please? Thanks.


You do realise that every reader here is influenced, to some extent, by the content they read, right? It doesn't mean everyone is going to rush out and buy an SUV but if it wasn't for this thread, I would probably never have considered buying one, and I have you to thank for that.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You do realise that every reader here is influenced, to some extent, by the content they read, right? It doesn't mean everyone is going to rush out and buy an SUV but if it wasn't for this thread, I would probably never have considered buying one, and I have you to thank for that.


I asked to see the findings of these supposed studies in the context of this website.

If I wanted some uninformed conjecture, I would have asked.


Saul Goodman said:


> ,,,but if it wasn't for this thread, I would probably never have considered buying one, and I have you to thank for that.


Yeah sure. Totally believable.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You do realise that every reader here is influenced, to some extent, by the content they read, right? It doesn't mean everyone is going to rush out and buy an SUV but if it wasn't for this thread, I would probably never have considered buying one, and I have you to thank for that.


I did literally look up the dimensions and price of the Jimny (as mentioned by bimble) which may or may not be an SUV but is a 4x4, albeit a tiny one.  Am now considering one for my next car (which is probably a fair way off, but will be in the next five years) because they are cute and distinctive. So, yeah.  Sort of had a “tempting” effect.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I did literally look up the dimensions and price of the Jimny (as mentioned by bimble) which may or may not be an SUV but is a 4x4, albeit a tiny one.  Am now considering one for my next car (which is probably a fair way off, but will be in the next five years) because they are cute and distinctive. So, yeah.  Sort of had a “tempting” effect.


What  do you need a 4x4 for? You going off road anywhere?


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I did literally look up the dimensions and price of the Jimny (as mentioned by bimble) which may or may not be an SUV but is a 4x4, albeit a tiny one.  Am now considering one for my next car (which is probably a fair way off, but will be in the next five years) because they are cute and distinctive. So, yeah.  Sort of had a “tempting” effect.



Those old small Jeep things are actually quite cool in a sort of retro way, should be driven to the beach. Also aware they’re popular with some gay men, think it’s a kind of ironic/tongue-in-cheek Ken from Barbie sort of thing going on.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I asked to see the findings of these supposed studies in the context of this website.
> 
> If I wanted some uninformed conjecture, I would have asked.
> Yeah sure. Totally believable.





spanglechick said:


> I did literally look up the dimensions and price of the Jimny (as mentioned by bimble) which may or may not be an SUV but is a 4x4, albeit a tiny one.  Am now considering one for my next car (which is probably a fair way off, but will be in the next five years) because they are cute and distinctive. So, yeah.  Sort of had a “tempting” effect.


Dot, dot dot.

People are influenced by their peers. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing but it's a fact.
And believe it or believe it not, I had never considered buying an SUV until I saw this thread and did some research.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> What  do you need a 4x4 for? You going off road anywhere?


I’m already a blue-badge-toting disabled driver.  And as my arthritis is both degenerative and also making itself felt in my back as well as my knees, And since, also, the next car is likely to see me into my sixties if I have it as long as I will have had my current car (a Kia picanto) - somewhere around 15 years - I will need to consider the height of the seat in my next car.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

I was racing karts at 150+ mph when I was 14 years old, and since I first passed my driving test (a long time ago), I always wanted fast cars, so I spent most of my money on fast cars, and the rest of my money on making them go,  handle and stop better. Then I discovered motorbikes, and realised that fast cars were really an oxymoron, so I stopped buying fast cars and bought fast bikes, because I didn't have multi millions spare to buy a car that can compete with a bike... Then I grew up, (yeah, matter of opinion) and realised that comfort was the most important aspect to consider in getting from A to B, so, after 20 years without a car, just a few months ago I finally took one in part exchange for one of my bikes. It's only a crappy little Ford Fusion, and the plan was to immediately sell it, but I decided to get insured on it and drive it for a while. I guess it's the equivalent of a 'bridge camera'. It's kinda like a small car but has the feeling of something bigger, and I have spondylosis of the lumbar spine, which is why I'm struggling with bikes, and this Fusion, that I was ready to palm off on someone ASAP, has made me realise that, actually, maybe cars aren't that shit, and maybe, if I could find something with a bit more poke than this Fusion, I could even be persuaded to give up bikes completely (well, not completely, but certainly swap bikes for a car)?
So, based on this thread, I did some research, and I'm now contemplating selling all but two of my bikes, and buying a half decent SUV. I'd never previously considered one but thanks to this thread, I feel that my quality of life will soon be much better, and as much as you may not like that, editor, I do have you to thank for that.

So there's two people for your study.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 6, 2020)

cantsin said:


> yr actually serious ?



Very much so.  I drive all week for a living and some suburban roads are horrific - better suited for a SUV than a standard hatchback.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Very much so.  I drive all week for a living and some suburban roads are horrific - better suited for a SUV than a standard hatchback.


I think the thought process here was along the lines of "errr... those speed bumps are there for a reason"?
Although, admittedly, some of them are ridiculously high.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Here's another graph, showing how bad smart phones are, and the billions of kilos of CO2 it costs to produce them.
> 
> View attachment 225200
> 
> If only we'd all bought Nokia 3210s.


They've completely fucked up our culture, politics, psychology and sexuality too. I quite agree we should get rid of smart phones (or indeed any mobile phones, wired lines only) immediately. Along with any car that can do over 30mph.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 6, 2020)

Athos said:


> A Volvo XC90 has 7 seats and a big boot, and, being a hybrid, has low emissions and good fuel economy. And it's the safest car on the road (for occupants).  You can pick up a three year old second-hand one for under £30k.



“
Under £30k “ ?  - it’s a people’s car basically , a Trabant for our egalitarian age


----------



## ska invita (Aug 6, 2020)

p-p-p-p-p-pick one up today!


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> they are cute and distinctive.


Good a reason as any other.


----------



## Athos (Aug 6, 2020)

cantsin said:


> “
> Under £30k “ ?  - it’s a people’s car basically , a Trabant for our egalitarian age



You (and the earnest people on this thread) do realise that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I hope?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 6, 2020)

cantsin said:


> “
> Under £30k “ ?  - it’s a people’s car basically , a Trabant for our egalitarian age



If anything it's too cheap. People will drive them to work then just get a new one to drive home in rather than pay for parking.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Stay clkassy.,


Marty1 said:


> Very much so.  I drive all week for a living and some suburban roads are horrific - better suited for a SUV than a standard hatchback.


Oh that's quite magnificent. I'd give you at last 3/10 for that one.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> So, based on this thread, I did some research, and I'm now contemplating selling all but two of my bikes, and buying a half decent SUV. I'd never previously considered one but thanks to this thread, I feel that my quality of life will soon be much better, and as much as you may not like that, editor, I do have you to thank for that.



That little 'crossover' thing down the end of my road does look quite nice tbf.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

So, let's recap:



*The problem:*

The world is facing a climate catastrophe,  fuelled by CO2 emissions.
The transport sector is now responsible for emitting more greenhouse gases than any other
Transport emissions are still growing globally because of the growing appetite for SUVs over smaller vehicles, a trend which risks cancelling out the benefits switching to electric cars
The  demand for larger cars was the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2018.
A large car emits on average 85% more greenhouse gases per km than a small vehicle
Manufacturer regularly cheat and lie abut their car's emissions, so they could be far higher
Generally, the larger the car, the higher the emissions
A pedestrian hit by a large SUV is twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian hit by a normal sized car

*The urban consensus*

I'm buying one!


_My how this place has changed...._



Sources:








						How our daily travel harms the planet
					

Private transport is one of the world’s biggest sources of greenhouse gases, with emissions rising year on year. It means the way you travel to work matters more than you think.




					www.bbc.com
				











						Knowledge centre | Brake
					

Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages




					www.brake.org.uk


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> So, based on this thread, I did some research, and I'm now contemplating selling all but two of my bikes, and buying a half decent SUV.


#totallyconvinced


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> My how this place has changed,....


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 6, 2020)

I wouldn't buy one. I'm just pointing out it's not as simple as you claim.


----------



## Thora (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> So, let's recap:
> 
> View attachment 225238
> 
> ...


I am genuinely interested in whether a MPV or SUV is better since I’m looking for a new car at the moment. Unfortunately it has to be a big car though as we only really use the car with all the kids and a load of stuff in it.


----------



## Athos (Aug 6, 2020)

Thora said:


> I am genuinely interested in whether a MPV or SUV is better since I’m looking for a new car at the moment. Unfortunately it has to be a big car though as we only really use the car with all the kids and a load of stuff in it.



The honest answer is that it varies from model to model.  Some MPVs have lower emissions and are safer  than some SUVs and vice versa.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> So, let's recap:
> 
> View attachment 225238
> 
> ...


OTOH, I don’t have any children or pets and haven’t flown in 5 years.  
Perhaps holding up one thing as being the root of all eco disaster is a bit of a distraction.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> OTOH, I don’t have any children or pets and haven’t flown in 5 years.
> Perhaps holding up one thing as being the root of all eco disaster is a bit of a distraction.


Good job I'm not doing that, then.

Why do you think you need a 4x4, by the way? Will you be doing much off-roading?


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Good job I'm not doing that, then.
> 
> Why do you think you need a 4x4, by the way? Will you be doing much off-roading?


I already answered your question.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I already answered your question.


Not really. I can understand why you might want a higher seat, but I don't get your need for a 4x4 unless you intend to go off road or through challenging terrains.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

All this other shit aside don't buy a fuckin' Jimny (sorry bimble but you were warned and chose it anyway) because it's an ancient agricultural-grade death trap from 1998 that was inexplicably allowed to go on being made for 20 years.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Not really. I can understand why you might want a higher seat, but I don't get your need for a 4x4 unless you intend to go off road or through challenging terrains.


Oh, you're being silly now. There are so many things people have they don't use to the fullest extent of its capabilities. I owned a mountain bike which I used to cycle on roads to work, 7 miles a day for 6 years. Expect you have camera or two you don't use all the functions on. My washing machine has many, many settings I'll never use. 
Spanglechick has not said she isn't going to get an environmentally friendly vehicle but you've gone "Oh, a 4x4, you don't need it". Almost as though your argument is about other stuff besides the environment


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> All this other shit aside don't buy a fuckin' Jimny (sorry bimble but you were warned and chose it anyway) because it's an ancient agricultural-grade death trap from 1998 that was inexplicably allowed to go on being made for 20 years.


But it’s so cute!


----------



## T & P (Aug 6, 2020)

Urban 75 & cars: the new Mentos & Diet Coke


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Not really. I can understand why you might want a higher seat, but I don't get your need for a 4x4 unless you intend to go off road or through challenging terrains.


If I can find something else tiny and attractive and distinctive with a high seat position it will also be on the list.

As a car buyer I’m very much of the Nissan Figaro type. Stick a pretty shell on a basic cheap engine.

I do around 2000 miles a year, almost all in the city. I have no interest at all in having fantastic acceleration or cruise control or heated seats or stability at high speeds, or extra headroom or legroom or any of that bollocks. I almost never have rear seat passengers, (but at some point I might need to carry a folding wheelchair). I only care what it looks like, and whether I’ll be in pain driving it. Oh, and I’d quite like a Bluetooth stereo, but I’m told that’s pretty universal. I resent spending so much money on something with no aesthetic appeal. I already did that with the picanto, which, while not actively ugly is the definition of meh.

So the Jimny’s ability to have 4wd is like my current car’s child locks.  Totally irrelevant.  And with the tiny annual mileage I do (about a fifth of the average motorist) and the fact that it is a genuinely tiny car (smaller than the fiat 500 in every direction but height) I can’t get too worked up about  whether it being a 4wd makes it incrementally worse in some way on emissions.


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

Jimny has two round buttons, one says 2W and the other says 4W and you only press 4W when you want it to go on things like my track, so it could easily never be used at all. spanglechick i've grown to really love it but it is admittedly in some ways a bit of a silly car,  especially if you need to do motorways.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> If I can find something else tiny and attractive and distinctive with a high seat position it will also be on the list.
> 
> As a car buyer I’m very much of the Nissan Figaro type. Stick a pretty shell on a basic cheap engine.


They're even worse - they were literally all made in 1991.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2020)

The Jimny is (optional) awd rather than true 4wd so not necessarily less efficient. Also it doesn't seem very wide, it's less broad than a Nissan Micra which I just randomly picked as a small car.  I'm not keen on road-hoggingly wide cars but that doesn't seem to be entirely congruent with the (marketing) concept of 'suv'.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Oh, you're being silly now. There are so many things people have they don't use to the fullest extent of its capabilities. I owned a mountain bike which I used to cycle on roads to work, 7 miles a day for 6 years. Expect you have camera or two you don't use all the functions on. My washing machine has many, many settings I'll never use.
> Spanglechick has not said she isn't going to get an environmentally friendly vehicle but you've gone "Oh, a 4x4, you don't need it". Almost as though your argument is about other stuff besides the environment


If someone is particularly specifying their need for a 4x4, there's nothing wrong in asking why they need one.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

The widest common cars are of course Teslas. Designed from scratch to pack as much battery power in as possible.

As we see other manufacturers bring out electric-only designs, we can expect the trend for increased width and weight to continue.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 6, 2020)




----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The widest common cars are of course Teslas. Designed from scratch to pack as much battery power in as possible.
> 
> As we see other manufacturers bring out electric-only designs, we can expect the trend for increased width and weight to continue.


Only if people like you keep buying them.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The widest common cars are of course Teslas. Designed from scratch to pack as much battery power in as possible.
> 
> As we see other manufacturers bring out electric-only designs, we can expect the trend for increased width and weight to continue.


I just had a look and their SUV (the Y) is the slimmest car they do.

I just get wound up having to pull over (on a bicycle) to let a non-commercial/emergency vehicle past when if they were driving a normal car I could get through the gap without stopping.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 6, 2020)

Driving a big car in an urban environment is more antisocial than driving a small car in an urban environment. 

There are clearly grey areas around the various reasons why it's antisocial, but those grey areas don't change the basic point.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 225252


Dashboard Jamrag holder?
Hands-free lipstick applicator?

Is that what passes for humour in your world?


----------



## fishfinger (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Dashboard Jamrag holder?
> Hands-free lipstick applicator?
> 
> Is that what passes for humour in your world?


It pays to read the small print


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

maomao said:


> I just had a look and their SUV (the Y) is the slimmest car they do.
> 
> I just get wound up having to pull over (on a bicycle) to let a non-commercial/emergency vehicle past when if they were driving a normal car I could get through the gap without stopping.


Yeah, but the SUV drivers feel so9 much 'safer' while they're making you pull over, and their personal safety requirements override that of other road users, pedestrians, cyclists and basically everyone else.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Only if people like you keep buying them.



I‘m sure people like me don’t keep buying Teslas, I’m sticking with petrol until some decent fully electric cars become available.

If you do like electric cars you‘re going to have to drop the width and weight prejudices, at least until some new miracle battery tech is invented.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Only if people like you keep buying them.


Well make your mind up. You want environmentally friendly cars but aren't prepared to accept larger cars to save the planet? For shame!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Driving a big car in an urban environment is more antisocial than driving a small car in an urban environment.
> 
> There are clearly grey areas around the various reasons why it's antisocial, but those grey areas don't change the basic point.



Its not antisocial any more than obese people walking on pavements are antisocial.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> If someone is particularly specifying their need for a 4x4, there's nothing wrong in asking why they need one.


Sure. That's all you were doing. Sure.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> If someone is particularly specifying their need for a 4x4, there's nothing wrong in asking why they need one.


I never said I needed one.  I said that - as a result of this thread I had added the Jimny to the short list of cars I am thinking of choosing between in the next five years.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I never said I needed one.  I said that - as a result of this thread I had added the Jimny to the short list of cars I am thinking of choosing between in the next five years.



Some of the Jimny reviews mention it not being terribly comfortable to drive, so if considering buying it to mitigate re: disabilities etc., then probably good to have a good long go in one first.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Yeah, but the SUV drivers feel so9 much 'safer' while they're making you pull over, and their personal safety requirements override that of other road users, pedestrians, cyclists and basically everyone else.


I'm just saying that while I'm well up for slashing some tyres and maybe firebombing a dealership or two there doesn't seem to be a reliable correlation between use of the term 'SUV' and width of car. And I reckon that while it couldn't beat it on emissions the Jimny is less offensive than a fully electric Tesla on most other counts.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 6, 2020)

cantsin said:


> “
> Under £30k “ ?  - it’s a people’s car basically , a Trabant for our egalitarian age



on a related note / had to have a quick look :  the Trabant was off it's head 


The Trabant had a duroplast body mounted on a one-piece steel chassis (a so-called unibody), front-wheel drive, a transverse engine, and independent suspension – unusual features in 1957 but it remained much the same until 1989 when it acquired a (licensed) Volkswagen engine; its discontinuation followed in 1991. The 1980s model had no tachometer, no indicator for either the headlights or turn signals, no fuel gauge, no rear seat belts, no external fuel door, and drivers had to pour a mix of gasoline and oil directly under the bonnet/hood.[3]

Called "a spark plug with a roof," 3,096,999 Trabants in a number of models were produced over nearly three decades with few significant changes in their basic design.[4] Older models have been sought by collectors in the United States due to their low cost and fewer restrictions on the importation of antique cars. The Trabant also gained a following among car tuning and rally racing enthusiasts.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> They're even worse - they were literally all made in 1991.


I know.  And have you seen how overpriced they’ve been second hand?   Cannot understand why they don’t make more of them.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I know.  And have you seen how overpriced they’ve been second hand?   Cannot understand why they don’t make more of them.


You couldn't make a literal Figaro any more, except at best a single vehicle approval like a kit car, because they're totally non-compliant with modern safety and environmental stuff. The latter is at a stretch feasible retrofit but the former is not. You could build something that represents the same spirit it in modern terms but then it would cost big money like any car development, to satisfy a niche, which is no longer feasible unless it's super expensive.


----------



## Athos (Aug 6, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 225252



Please don't post misogynistic crap.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> You couldn't make a literal Figaro any more, except at best a single vehicle approval like a kit car, because they're totally non-compliant with modern safety and environmental stuff. The latter is at a stretch feasible retrofit but the former is not. You could build something that represents the same spirit it in modern terms but then it would cost big money like any car development, to satisfy a niche, which is no longer feasible unless it's super expensive.


Well yes. But when you look at the success of the new mini/beetle/fiat 500, you can see that there’s a huge market for distinctive, retro aesthetics. And surely there’s nothing stopping manufacturers putting expensive-looking bodies on cheap engines.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> Well yes. But when you look at the success of the new mini/beetle/fiat 500, you can see that there’s a huge market for distinctive, retro aesthetics. And surely there’s nothing stopping manufacturers putting expensive-looking bodies on cheap engines.


There's nothing stopping the last bit, and they do. But developing a new car costs about $1bn.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I know.  And have you seen how overpriced they’ve been second hand?   Cannot understand why they don’t make more of them.



Ah, that’s the weird little car on the street next to mine.  Had wondered what it was.


----------



## andysays (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Its not antisocial any more than obese people walking on pavements are antisocial.


Someone should totally start that thread (not me though)


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Its not antisocial any more than obese people walking on pavements are antisocial.


What the actual fuck. How can an overweight person walking along a pavement be called "antisocial" in any way at all? Do they kill people like SUVs do? Do they pollute like SUVs? What the fuck is your grounds for making this comparison?


andysays said:


> Someone should totally start that thread (not me though)


Why? Do you think the poster has a valid point?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> What the actual fuck. How is an overweight person walking along a pavement "antisocial" in any way at all?



It's not at all, that's my point. Neither is driving a wider-than average car in a city.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> No. He was warned once again for breaking the terms of mutual ignore. That was his decision to do so and it's not like he doesn't know exactly what he was doing.
> 
> And because he had already been warned several times before for doing the exact same thing, the last warning tipped him into an automatic ban.


just catching up with this thread, and he hasn't referred to you or quoted you once since 30 june. try the search function if you don't believe me.

it'd show a nice spirit to apologise and cut short his ban.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It's not at all, that's my point. Neither is driving a wider-than average car in a city.


A heavier, more polluting, wider than average car that is more dangerous to pedestrians and is a contributing factor in the increase in global CO2 emissions over the last decade.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> just catching up with this thread, and he hasn't referred to you or quoted you once since 30 june. try the search function if you don't believe me.
> 
> it'd show a nice spirit to apologise and cut short his ban.


He referenced no less than six replies to my posts to make a derogatory comment about me in one single post - and that's on top of all the other times he's done it.
So the answer is a categorical  no. Any other board would have banned him for life for his constant rule breaking. But feel free to message other mods about it because I won't waste another second talking about him here.

If he doesn't want to get banned, all he has to do is respect the rules and keep his opinions about me to himself. It's really not that hard.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> A heavier, more polluting, wider than average car that is more dangerous to pedestrians and is a contributing factor in the increase in global CO2 emissions over the last decade.



I'll bet there are some quite nasty things involved in some of the non-necessary things that you enjoy having or doing. Recreational drugs? They're all teddy bears who wouldn't hurt a fly, especially in the black market, plus they're always oh so cognizant of their CO2 emissions by running intensive indoor growing operations 24/7.

I can hear the special pleading already. How is it different, really?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> A heavier, more polluting, wider than average car that is more dangerous to pedestrians and is a contributing factor in the increase in global CO2 emissions over the last decade.



Again you're ignoring the fact that many wider cars are more efficient and safer for pedestrians than average.

Driving an old non-Euro-VI-compliant diesel car might be considered anti-social - that's why London and other places are taking measures to penalise them.

Can't think of any cities that are banning wide cars such as Teslas for being anti-social. Maybe they should and people should instead use narrow, dangerous smokey shitboxes?

I keep repeating myself but why not target cars based on the actual harm they cause rather than the fact you don't like the look of them?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I keep repeating myself but why not target cars based on the actual harm they cause rather than the fact you don't like the look of them?



It seems like the label "SUV" isn't of that much use these days anyway.

It's fair to raise the concern that emissions per vehicle have actually started going up, and that increase in size seems at least partly responsible.
And also, it seems to me that most of the new safety gubbins element of the size increase happened well before 2017.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Can't think of any cities that are banning wide cars such as Teslas for being anti-social. Maybe they should and people should instead use narrow, dangerous smokey shitboxes?


nothing with any direct (and indeed few things with any indirect) connection to the nefandous elon musk should be allowed on the streets.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> I'll bet there are some quite nasty things involved in some of the non-necessary things that you enjoy having or doing. Recreational drugs? They're all teddy bears who wouldn't hurt a fly, especially in the black market, plus they're always oh so cognizant of their CO2 emissions by running intensive indoor growing operations 24/7.
> 
> I can hear the special pleading already. How is it different, really?


I don't buy, use or smoke weed if that's what you're insinuating in this bout of Olympic whataboutery and ad hominem bullshit.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> nothing with any direct (and indeed few things with any indirect) connection to the nefandous elon musk should be allowed on the streets.



Liked for use of the term "nefandous".


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Again you're ignoring the fact that many wider cars are more efficient and safer for pedestrians than average.
> 
> Driving an old non-Euro-VI-compliant diesel car might be considered anti-social - that's why London and other places are taking measures to penalise them.
> 
> ...


Here. Have a read about what's happening in the US seeing as many of their driving trends are often inherited over here (see: SUVs)









						Collision course: why are cars killing more and more pedestrians?
					

The long read: For drivers, roads are safer than ever – but for people on foot, they are getting deadlier. Car companies and Silicon Valley claim that they have the solution. But is that too good to be true?




					www.theguardian.com
				




And this about SUVs and pedestrian safety



> These larger vehicles, IIHS notes, are inherently more dangerous for pedestrians. Their high-riding style, flat front ends, and higher total horsepower mean they are likely to strike pedestrians higher on victims’ bodies — at the chest rather than in the legs — and they do so with more force.
> 
> During the study period, pedestrian crashes with all types of vehicles increased, but the increase was largest among SUVs, according to the report. Fatal crashes between SUVs and pedestrians increased 81 percent during the study period.
> 
> “The average annual increase in crashes involving SUVs was 3.1 percent higher than the increase in other vehicle types combined,” wrote researchers Wen Hu and Jessica Cicchino.











						Study Links Rise of SUVs to the Pedestrian Safety Crisis
					

The findings also undermine the idea that “distracted pedestrians” are the problem.




					usa.streetsblog.org


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I don't buy, use or smoke weed if that's what you're insinuating in this bout of Olympic whataboutery.



We shouldn't be making this about individuals anyway.  We have an issue of cars getting generally bigger and more polluting at precisely the worst time for this to be happening.  There are a few factors going on, but accusing each other of assorted climate sins isn't going to help disentangle anything.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Here. Have a read about what's happening in the US seeing as many of their driving trends are often inherited over here (see: SUVs)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But we have the data to tax or prohibt cars based on the actual emissions and pedestrian safety profile for each specific car. Why is it not more effective to use this than crude categories?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Here. Have a read about what's happening in the US seeing as many of their driving trends are often inherited over here (see: SUVs)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fucking hell (link closely linked to yours).


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> But we have the data to tax or prohibt cars based on the actual emissions and pedestrian safety profile for each specific car. Why is it not more effective to use this than crude categories?



Did anyone suggest otherwise?  This sounds eminently sensible.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> But we have the data to tax or prohibt cars based on the actual emissions and pedestrian safety profile for each specific car. Why is it not more effective to use this than crude categories?


So let's get this straight: you're now advocating banning 'cars based on the actual emissions and pedestrian safety profile'? Great now we're getting somewhere.

Most SUVs have a terrible record on both counts. Let's get banning!


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Look at these fucking monsters







__





						Large SUV and 4x4 cars comparison with dimensions and boot capacity
					

Discover and compare new large SUV and 4x4 car dimensions. Comparison of 30 cars with length, width, height, ground clearance, boot capacity and longer than 4.7 meters.




					www.automobiledimension.com


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Highest pedestrian deaths in the US by cars for thirty years with SUVs "continuing to wreak havoc on the roads" :



> The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled also decreased by 3.4 percent, from 1.17 in 2017 to 1.13 in 2018. The NHTSA says it is the lowest fatality rate since 2014.
> 
> That all sounds encouraging, but it’s really only good news for those of us driving or riding in cars. Everyone else, especially vulnerable road users like pedestrians and bicyclists, is being killed at an alarming rate. The number of pedestrians killed — 6,283, an increase of 3.4 percent from the previous year — was the highest such number since 1990.





> The correlation between vehicle design and pedestrian deaths is pretty stark. Unsurprisingly, SUVs are continuing to wreak havoc on the roads. While the people driving SUVs are slightly safer (1.6 percent decrease in SUV occupant deaths in 2018, according to the NHTSA), the number of pedestrians killed by those drivers has skyrocketed by 81 percent in the last decade, according to a report released last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
> 
> This is mostly because of the way SUVs are designed: larger bodies and higher carriages mean pedestrians are more likely to suffer deadly blows to the head and torso. Higher clearances mean victims are more likely to get trapped underneath a speeding SUV instead of pushed onto the hood or off to the side.





> Speed is also a factor because SUVs have more horsepower than a typical sedan. A recent investigation by _USA Today _and the _Detroit Free Press_ found that the growing popularity of SUVs accounts for the alarming rise in pedestrian deaths.











						Drivers killed the most pedestrians and bicyclists in almost 30 years
					

Automakers are getting better at protecting the people who buy their cars, but everyone else is getting slaughtered.




					www.theverge.com


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Look at these fucking monsters



This really isn't likely to lead to a rational thread about safety, car style or emissions trends.


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

Massive cars are totally antisocial just for the very simple reason that they take up too much public space, including the entire space of any parking bay so that when two of them end up next to each other the  people can’t even open their doors properly but have to squeeze round a tiny aperture looking really stupid and uncomfortable which is a small justice I suppose.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Look at these fucking monsters
> 
> View attachment 225258
> 
> ...


Audi eTron. Zero carbon emissions

ETA in fact loads of them are electric vehicles which are surely better than diesel or petrol cars


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Audi eTron. Zero carbon emissions



Zero coming out of a literal pipe.
Assuming you ignore the brakes and tires.

Not my kind of thing, does look like a nice car, though.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Audi eTron. Zero carbon emissions
> 
> ETA in fact loads of them are electric vehicles which are surely better than diesel or petrol cars



'electric' is a vague phrase when it comes to cars.  I know someone who had a Mitsubishi plug-in hybrid SUV.  He reckons he could get about 50 miles on the battery and the rest of it is fossil fuel as per.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Just read this: 



> In May, a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that examined federal crash data concluded that “fatal single-vehicle crashes involving SUVs increased 81 percent, more than any other type of vehicle,” between 2009 and 2016. Although cars and SUVs seemed to hit people at the same rate, when SUVs hit people they were more likely to die.
> 
> The SUV factor is likely why pedestrian deaths have steadily increased even as traffic deaths have slightly decreased over the same period. Although SUVs are much safer for the humans riding inside of them, SUVs are deadlier for the humans they strike.


Fucking scumbags: 



> On July 1, a major _Detroit Free Press _report showed that not only were SUVs contributing to a higher pedestrian death rate, automakers and safety agencies have known this for years and hadn’t done anything to address the problem.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Audi eTron. Zero carbon emissions
> 
> ETA in fact loads of them are electric vehicles which are surely better than diesel or petrol cars


The energy that builds them and powers them isn't zero carbon, and it doesn't alter the clear dangers that such large vehicles pose. 

And more heavier bigger private cars on the road really isn't going to address the fundamental problem.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I don't buy, use or smoke weed if that's what you're insinuating in this bout of Olympic whataboutery and ad hominem bullshit.



Weed's just an example. I'm fairly sure that everyone who doesn't live like some kind of ascetic has some hobby, habit, or activity that cause measurable social and environment harm while not being necessary.

To me that suggests that it's pointless to froth about personal consumer choices. Systemic change is needed, and I doubt that will come about because of someone rage-posting on a forum where most already agree and those who don't aren't convinced.



Teaboy said:


> 'electric' is a vague phrase when it comes to cars.  I know someone who had a Mitsubishi plug-in hybrid SUV.  He reckons he could get about 50 miles on the battery and the rest of it is fossil fuel as per.



It's only vague if you don't do any research before purchasing. You can easily find out if your prospective vehicle is a pure battery EV, a hybrid or a plug-in hybrid. Manufacturers make such details available, including battery-only performance. There are vehicles out there which lean more heavily on the batteries, if that's what the buyer wants.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Audi eTron. Zero carbon emissions


Oh wait. They're lying again. And I wouldn't trust anything Audi say given their lying, cheating past, 









						Hybrid carmakers accused of 'con' over zero-emissions claims
					

Drivers hoping to cut emissions may be let down by cold weather or low battery charge




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

This is about as ludicrous as claiming black people are involved in more knife crime so all black people should be locked up.

How about just locking up people who are convicted of knife crime and persuading people in general not to go about armed with knives.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Weed's just an example. I'm fairly sure that everyone who doesn't live like some kind of ascetic has some hobby, habit, or activity that cause measurable social and environment harm while not being necessary.


For it to make any sense in the context of this argument, I'd have to using more resources to grow bigger, less efficient, more fashionable, and prestigious weed that hurts more people around me.


----------



## Funky_monks (Aug 6, 2020)

Isn't all of this stuff about generating turnover for the motor industry?

Given that most of the GHG emissions of any vehicle are emitted in it's manufacture, perhaps we should maintain existing vehicles more and buy less new ones, even if they are marketed at people who want to both by a new car and feel all "ethical" about it.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Oh wait. They're lying again. And I wouldn't trust anything Audi say given their lying, cheating past,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Point taken, but don't think the article mentions Audi and their eTron is all electric, not a hybrid, which that article is about.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Manufacturers make such details available, including battery-only performance.



Though their figures to seem to bear a curious relationship to what happens in the real world.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> This is about as ludicrous as claiming black people are involved in more knife crime so all black people should be locked up.
> 
> How about just locking up people who are convicted of knife crime and persuading people in general not to go about armed with knifes.


I've just posted up some several links to credible research about the negative impact of SUVs. Why not deal with that instead of posting up increasingly bizarre comparisons with black people, obese people, weed smokers and railways suicides?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> It's only vague if you don't do any research before purchasing. You can easily find out if your prospective vehicle is a pure battery EV, a hybrid or a plug-in hybrid. Manufacturers make such details available, including battery-only performance. There are vehicles out there which lean more heavily on the batteries, if that's what the buyer wants.



Not really.  The data produced isn't really achievable.  Its best case scenario stuff in laboratory conditions, its not real world stuff.  Trust me on this I've had a couple of Lexus hybrids as my company cars.  The reality is very different to what is published.  Though it sounds good for the purposes of company car tax which is what is important.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I've just posted up some several links to credible research about the negative impact of SUVs.



A lot of your links that specifically use the term SUV are USA-based, where the term is possibly more useful.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Fucking car makers. Again.



> Carmakers can exploit loopholes in the EU’s new CO2 emissions targets to push sales of fake plug-in hybrid cars over EVs with no tailpipe emissions, T&E has warned. The law credits manufacturers for selling EVs but leaves room for gaming. This could allow carmakers to supply half of all the 'zero and low-emission’ cars needed to comply with stricter CO2 limits with fake ‘electric’ cars.












						Watch out for fake EVs, national regulators told - Campaigning for cleaner transport in Europe | Transport & Environment
					

Carmakers can exploit loopholes in the EU’s new CO2 emissions targets to push sales of fake plug-in hybrid cars over EVs with no tailpipe emissions, T&E has warned. The law credits manufacturers for…




					www.transportenvironment.org
				






> Selling more EVs than a voluntary sales target allows carmakers to bring the CO2 reduction targets down to 10.8% in 2025 and 34.4% in 2030. But these ‘EVs’ can include plug-in hybrids which are often big SUVs that are rarely charged because of their very limited electric range and they emit as much or more CO2 as diesel or petrol cars do on the road.
> 
> By allowing such fake ‘electric’ cars to count towards the EV targets, it has become much easier for carmakers to earn the generous CO2 bonuses that result from over-shooting these targets. T&E’s analysis shows that carmakers can meet the new rules by selling almost 1.7 million ‘fake’ electric cars every year from 2025 and almost 4 million in 2030.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> Though their figures to seem to bear a curious relationship to what happens in the real world.



A strong argument for better emissions testing regimes. The fact that some manufacturers were able to game the system points to a too-cosy relationship between them and regulatory bodies.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I've just posted up some several links to credible research about the negative impact of SUVs. Why not deal with that instead of posting up increasingly bizarre comparisons with black people, obese people, weed smokers and railways suicides?



You're seeing my increasingly desperate attempts to get home the point that being against something based on a crude category rather than the actual easily-measured factors involved leads to a) less effective measures against the things you're concerned about, and b) side-effects that penalise things you don't want to penalise.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 6, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Not really.  The data produced isn't really achievable.  Its best case scenario stuff in laboratory conditions, its not real world stuff.  Trust me on this I've had a couple of Lexus hybrids as my company cars.  The reality is very different to what is published.  Though it sounds good for the purposes of company car tax which is what is important.



Does nobody ever review vehicles by driving them under real-world conditions? That seems like a massive oversight.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You're seeing my increasingly desperate attempt to get home the point that being against something based on a crude category rather than the actual easily-measured factors involved leads to a) less effective measures against the things you're concerned about, and b) side-effects that penalise things you don't want to penalise.


but you don't have any of your actual car-focused examples i suppose. hence your increasingly outlandish posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Does nobody ever review vehicles by driving them under real-world conditions? That seems like a massive oversight.


payola


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> A strong argument for better emissions testing regimes. The fact that some manufacturers were able to game the system points to a too-cosy relationship between them and regulatory bodies.



I was actually thinking about things like their estimations of range on all-electric vehicles, but your point certainly stands.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> but you don't have any of your actual car-focused examples i suppose. hence your increasingly outlandish posts.



Huh? I've posted examples. Estate cars heavier than many SUVs, saloon cars more polluting than many SUVs, hatchbacks more dangerous for pedestrians than many SUVs. Focus on these actual harms rather than the shape of the car.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Does nobody ever review vehicles by driving them under real-world conditions? That seems like a massive oversight.



Review, yes, though comparison stats seem to be done under all sorts of gameable conditions.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

What is the source of this 40% figure, by the way?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2020)

I've not been following this thread, just pop in for a skim read of the last few posts every couple of days. 

Glad to see though that there's a clear consensus emerging that the best approach is to get rid of all cars, regardless of size or shape.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Huh? I've posted examples. Estate cars heavier than many SUVs, saloon cars more polluting than many SUVs, hatchbacks more dangerous for pedestrians than many SUVs. Focus on these actual harms rather than the shape of the car.


i'm not entirely sure how your train of thought led you to eg knife crime and suicides. perhaps tho that's a tale better not old here.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I've not been following this thread, just pop in for a skim read of the last few posts every couple of days.
> 
> Glad to see though that there's a clear consensus emerging that the best approach is to get rid of all cars, regardless of size or shape.



Hard to type when your wrists are chained to the bed.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2020)

83% of suicides which take place on the railway are people who have driven to the location by car.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2020)

76% of pedestrians killed by a hatchback were influenced by an SUV advert within 5 days of the incident.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

88.5% of statistics are made up on the spot


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

This thread is going around in circles so I'm out of here, relaxed in the knowledge that my SUV is shorter, lighter, more fuel-efficient and safer for pedestrians than the vast majority of estate cars.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> This thread is going around in circles so I'm out of here, relaxed in the knowledge that my SUV is shorter, lighter, more fuel-efficient and safer for pedestrians than the vast majority of estate cars.


But not similar, smaller cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> But not similar, smaller cars.



There aren't any smaller cars that my mum can get in and out of easily and that are safer for pedestrians. None at all. I've got the smallest one that fits those simple, totally reasonable critera.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Does nobody ever review vehicles by driving them under real-world conditions? That seems like a massive oversight.



What benefit would there be?    As has been stated we are talking about the industry that saw widespread lying about emissions.    Most of us just want to something to compare or something that will reduce our tax burden.  They know that so they give us want we want, doesn't mean to say its true.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> What benefit would there be?    As has been stated we are talking about the industry that saw widespread lying about emissions.    Most of us just want to something to compare or something that will reduce our tax burden.  They know that so they give us want we want, doesn't mean to say its true.


I wouldn't trust a lot of those 'real world' reviews anyway. There's a lot of money swirling around in motoring PR.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 6, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> What benefit would there be?    As has been stated we are talking about the industry that saw widespread lying about emissions.    Most of us just want to something to compare or something that will reduce our tax burden.  They know that so they give us want we want, doesn't mean to say its true.



Does nobody want accurate information about the things which they are spending tens of thousands of pounds on? If I was the owner of a Volkswagen (or whoever it was cheating their emissions), then I'd want my fucking money back, because I would have literally bought a massively expensive product under false pretenses.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Does nobody want accurate information about the things which they are spending tens of thousands of pounds on? If I was the owner of a Volkswagen (or whoever it was cheating their emissions), then I'd want my fucking money back, because I would have literally bought a massively expensive product under false pretenses.



Hence several of the legal actions on at the moment (thanks editor for the catch-up on that).
I don't see any redress for people affected by the emissions, though.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 6, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Does nobody want accurate information about the things which they are spending tens of thousands of pounds on? If I was the owner of a Volkswagen (or whoever it was cheating their emissions), then I'd want my fucking money back, because I would have literally bought a massively expensive product under false pretenses.



It might matter to people buying second hand (but then again those figures will all be out of date by then) but I don't think many people spend thousands on new or nearly new based upon fuel consumption.  For those with company cars (which a lot of new cars are) its a tick box exercise to reduce tax.  The amount you pay in tax far outweighs any saving on petrol.

For those who buy private its just reassurance that its not going to drink fuel and it has some nice green credentials even if they are meaningless.  We have a strange relationship with cars in the UK and we make their mind up for various reasons we just need the accompanying data to put our mind to help justify the decision we've already made.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I've just posted up some several links to credible research about the negative impact of SUVs. Why not deal with that instead of posting up increasingly bizarre comparisons with black people, obese people, weed smokers and railways suicides?


Any chance you could post up some research that isn't based on American SUVs?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Any chance you could post up some research that isn't based on American SUVs?


I have actually, although it's patently obvious that many American SUVs share similar characteristics to UK ones - in fact some models are popular on both sides of the pond.  

Here's what UK transport policy advisor Adam Reynolds said:


> “The DfT should be publishing that analysis and the Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency should be removing dangerous vehicle shapes from the road.”
> 
> SUVs are not specifically pinpointed in crash data but, says Reynolds, “it is clear that the cars with 1.8-liter to 2-liter engines have a higher fatality rate, 2% vs. 1.4%, and this is likely to be speed- and size-related.”
> 
> More alarming, he stresses, is that the 2-liter to 3-liter category shows a 2.4% fatality rate, and he states this “will be due to larger size and not just speed.”











						Restrict Twice-As-Deadly SUVs In U.K. Cities, Urge Transport Data Scientists
					

Use of SUVs in cities should be discouraged say safety advocates as new stats crunch show larger-engined cars are twice as deadly to U.K. pedestrians and cyclists as smaller-engined cars.




					www.forbes.com
				




And 





> Earlier this year it was reported in the US that the 'nation’s SUV boom is becoming increasingly deadly' after it was revealed that pedestrian deaths hit a 28-year high in 2018. UK journalist Carlton Reid took up the story, writing for Forbes magazine. A new data crunch from British transport data experts shows there may be a similar lethality problem with SUVs in the UK, noted Reid.
> 
> Britain’s Department for Transport (DfT) should be 'really concerned that some [car] sizes are twice as likely to kill pedestrians compared to others,' says transport policy advisor Adam Reynolds, reported by Reid.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I have actually, although it's patently obvious that many American SUVs share similar characteristics to UK ones - in fact some models are popular on both sides of the pond.


The American things tend to be much larger. Most of the cars posted on this thread are relatively small when you compare them to the average American SUV. I'd be surprised if America even sell some of the small engined variants we have,


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> The American things tend to be much larger. Most of the cars posted on this thread are relatively small when you compare them to the average American SUV. I'd be surprised if America even sell some of the small engined variants we have,



The original US description of SUV's seemed to often involve references to something similar to 'station wagon', but based on a 'light truck frame'.
This sounds like the monster truck type thing on a street near me, but in no way comparable to, say, a Nissan Juke.

edit:  for comparison (couldn't find anything easily to hand to give a really good sense of scale):


----------



## Thaw (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I have actually, although it's patently obvious that many American SUVs share similar characteristics to UK ones - in fact some models are popular on both sides of the pond.
> 
> Here's what UK transport policy advisor Adam Reynolds said:
> 
> ...



That makes a link between engine capacity and fatalities, but doesn't really say that SUVs are more dangerous. So you could maybe call for a ban based on engine capacity rather than things that happen to be branded as SUV. Unless SUVs happen to all have bigger engine capacity than non-SUVs?

_*SUVs are not specifically pinpointed in crash data* but, says Reynolds, “it is clear that the cars with 1.8-liter to 2-liter engines have a higher fatality rate, 2% vs. 1.4%, and this is likely to be speed- and size-related.” 
Reynolds suggests that the DfT and the police should measure pedestrian fatalities by vehicle body shape as well as engine size.
Not currently doing this is “masking a deadly problem created by the car industry marketing and producing taller, heavier vehicles,” argues Reynolds.
“*If the data does show that SUVs are twice as deadly*, then ownership in urban areas should be discouraged and use within cities curtailed with a ban on new sales.”
Reynolds says: 'further work [is required] to understand if the issue is speed or the issue is size and shape of vehicle. The DfT should be publishing that analysis and the Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency should be removing dangerous vehicle shapes from the road.'"_


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

Thaw said:


> That makes a link between engine capacity and fatalities, but doesn't really say that SUVs are more dangerous. So you could maybe call for a ban based on engine capacity rather than things that happen to be branded as SUV. Unless SUVs happen to all have bigger engine capacity than non-SUVs?


Or a ban on pedestrians being pissed, seeing as:



> ... 35 percent of pedestrians who are killed on the roadway had a BAC at or above .08. Removing child and elderly pedestrians, who are very seldom drunk, the percentage rises to nearly 50 percent


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 6, 2020)

Interesting article weighing up the pros and cons of SUV’s/Crossovers:









						5 reasons not to buy an SUV or crossover (and one why you should) – Which? News
					

Crossovers and SUVs are enjoying a boom, but are they best type of car for your needs? Here’s five reasons you should consider avoiding one.



					www.which.co.uk
				






> Their appeal again lies in their high driving position, which makes them easier to get in and out, and normally allows more suspension travel to better absorb large potholes and speed bumps.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> The original US description of SUV's seemed to often involve references to something similar to 'station wagon', but based on a 'light truck frame'.
> This sounds like the monster truck type thing on a street near me, but in no way comparable to, say, a Nissan Juke.


It's what I posted a while back. Early Ford Bronco for example, it's just a station wagon on off road running gear.







And it's that - body on frame - which developed into stuff like this:






Still basically a raised estate.

Outside of American 'trucks' and really big SUVs, monocoque construction killed the body on frame way of doing things so there's not really any such thing any more. We talk in terms of platform rather than literal chassis. However in modern terms a Juke is closer to the above - an elevated ordinary car - than the truck you posted.

Lots of this about - these are the same platform:


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

The nissan juke is an unbelievably ugly thing and there are so many of them about i don't get it. Is it just their bigness that people like then, its not got any special powers its just big and they don't care that it looks like an aggressive toad?


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 6, 2020)

The Toyota CHR .


Ugliest car ever.


----------



## Looby (Aug 6, 2020)

bimble said:


> The nissan juke is an unbelievably ugly thing and there are so many of them about i don't get it. Is it just their bigness that people like then, its not got any special powers its just big and they don't care that it looks like an aggressive toad?


They’re not even very big though, the boot is tiny and I think the back seats are small too. Really ugly!


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

Are people buying them because they like how they look then??


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> The Toyota CHR .
> View attachment 225309View attachment 225310
> 
> Ugliest car ever.


Hideous on multiple levels.


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> Hideous on multiple levels.



And yet its hybrid with very low emissions. 
I think they were aiming for futuristic? There's a Tron sort of vibe going on. But I dont think it works.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Interesting article weighing up the pros and cons of SUV’s/Crossovers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very informative and does a good job of crushing many of the pro-SUV claims here.








> SUVs have poor fuel economy
> However, our testing data reveals that, as a class, large SUVs have the worst overall tested fuel economy of all types of vehicle except sports cars. In our tests, which are more stringent than the official tests, they’re nearly 30% less efficient, on average, than our large car class, which also includes powerful luxury models.


And there goes the argument about smaller SUVs and efficiency:  





> Even smaller SUVs are still less efficient
> 
> Choosing a slightly more sensibly proportioned mid-sized SUV won’t help reduce costs, either. Our tests have found these are generally also less efficient than large cars – by more than 10%, on average. Even when you reach the very smallest, least powerful and most efficient class of compact crossovers, they still come off worse. In our tests, compact SUVs returned around 7% worse fuel economy than small hatchbacks (a class including the likes of the Ford Fiesta, Vauxhall Corsa and Renault Clio). They’re also marginally less efficient than the medium hatchback class, of which models (such as the VW Golf) are likely to offer far great passenger space and practicality.









> SUVs are too wide
> 
> It’s not just an SUV’s carbon footprint you’ll need to worry about, but also its physical size on the road. The main problem is width, which can really affect how easy an SUV is to drive around town. Not including door mirrors, the average width of the large 4x4s we’ve tested is 1.925 metres (or over three quarters the width of the new London Routemaster bus). Even the large cars we’ve tested are some 5% narrower, which really does increase usability in congested environments such as rush-hour traffic. The situation is only likely to get worse as cars get incrementally larger with each successive generation.







And, crucially: 



> SUVs emit more CO2
> 
> With engine downsizing, ditching four-wheel-drive and the increased prevalence of hybrid models, carmakers are working hard to reduce the emissions of their off-road models. However, our independent tests reveal that, on average, SUVs emit much more CO2 than conventional models. Our lab-measured tailpipe emissions tests (tank-to-wheel CO2), which are more stringent than the official emissions tests, show just how big the difference is.
> 
> Read more: 5 reasons not to buy an SUV or crossover (and one why you should) – Which? News - Which?


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 6, 2020)

I do like the Yaris mini SUV hybrid. Then again it doesnt look too big. 
View attachment 225314View attachment 225315
Bound to be very efficient fuel wise and also very low emission


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> The Toyota CHR .
> View attachment 225310
> 
> Ugliest car ever.


This isn't actually real.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This isn't actually real.


Behold!


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This isn't actually real.



The toyota CHR is real. 
Ugly.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

The C-HR is real but that concept art isn't a real car. As ever the reality is more boring. Still ugly though.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

Anyway today Ford USA has killed off the Fusion, which is what we think of as the Mondeo.

This means Ford USA make no cars any more except the Mustang. Fiesta and Focus were already binned off.









						Ford Fusion: Dead
					

This is how the sedan ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. This week Ford phased out the last remaining blue oval-branded sedan. At its height in 2014, the Fusion moved over 300,000 units, but Ford only managed to push about 60,000 units out the door in the first half of 2020. Obviously...




					jalopnik.com


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> The C-HR is real but that concept art isn't a real car. As ever the reality is more boring. Still ugly though.


What is the point of the concept art car? Is it like one or two are actually manufactured and someone does a presentation about the vision and then a more boring version gets sold ? Why?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 6, 2020)

bimble said:


> What is the point of the concept art car? Is it like one or two are actually manufactured then a more boring version gets sold ? Why?


It's just to show how edgy they are as designers (and maybe to gauge exactly how many people puke) before they go back to turning out particularly boring fridges.


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

Well everything about that is depressing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 6, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Or a ban on pedestrians being pissed, seeing as:



Basically half of all adult pedestrians killed on the roads are pissed. Triffick.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> The Toyota CHR .
> View attachment 225309View attachment 225310
> 
> Ugliest car ever.



I think that's really nice in a futurey kind of way, but I can't see myself ever needing anything so huge, plus you can barely see out the back.
If they made something really small and efficient that looked kind of like that I could see myself being tempted.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

bimble said:


> What is the point of the concept art car? Is it like one or two are actually manufactured and someone does a presentation about the vision and then a more boring version gets sold ? Why?



It's exactly like fashion.  Exaggerate the elements that are different to the normal stuff going about, then work them into something a bit more toned down for mass market.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> The Toyota CHR .
> View attachment 225309View attachment 225310
> 
> Ugliest car ever.


I see your ugly car and raise you:


The cactus.  A car with plastic quilting on the bodywork.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I see your ugly car and raise you:
> 
> View attachment 225325
> The cactus.  A car with plastic quilting on the bodywork.



I was given something like that as a hire car to go to a conference (at least, those funny bits on the sides look familiar and it was def a Citroen). 
Looked funny but was v comfortable and went like shit off a shovel.

Had all sorts of electronic things I didn't really understand.


----------



## Thora (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I see your ugly car and raise you:
> 
> View attachment 225325
> The cactus.  A car with plastic quilting on the bodywork.


I quite like this!  Maybe not yellow though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Basically half of all adult pedestrians killed on the roads are pissed. Triffick.


Shocking isn't it, but let's blame the cars.
Speaking of shocking, if someone gets pissed up and gets electrocuted whilst doing something that a pissed up person might do, is it the electricity's fault?


----------



## bimble (Aug 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> It's exactly like fashion.  Exaggerate the elements that are different to the normal stuff going about, then work them into something a bit more toned down for mass market.


In fashion people can buy the catwalk stuff, made in small quantities and very expensive,  is it the same with ugly cars?


----------



## Flavour (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I see your ugly car and raise you:
> 
> View attachment 225325
> The cactus.  A car with plastic quilting on the bodywork.


 i got given one of those as a rental once and i did feel like a right twat driving around in it


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

bimble said:


> In fashion people can buy the catwalk stuff, made in small quantities and very expensive,  is it the same with ugly cars?



Only if you're VERY rich. 
And mostly no - you'd need to get all sorts of bits adjusted to make it roadworthy, I expect.

edit:  Wanna Buy a Concept Car? Here's How, Sort Of.


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> I think that's really nice in a futurey kind of way, but I can't see myself ever needing anything so huge, plus you can barely see out the back.
> If they made something really small and efficient that looked kind of like that I could see myself being tempted.




See the yaris mini suv.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> See the yaris mini suv.
> View attachment 225327



I'm kind of thinking smaller still.   My car is basically a go-kart with indicators and wipers.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 6, 2020)

After my disaster Allegro first car all my subsequent cars were quite slim, Fiesta, Stanza, Mondeo, Rover 216, Corsa. I suppose my company Mondeos might be considered a bit wider. Now I have gates which are not that wide. The Corsa has no worries but a wide car would require more care going in and out.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

My heart bleeds for those people driving oversized SUVs who find they can't drive down some roads and lanes because their expensive car is too wide. 









						Cars too wide for narrow roads - we expose the worst offenders - Which? News
					

Want to be able to drive down roads with width restrictions? We reveal which cars you should avoid buying




					www.which.co.uk


----------



## hegley (Aug 6, 2020)

bimble said:


> The nissan juke is an unbelievably ugly thing and there are so many of them about i don't get it. Is it just their bigness that people like then, its not got any special powers its just big and they don't care that it looks like an aggressive toad?


Shit visibility out of them too - was supposed to take one for a test drive, didn't even start the engine because I hated how narrow the view was out the front windscreen.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 6, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I see your ugly car and raise you:
> 
> View attachment 225325
> The cactus.  A car with plastic quilting on the bodywork.



I think the quilting is meant to stop damage caused by people opening their car doors onto you when in car parks causing door dents.

Practical I suppose but looks horrendous.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 6, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I think the quilting is meant to stop damage caused by people opening their car doors onto you when in car parks causing door dents.
> 
> Practical I suppose but looks horrendous.


Yes.  Hence their popularity as hire cars.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> My heart bleeds for those people driving oversized SUVs who find they can't drive down some roads and lanes because their expensive car is too wide.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its a funny one, as - the very places SUV’s are most applicable for - the countryside is where you’ll find the narrowest roads around.

A VW Touareg took my drivers side mirror out on a country road last year - the driver was going far too fast as he came around a bend.  He stopped and was very apologetic.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 6, 2020)

bimble said:


> The nissan juke is an unbelievably ugly thing and there are so many of them about i don't get it. Is it just their bigness that people like then, its not got any special powers its just big and they don't care that it looks like an aggressive toad?



Tiny on the inside though. But they make up for it by being horrible to drive.


----------



## Looby (Aug 6, 2020)

bimble said:


> Are people buying them because they like how they look then??


They must be. Baffling!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 7, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> I see your ugly car and raise you:
> 
> View attachment 225325
> The cactus.  A car with plastic quilting on the bodywork.


This is cool. For a start it looks like Pikachu. And, like lots of good French cars, it's practical, in this case because it flies in the face of having to mollycoddle a car from day to day life like being hit with another car's door in the supermarket car park. The design is coherent enough. And it gets points for being different in an era of homogeneity. Generally it would be better if people bought more stuff like this.

Not a very good car though.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

Poo


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)




----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> The nissan juke is an unbelievably ugly thing and there are so many of them about i don't get it. Is it just their bigness that people like then, its not got any special powers its just big and they don't care that it looks like an aggressive toad?


My mate at works wife bought a Juke, she said she couldn’t see anything out of it and it wasn’t pleasant to drive. She swapped it after three weeks after going for a drive in our old Qashqai,  the 2007 model. She bought a 2008 model because as we found the newer versions of the Qashqai are dreadful too.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2020)

One of the things I love about jimny is that you can see so much when in there, the cardboard box shape of the car and the tall wingmirrors  means you see loads of sky as well as the tarmac, you can see birds and treetops and everything.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> One of the things I love about jimny is that you can see so much when in there, the cardboard box shape of the car and the tall wingmirrors  means you see loads of sky as well as the tarmac, you can see birds and treetops and everything.


I had a Grand Vitara 1600 sport. Like the Jimny you could use it in two rear wheel drive mode and only use the high and low ratio 4wd when needed. It was so much fun to drive. We used it mostly for taking the dogs to the coast or countryside and I used it for fishing. The 4wd being great at getting out of deep mud or up steep banks. We have hired Jimnys on holiday too, my only concern is due to the narrower width than the Vitara you have to be careful going into bends and keep the speed down.
I only sold the Vitara a couple of months back, though I hadn’t driven it for nearly two years.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 225500




A classic, uglier, thirstier and smaller inside/boot than the Giulia.


----------



## hegley (Aug 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A classic, uglier, thirstier and smaller inside/boot than the Giulia.


Like a reverse Tardis.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 8, 2020)

I remember trying to engage 4wd on a small Suzuki, we had to do something with the wheel hubs. 
Couldn't make it work. :-/


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I remember trying to engage 4wd on a small Suzuki, we had to do something with the wheel hubs.
> Couldn't make it work. :-/


I seem to remember you had to engage the front wheel drive by turning the hubs half a turn on the Jimny, the Vitara had the standard two gear selectors, 5 speed and 2wd, high and low 4wd.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 8, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> I seem to remember you had to engage the front wheel drive by turning the hubs half a turn on the Jimny, the Vitara had the standard two gear selectors, 5 speed and 2wd, high and low 4wd.


We didn't really know what we were doing. At one point I was concerned that it seemed to be running in one wheel drive


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2020)

There’s actually a third button in the jimny (to the right of 2w and 4w) which is called 4wl which I have never pressed and even after googling have no understanding of what it is for apart from that the L stands for low. Does anyone know when/ why you’d press it?


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> There’s actually a third button in the jimny (to the right of 2w and 4w) which is called 4wl which I have never pressed and even after googling have no understanding of what it is for apart from that the L stands for low. Does anyone know when/ why you’d press it?


4 wheel low. For low gear low traction like driving it up the side of a hill. You probably just need normal 4w for the lane leading up to your house.

I don't even drive.


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2020)

So low gear = better for steepness , same as on a bike? (Traction doesn’t mean anything to me tbh)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> So low gear = better for steepness , same as on a bike? (Traction doesn’t mean anything to me tbh)



Yes. May also be useful for getting through mud, getting over rough terrain etc.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> So low gear = better for steepness , same as on a bike? (Traction doesn’t mean anything to me tbh)


Traction is wheel sticking to road. It's what you lack when you're not on a road and what 4wd improves.

Do cars not go into lower gears for going up hills then? Or is it all automatic these days?


----------



## bimble (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Traction is wheel sticking to road. It's what you lack when you're not on a road and what 4wd improves.
> 
> Do cars not go into lower gears for going up hills then? Or is it all automatic these days?


I’m sure they do it’s just me not having a clue, was hard enough getting over my phobia and learning to drive whilst old without adding gears into it so I only know automatic.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> So low gear = better for steepness , same as on a bike? (Traction doesn’t mean anything to me tbh)


Low gear means that your car will be going slowly compared to the revs of the engine. The most frequent use of low gears (apart from pulling away) should be when when you are going _down _a steep incline. The engine will slow the car without you having to be on the brakes all the time. This is especially useful in cars where the brakes are made of tinfoil, like the Jimny.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> I’m sure they do it’s just me not having a clue, was hard enough getting over my phobia and learning to drive whilst old without adding gears into it so I only know automatic.


I did manual lessons but there was only a few months gap between me sobering up enough to take lessons and kids arriving to suck all the time and money away and it wasn't long enough to pass.


----------



## Cid (Aug 8, 2020)

If it was about how much you can see and practicality everyone would be driving these:


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Do cars not go into lower gears for going up hills then?



And for going down steep hills, as this provides 'engine braking' to take some of the strain off the brakes. I assume modern automatics are capable of doing stuff like that, although older ones weren't.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2020)

Cid said:


> If it was about how much you can see and practicality everyone would be driving these:



I need to buy a car soon and my criteria are, in this order: visibility, ease of parking, fuel efficiency. That thing is probably pretty good on all three counts. Also cheap to insure because nobody would want to steal it. You don't see many about these days but if I saw one for sale I'd definitely consider it.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 8, 2020)

I don't know why we might lump pickups in with SUVs, they are usually more work orientated vehicles, rather than say a Range Rover Sport or a SQuashqai  

In Australia they are called Ute's as in Utility Vehicles. Seems appropriate to me.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I remember trying to engage 4wd on a small Suzuki, we had to do something with the wheel hubs.
> Couldn't make it work. :-/


The Vitara. I had one as a hire car in Crete once. We picked it up in the dark and the bloke asked me if I was driving over the mountains. I said yes and he gave me a forlorn look and just said "be careful". It was wet on the top of the mountains but we got over them without too much drama. In the morning light I realised why he was concerned. The tyres were down to the canvas.


----------



## Cid (Aug 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I need to buy a car soon and my criteria are, in this order: visibility, ease of parking, fuel efficiency. That thing is probably pretty good on all three counts. Also cheap to insure because nobody would want to steal it.



I used to have one... visibility is amazing. As is practicality. Fuel efficiency is ok, but it is a 20 year old design. It wasn't super cheap to insure, possibly because of the third front seat.

You get to join the secret world of Multipla owners too... Surprising how many people have owned and loved them.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I need to buy a car soon and my criteria are, in this order: visibility, ease of parking, fuel efficiency. That thing is probably pretty good on all three counts. Also cheap to insure because nobody would want to steal it. You don't see many about these days but if I saw one for sale I'd definitely consider it.


You should. It would suit you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2020)

Cid said:


> I used to have one... visibility is amazing. As is practicality. Fuel efficiency is ok, but it is a 20 year old design. It wasn't super cheap to insure, possibly because of the third front seat.
> 
> You get to join the secret world of Multipla owners too... Surprising how many people have owned and loved them.



My dad's got a Citroen Berlingo and they have a similarly cultish following. Again, visibility is superb as is pasenger and luggage space for something smaller than many SUVs.

My budget is maximum 2 grand for car plus insurance so 20 year old designs are very much the end of the market I'm looking at.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> The Toyota CHR .
> View attachment 225309View attachment 225310
> 
> Ugliest car ever.


Car designs are like clothes. What one person thinks is cool, someone else will think sucks. I think the CHR looks good if you're into that sort of thing. I don't like cars that attract attention though.

The best looking SUV on the roads is the classically understated Mercedes GLC.


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Car designs are like clothes. What one person thinks is cool, someone else will think sucks. I think the CHR looks good if you're into that sort of thing. I don't like cars that attract attention though.
> 
> The best looking SUV on the roads is the classically understated Mercedes GLC.
> 
> View attachment 225537




That's really cool looking. 
I like clean lines. Classic and as you say understated. It almost looks polite.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Car designs are like clothes. What one person thinks is cool, someone else will think sucks. I think the CHR looks good if you're into that sort of thing. I don't like cars that attract attention though.
> 
> The best looking SUV on the roads is the classically understated Mercedes GLC.
> 
> View attachment 225537



That doesn't inspire instant revulsion so it might actually be one of the better SUV designs around. And a Merc as well, most of what they make these days is pretty rank.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2020)

It looks like it should do, a raised estate with bigger arches. Still too many random swage lines not integrated into anything but better than other recent Merc stuff.


----------



## Athos (Aug 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I need to buy a car soon and my criteria are, in this order: visibility, ease of parking, fuel efficiency. That thing is probably pretty good on all three counts. Also cheap to insure because nobody would want to steal it. You don't see many about these days but if I saw one for sale I'd definitely consider it.



Great visibility from the Volvo XC90, it has auto parking, and you can get a hybrid version which has good fuel economy.  (It's got good safety for occupants, and auto braking for pedestrians who step out without looking, too.)  With your £2k budget, and, say £50 part ex for the pushbike,  you're only an agonising £65, 445 short of being able to afford the base model.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

So has this auto braking thing actually saved any lives yet?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

Sugar Kane said:


> That's really cool looking.
> I like clean lines. Classic and as you say understated. It almost looks polite.


Yes. Nice and quiet, no need to shout. Just go about your business ...


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> So has this auto braking thing actually saved any lives yet?



No, all the drivers are far too skillful.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

mauvais said:


> ... too many random swage lines not integrated into anything ...


Get rid of those and it would be spot-on.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

Merc interiors are gash, trying terribly hard to be "sporty".


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> My budget is maximum 2 grand for car plus insurance so 20 year old designs are very much the end of the market I'm looking at.


2006+ Honda Civic or a Mercedes B class. Loads of visibility, about a million mpg on the smaller engines, and insure them for about the cost of a packet of fags.


----------



## Athos (Aug 8, 2020)

Could see you in something like this, Plank.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> Great visibility from the Volvo XC90, it has auto parking, and you can get a hybrid version which has good fuel economy.  (It's got good safety for occupants, and auto braking for pedestrians who step out without looking, too.)  With your £2k budget, and, say £50 part ex for the pushbike,  you're a mere £65, 445 short of being able to afford the base model.



Why would I get rid of my bike? Have another look at my criteria:

Visibility: 360 degrees uninterrupted. Higher driving position than an SUV.
Ease of parking: unlimited free parking anywhere on earth, no robot chauffeur required.
Fuel efficiency: will do fifty miles on a cup of tea and a cheese and pickle sandwich.

What kind of idiot would I have to be to spend 70 grand on something that's considerably worse in all departments than what I already have? And while we're on the rhetorical questions, how insecure do you have to be to mock other people for having less money than you? I'd give every penny I have and both of my shoes just to not be that sort of cunt tbh.


----------



## Athos (Aug 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> What kind of idiot would I have to be...



A special kind. Which is why I suggested it. 



SpookyFrank said:


> I'd give every penny I have and both of my shoes just to not be that sort of cunt tbh.



Ooh, get you with your shoes.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Merc interiors are gash, trying terribly hard to be "sporty".


Yes, my boss drives a medium arrogance Merc and I was very disappointed in the interior. Aluminium look plastic they seem to think is elegant.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

bimble said:


> ... the tall wingmirrors  means you see loads of sky as well as the tarmac ...



Always useful to be able to see as much sky in your mirrors as possible when driving.


----------



## souljacker (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> So has this auto braking thing actually saved any lives yet?



First time it happened on our Qashqai, I was so shocked I almost drive it into a wall.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> First time it happened on our Qashqai, I was so shocked I almost drive it into a wall.


Well I don't drive but I can't imagine computers suddenly taking over the driving being the safest thing in the world. I take it it just slows down and it's not a full on emergency stop?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

I can't imagine anything much more peturbing than having a car brake when you're not expecting it to.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I can't imagine anything much more peturbing than having a car brake when you're not expecting it to.



Better than crashing into a child when you’re not expecting to.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Better than crashing into a child when you’re not expecting to.


So how many kids' lives has this actually saved then? Someone must have documented something. A quick google didn't turn anything up.


----------



## souljacker (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Well I don't drive but I can't imagine computers suddenly taking over the driving being the safest thing in the world. I take it it just slows down and it's not a full on emergency stop?



It slows down but quite forcefully. Not an emergency stop but not far off. And it beeps like crazy.

There is also a feature that auto corrects your direction if it thinks you are straying over white lines. Reasonably useful on a motorway or dual carriageway but downright dangerous on a country road. That got switched off pretty sharpish.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> So how many kids' lives has this actually saved then? Someone must have documented something. A quick google didn't turn anything up.



Cars don’t have black boxes and near misses aren’t logged anywhere, so it’s not easy to study in the early days of Pedestrian AEB fitment:



			https://www.roadsafety-dss.eu/assets/data/pdf/synopses/Autonomous_Emergency_Braking_AEB_pedestrians_cyclists_20112017.pdf


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Always useful to be able to see as much sky in your mirrors as possible when driving.


Depends what you're driving. A Toyota Hilux pickup, for example...


----------



## T & P (Aug 8, 2020)

Shit like this is why the fully autonomous driving cars that car haterz are so eagerly awaiting are a bad idea and they’re simply not going to happen in our lifetime. So people are going to have to continue putting up with us incompetent and irresponsible human car drivers for the foreseeable


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Cars don’t have black boxes and near misses aren’t logged anywhere, so it’s not easy to study in the early days of Pedestrian AEB fitment:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.roadsafety-dss.eu/assets/data/pdf/synopses/Autonomous_Emergency_Braking_AEB_pedestrians_cyclists_20112017.pdf


You'd think in the three years since that was written they could have come up with one.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Better than crashing into a child when you’re not expecting to.


Perhaps, but for those of us who in a lifetime of driving haven’t come anywhere near hitting a pedestrian it’s just a bollocks gimmick. I don’t want my car doing anything I don’t tell it to. If auto-braking ever operates on a car you’re driving like a dick. There should also be a fist that comes out of the steering wheel to punch you in the face.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

AEB-deniers remind me of the anti-seatbelt brigade.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 8, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> Yes.  Hence their popularity as hire cars.



Hire cars are typically stuff that doesn’t sell well, that the hire car companies can buy in bulk from manufacturers at a knock-down price. In my last job I’d get one every few weeks and you’d get some right shit. Citroen Zara Potatoes, Fiat Lounges, flash looking but gutless Puntos (for kids). I’d expect this Citroen to fit in nicely with this category.

i have seen quite a few as driving instructor cars.


----------



## Bollox (Aug 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps, but for those of us who in a lifetime of driving haven’t come anywhere near hitting a pedestrian it’s just a bollocks gimmick. I don’t want my car doing anything I don’t tell it to. If auto-braking ever operates on a car you’re driving like a dick. There should also be a fist that comes out of the steering wheel to punch you in the face.



The Hospitals would be overflowing


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> AEB-deniers remind me of the anti-seatbelt bridgade.


Would just like some proof it actually works. If it saves lives it should be compulsory.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Would just like some proof it actually works. If it saves lives it should be compulsory.


It is from next year on new cars sold in the EU. I've no idea how many lives it saves though.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Would just like some proof it actually works. If it saves lives it should be compulsory.


Forcing cars to be smaller and slower would also save lives, but we're going in the opposite direction.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Would just like some proof it actually works. If it saves lives it should be compulsory.



Why do you think that it might not save lives?


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Why do you think that it might not save lives?


Why do you think that it might? It's been around at least three years and there's been no noticeable or significant reduction in road deaths in that time.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 8, 2020)

When ABS was introduced and was only on a few new cars the worry was that it could cause more accidents because people in normal cars travelling behind a car fitted with ABS would not be able to stop as quickly and would rear end the ABS vehicle if it did an emergency stop.

In Germany there were arguments to put a big ABS sign on the back of cars with ABS fitted as a warning. 

Now ABS has become compulsory on all new cars and the number of cars with ABS in the fleet is increasing rapidly so the issue is much reduced and we all benefit from being able to stop quickly without losing control even on wet roads.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> When ABS was introduced and was only on a few new cars the worry was that it could cause more accidents because people in normal cars travelling behind a car fitted with ABS would not be able to stop as quickly and would rear end the ABS vehicle if it did an emergency stop.
> 
> In Germany there were arguments to put a big ABS sign on the back of cars with ABS fitted as a warning.
> 
> Now ABS has become compulsory on all new cars and the number of cars with ABS in the fleet is increasing rapidly so the issue is much reduced and we all benefit from being able to stop quickly without losing control even on wet roads.


ABS has had a measurable effect on the number of road accidents. If this thingummyjig worked you'd think there'd be some anecdotal data at least.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> ABS has had a measurable effect on the number of road accidents. If this thingummyjig worked you'd think there'd be some anecdotal data at least.


It hasn’t been around long enough on enough cars yet


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2020)

There are some stats on AEB if you go looking but I don't know how good quality the data is really.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

mauvais said:


> There are some stats on AEB if you go looking but I don't know how good quality the data is really.



As maomao would know if he had bothered to read the research paper I posted for him.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2020)

There's this which is the closest I found to accident reduction: GM front crash prevention systems cut police-reported crashes


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 8, 2020)

Anything that's likely to make drivers think they don't need to look where they're going is bad.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anything that's likely to make drivers think they don't need to look where they're going is bad.



If computers can drive more safely than people I'd just ban humans from driving tbh.

All I wanted to know was if it really worked. I'm still suspicious about AI being able to make decisions like that.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 8, 2020)

I can guarantee I will not be buying a car with AEB.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

Sprocket. said:


> I can guarantee I will not be buying a car with AEB.


Or if you do, only drive it in the daytime:





__





						Study Claims Autonomous Braking is Dangerous – TU Automotive
					

Research by safety specialists claims autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems are inadequate placing pedestrians in danger. The study by the American Automobile Association of America (AAA) alleges vehicles with pedestrian detection systems performed inconsistently in daylight conditions...




					www.tu-auto.com


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Or if you do, only drive it in the daytime:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That article highlights some deficiencies of a what is a recent innovation, but it provides no evidence whatsoever that a car with AEB might be more dangerous than one without.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Or if you do, only drive it in the daytime:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’ll stick to my older cars anyhow. I’ve been managing without it for forty-two years.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> If computers can drive more safely than people I'd just ban humans from driving tbh.
> 
> All I wanted to know was if it really worked. I'm still suspicious about AI being able to make decisions like that.



Of course it really works, or you think it has been made mandatory for a bit of a laugh? 

No one said it’s foolproof


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Of course it really works, or you think it has been made mandatory for a bit of a laugh?
> 
> No one said it’s foolproof


I think it's mandatory because insurance companies have decided that it saves them money, a scenario which is similar to but not entirely congruent with saving lives and it's reasonable to be curious about how it works and how effective it is. 

And I do worry about the AEB not working ever being an excuse for poor driving. Though at the moment it seems its benefit is marginal enough that no-one would be tempted into relying on it.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> I think it's mandatory because insurance companies have decided that it saves them money, a scenario which is similar to but not entirely congruent with saving lives and it's reasonable to be curious about how it works and how effective it is.



It’s part of the EUs long term aim to reduce road deaths to zero by 2050 and is not some cynical ploy by the insurance companies. If you’re not satisfied with the evidence I posted, you won’t have long to wait for more because thankfully, EU politicians have decided that the benefits are sufficient to make it mandatory now without delaying any further,


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It’s part of the EUs long term aim to reduce road deaths to zero by 2050 and is not some cynical ploy by the insurance companies. If you’re not satisfied with the evidence I posted, you won’t have long to wait for more because thankfully, EU politicians have decided that the benefits are sufficient to make it mandatory now without delaying any further,


Crikey, you'd think you'd invented it yourself.

And god bless those brave MEPs.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Crikey, you'd think you'd invented it yourself.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Crikey, you'd think you'd invented it yourself.
> 
> And god bless those brave MEPs.



Perhaps if you’d witnessed an 80 year old woman killed on a zebra crossing you wouldn’t be so desperate to find fault with something that is obviously going to make such incidents less likely to occur in the future.  If you don’t believe it will make one iota of difference then you obviously haven’t read the details about the technology so you may as well stop carping on about it until you have.


----------



## maomao (Aug 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps if you’d witnessed an 80 year old woman killed on a zebra crossing you wouldn’t be so desperate to find fault with something that is obviously going to make such incidents less likely to occur in the future.  If you don’t believe it will make one iota of difference then you obviously haven’t read the details about the technology so you may as well stop carping on about it until you have.




I've seen several very bad accidents (I didn't get ages or details but if the yellow sign goes up you know they didn't make it) on roads and one death on a tube line in many years working in transport in London. I'd really rather not have a competition or go over it in any detail thanks but senseless loss of life is my main objection to the current transport chaos. I would hope a driver that killed a pedestrian on a zebra crossing at the very least never drove again but I know that's pretty unlikely.

If the European Parliament sincerely wanted to reduce road deaths it would invest in safer transport rather than rewarding car manufacturers for magic box solutions that provide marginal benefits. There are 25,000 deaths on the road each year in the EU. They'll have to do a bit better than fancy emergency braking if they want to make a serious dent in that.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2020)

So Brexit could bring even more dangerous SUVs to our streets 



> Safety experts are urging the UK government to exclude American cars from any post-Brexit trade deal.
> 
> They say imported vehicles should meet British safety standards for accidents with pedestrians, cyclists and children.
> 
> ...











						US cars 'must be left out of post-Brexit trade deal'
					

UK safety campaigners raise concerns about an increase in the number of US deaths caused by SUVs.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## ska invita (Aug 8, 2020)

editor said:


> So Brexit could bring even more dangerous SUVs to our streets
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh god please no.


----------



## T & P (Aug 9, 2020)

Apart from the very odd twat, I doubt people here are going to embrace them in any numbers. Fuel is a lot more expensive here than over the Pond, and those American monster trucks are not only massive gas guzzlers but also likely to fall into the highest CO2 tax bands. And for the most part they’re actually of shit quality.


----------



## pesh (Aug 9, 2020)

Canyonero


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> So Brexit could bring even more dangerous SUVs to our streets
> 
> 
> 
> ...



GM have already exited the RHD market and Ford aren't going to suddenly start making and importing RHD Expeditions/F-XXX as there is only a tiny market for them so I don't think this is a particular concern.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> If the European Parliament sincerely wanted to reduce road deaths it would invest in safer transport rather than rewarding car manufacturers for magic box solutions that provide marginal benefits. There are 25,000 deaths on the road each year in the EU. They'll have to do a bit better than fancy emergency braking if they want to make a serious dent in that.



Road deaths have more than halved in 20 years thanks to a long list of marginal and not so marginal improvements brought about both through legislation and EuroNCAP’s evolving testing regime. You’ll have to do better than “rewarding car manufacturers” and “fancy” if you want to object to this innovation.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 9, 2020)

souljacker said:


> It slows down but quite forcefully. Not an emergency stop but not far off. And it beeps like crazy.
> 
> There is also a feature that auto corrects your direction if it thinks you are straying over white lines. Reasonably useful on a motorway or dual carriageway but downright dangerous on a country road. That got switched off pretty sharpish.



The braking thing has come on a couple of times for me, seems to work, though Frau Bahn rear ended someone. The lane assist thing is horrible and turned off, though the past week have had a hire car and not been able to turn it off, good points are that you must indicate to change lanes, bad points are roadworks where you have to flight the car across the lanes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Road deaths have more than halved in 20 years thanks to a long list of marginal improvements brought about both through legislation and EuroNCAP’s evolving testing regime. You’ll have to do better than “rewarding car manufacturers” and “fancy” if you want to object to this innovation.



I didn't object to it, I just asked if it worked and got a load of guff about the eu from you. Two posters have actually replied with their personal experience of it which was more the kind of thing I was looking for given this is a discussion forum not a search engine.

The 50% since 2000 claim masks the fact that their target was 50% reduction from 2010-2020 and that they are currently way off that target having only got to 23% by 2019.  Maybe that's why they're throwing money at last minute tech solutions now. Eu wide figures are a bit difficult to interpret anyway and don't show that some countries, like Greece, have made massive improvements while some, like Poland and Romania, have done fuck all. Though I suppose the eu really can take credit for the Greek stats as it seems to be mainly down to the economic crisis leading to less driving (the same is at least partially true for big improvements in road deaths in Spain, Portugal and Ireland, most of the biggest gains have been in countries that have suffered worst in the economic crisis of the last decade). When the 2020 data is in I suppose they'll be congratulating themselves on the effect the coronavirus and ensuing economic crisis has had on the figures too.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> I didn't object to it, I just asked if it worked and got a load of guff about the eu from you. Two posters have actually replied with their personal experience of it which was more the kind of thing I was looking for given this is a discussion forum not a search engine.



I gave what you asked for right here, you should have said you were only looking for anecdotes 

Sure there's a discussion to be had about how effective it is in different circumstances, but asking whether it works is like asking whether airbags work.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I gave what you asked for right here, you should have said you were only looking for anecdotes


You mean like when I asked if there was any anecdotal data in post 908 in response to you and another poster saying the technology hadn't been around long enough for solid stats?

And while supporting evidence is always to be encouraged I'm not going to read a 15 page pdf on a train and if you can't be arsed to precis the point into a sentence or two I don't see why I should bother even when I'm at home in front of the PC.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> You mean like when I asked if there was any anecdotal data in post 908 in response to you and another poster saying the technology hadn't been around long enough for solid stats?
> 
> And while supporting evidence is always to be encouraged I'm not going to read a 15 page pdf on a train and if you can't be arsed to precis the point into a sentence or two I don't see why I should bother even when I'm at home in front of the PC.



You asked whether anyone had documented anything, but can't even be arsed to read the summary of the paper I posted, which is in itself a summary of other research.

Yes, I don't see why you should bother either, just assure yourself that this safety innovation that has been made mandatory on new cars from next year simply doesn't work. You're just a grumpy old man ranting at clouds.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You asked whether anyone had documented anything, but can't even be arsed to read the summary of the paper I posted, which is in itself a summary of other research.
> 
> Yes, I don't see why you should bother either, just assure yourself that this safety innovation that has been made mandatory on new cars from next year simply doesn't work. You're just a grumpy old man ranting at clouds.



Lol. I haven't ranted about anything on this thread (except maybe that last thing about the eu). If you think that's ranting then you haven't been here long (which I doubt, Maurice?).

And the paper's pretty boring. It's mostly based on simulations which I'm not really interested in. I suppose we'll just have to wait a few years for proper data.


----------



## BlanketAddict (Aug 9, 2020)

I am noticing lots of squabbling on various threads lately.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

BlanketAddict said:


> I am noticing lots of squabbling on various threads lately.


Now you _are_ new here.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 9, 2020)

I've never been a fan of Infinity motors but the FX had some nice lines on it and great wheels. The 3.7 could shift a bit too.


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 9, 2020)

Some of us earlier. Allegedly.


----------



## Cid (Aug 9, 2020)

You’re all repugnant shitends and I hate you.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 9, 2020)

BlanketAddict said:


> I am noticing lots of squabbling on various threads lately.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> And the paper's pretty boring. It's mostly based on simulations which I'm not really interested in. I suppose we'll just have to wait a few years for proper data.



How many years will you wait for evidence that face masks prevent COVID deaths when worn in public? Can you give any examples of people whose lives have been saved by the wearing of face masks in public?


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Road deaths have more than halved in 20 years thanks to a long list of marginal and not so marginal improvements brought about both through legislation and EuroNCAP’s evolving testing regime. You’ll have to do better than “rewarding car manufacturers” and “fancy” if you want to object to this innovation.


And road deaths would be even lower if it wasn't for the growth in SUVs. But you're OK with that, apparently.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> And road deaths would be even lower if it wasn't for the growth in SUVs. But you're OK with that, apparently.



Ok, if someone is in favour of seatbelts it doesn't follow that they ought to be in favour of banning vehicles.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> How many years will you wait for evidence that face masks prevent COVID deaths when worn in public? Can you give any examples of people whose lives have been saved by the wearing of face masks in public?



I'm struggling to tell if you're being wilfully obtuse or you're just catastrophically dim. Luckily the cure for both conditions is the same; ignore it and hope it goes away.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Ok, if someone is in favour of seatbelts it doesn't follow that they ought to in favour of banning vehicles.


Earlier on, you made an almighty issue about rail suicide numbers, insisting that vast amounts of money should be thrown at a national network of trackside cameras to reduce the risk - because that is what the authorities should be doing. It's all about safety. 

But when it comes to SUVs, it seems you're no longer quite so interested in the health and safety of road users and pedestrians. Why is that?


----------



## Badgers (Aug 9, 2020)




----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

Badgers said:


>


That is ridiculous, as is this:









> The latest batch of double-cab 4x4 pick-ups is larger and more tough than ever before, making them ideal workhorses for tradesmen and those professionals who genuinely need off-road capability. But the latest batch of double-cabs aren’t simply more practical than their pickup predecessors. Nowadays manufacturers are loading high-spec versions of their commercial pick-up trucks with glamorous styling accessories and the type of luxury options you’d expect to find in an executive car.





> The reason? Increasing numbers of company drivers are cottoning-on to the tax advantages of running a cool-looking double-cab pick-up instead of a traditional family car or SUV. So naturally manufacturers who make juicy margins on ‘luxury’ versions of cheap to develop commercial vehicles are doing everything possible to fan the flames of desire.











						Double-cab pick-up truck tax benefits explained | Auto Express
					

HMRC’s VAT and Benefit-in-Kind tax rules for double cab pick-ups make them seriously attractive as company vehicles




					www.autoexpress.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> How many years will you wait for evidence that face masks prevent COVID deaths when worn in public? Can you give any examples of people whose lives have been saved by the wearing of face masks in public?


That would make sense if I'd suggested that noone should use the bloody things. I just asked if they worked and expressed some cynicism about the role of the EU. I don't even drive and I voted leave. The EU can mandate all cars to be sky blue with pink polka dots for all I give a fuck. 

You just like them because it lets you tell yourself that driving a big fuck off SUV everywhere is helping the world in some way. If you want to maintain that illusion it's probably best left undiscussed.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> And road deaths would be even lower if it wasn't for the growth in SUVs. But you're OK with that, apparently.



Would they? I doubt it.

They would certainly be lower if the least safe vehicles were removed from the roads, but that group of vehicles isn't the same as "SUVs".



editor said:


> But when it comes to SUVs, it seems you're no longer quite so interested in the health and safety of road users and pedestrians. Why is that?



Anyone who is genuinely interested in the health and safety of road users and pedestrians would focus on specific vehicles rather than broad categories.

You may as well ban "vans" which as a class are far more dangerous and polluting than SUVs.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> That would make sense if I'd suggested that noone should use the bloody things. I just asked if they worked and expressed some cynicism about the role of the EU. I don't even drive and I voted leave. The EU can mandate all cars to be sky blue with pink polka dots for all I give a fuck.
> 
> You just like them because it lets you tell yourself that driving a big fuck off SUV everywhere is helping the world in some way. If you want to maintain that illusion it's probably best left undiscussed.



Well they do work, so there's your question answered.

And I don't drive a big fuck off SUV - it's the same width and length as my previous hatchback, but with added pedestrian safety features which work.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 9, 2020)




----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

Badgers said:


>




I already posted about the ridiculous tax advantages of those trucks. The whole issue with that is that they're not SUVs.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Well they do work, so there's your question answered.


So how many times have the brakes kicked in while you were driving?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> So how many times have the brakes kicked in while you were driving?



Not once in the 1000 miles I've done so far. But then I wouldn't expect to be in such a critical situation so often.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2020)

Badgers said:


>


These are universally bought by antisocial wankers so produce the worst possible outcomes. It's much-maligned but the roadside bomb has a niche.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Would they? I doubt it.


Just to get this straight: you're contending that SUVs cause no more deaths and injuries than smaller vehicles, yes?


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Well they do work, so there's your question answered.
> 
> And I don't drive a big fuck off SUV - it's the same width and length as my previous hatchback, but with added pedestrian safety features which work.


What model is this SUV?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> Just to get this straight: you're contending that SUVs cause no more deaths and injuries than smaller vehicles, yes?



You said "And road deaths would be even lower if it wasn't for the growth in SUVs."

If SUVs hadn't grown for some reason, people would have bought other large vehicles instead such as estate cars. Or they would have kept their existing, older and less safe vehicles. Even road deaths to non-occupants of these vehicles would not necessarily have been lower.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> What model is this SUV?



XC40


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You said "And road deaths would be even lower if it wasn't for the growth in SUVs."
> 
> If SUVs hadn't grown for some reason, people would have bought other large vehicles instead such as estate cars. Or they would have kept their existing, older and less safe vehicles. Even road deaths to non-occupants of these vehicles would not necessarily have been lower.


Nope. Educate yourself and stop talking bollocks. 



> Some vehicle types are inherently more risky for people around the vehicle. For example, larger cars such as sports utility vehicles (SUVs, often referred to as 4x4s) cause much more damage if they hit someone. A pedestrian hit by a large SUV is twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian hit by a normal sized car [5]. In collisions between an SUV and a smaller car, the person in the smaller car is 12 times more likely to be killed than the person in the SUV [6]. This is because SUVs are generally heavier and stiffer than normal cars, and therefore cause more damage on impact. They are also taller, so pedestrians hit by SUVs are more likely to suffer head or chest injuries, which are more likely to be fatal



The notion that everyone who has bought a SUV would have gone out and bought an estate car instead is utterly ridiculous but feel free to produce some research that backs up such a hatstand claim.






						Choosing safer vehicles - Brake the road safety charity
					

Brake the road safety charity. Stopping the carnage. Caring for the victims.




					www.brake.org.uk
				



.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> Nope. Educate yourself and stop talking bollocks.



Did you even read it? References 5 and 6 were from 2002-4 and have absolutely no relevance to the vehicles on the road today.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Did you even read it? References 5 and 6 were published in 2002 and have absolutely no relevance to the vehicles on the road today.


The laws of physics having been changed at some point in between.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Did you even read it? References 5 and 6 were published in 2002 and have absolutely no relevance to the vehicles on the road today.


So why are they changing the crash test rules?


> The changes have been introduced due to the growing concerns that huge SUVs likely result in smaller cars and their occupants to 'fare less well' if they're involved in a collision.
> 
> With the SUV market booming in recent years, more taller, larger and heavier vehicles are entering our roads than ever before.





> He added: 'The objective is to encourage makers of larger vehicles to share some of the burden of the impact with smaller vehicles.
> 
> Historically SUVs and other big cars have offered very good protection to their occupants. However, the smaller vehicles they sometimes crash into can fare less well.'











						New crash tests will measure the damage to other cars caused by SUVs
					

The changes have been introduced due to growing concerns over huge SUVs effect on smaller cars and their occupants if they're involved in a collision.




					www.thisismoney.co.uk


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 9, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I've never been a fan of Infinity motors but the FX had some nice lines on it and great wheels. The 3.7 could shift a bit too.
> 
> View attachment 225689



Very similar to the Porsche Cayenne from that angle.  Don’t see many Infiniti’s on the road up here - main dealer in Newcastle closed a while back now.

As an aside - I saw an old Mini Cooper the other day on my travels and couldn’t believe how dinky it is - looks like a go-cart death trap compared to its updated version.



(not my pic but one nabbed of the internet to show size comparison)


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> The laws of physics having been changed at some point in between.



Well bull bars were banned in the UK for a start, but those refs refer to light trucks and vans, and car occupants and motorcyclists in the US.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Very similar to the Porsche Cayenne from that angle.  Don’t see many Infiniti’s on the road up here - main dealer in Newcastle closed a while back now.
> 
> As an aside - I saw an old Mini Cooper the other day on my travels and couldn’t believe how dinky it is - looks like a go-cart death trap compared to its updated version.
> 
> ...


And that sums up the problem right there.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> So why are they changing the crash test rules?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To further improve safety - as I've argued all along it's the safety of individual vehicles that matters. Dangerous SUVs are bad. But you're not interested in safety tests on specific vehicles are you? These tests might lead to certain SUVs being considerably safer than other cars, but apparently it's their size and shininess that you object to.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Very similar to the Porsche Cayenne from that angle.  Don’t see many Infiniti’s on the road up here - main dealer in Newcastle closed a while back now.
> 
> As an aside - I saw an old Mini Cooper the other day on my travels and couldn’t believe how dinky it is - looks like a go-cart death trap compared to its updated version.
> 
> ...


It is a go-cart death trap. This size increase is pretty reasonable IMO, and if most cars fitted this kind of footprint all would be well.


----------



## hegley (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> XC40
> 
> View attachment 225751


My car is considered a small hatchback with dimensions of  4,460-4,660 mm L x 1,795 mm W x 1,435-1,440 mm H.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

hegley said:


> My car is considered a small hatchback with dimensions of  4,460-4,660 mm L x 1,795 mm W x 1,435-1,440 mm H.



I guess that 20cm taller roof turns mine into a death machine.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> But you're not interested in safety tests on specific vehicles are you? You say shape = bad. These tests might lead to certain SUVs being considerably safer than other cars, but apparently it's their size and shininess that you object to.


Are there any manufacturers who routinely test outcomes for occupants of random vehicles ans/or pedestrians who are involved in collisions with their vehicles? Because it's not really the whole story if they don't.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> To further improve safety - as I've argued all along it's the safety of individual vehicles that matters. Dangerous SUVs are bad. But you're not interested in safety tests on specific vehicles are you? These tests might lead to certain SUVs being considerably safer than other cars, but apparently it's their size and shininess that you object to.


The bigger the size, the bigger the engine, the bigger the tyres. the taller the vehicle, the heavier and more polluting it is. Simple physics. 

And in case you haven't noticed, we're heading for a climate catastrophe, and on a local scale people are dying because of poor air quality, to which the aforementioned heavier, more polluting cars are a contributory factor.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I guess that 20cm taller roof turns mine into a death machine.


It'll determine what size of child goes over and what size goes under. When I was a courier on a pushbike I preferred being hit by vans than cars because you fly over the top of cars whereas a transit hits you square on.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

And just to remind people of how fucking bad these cars are:



> The report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) says larger, *heavier SUVs emit around a quarter more CO2 than a medium-size car and nearly four times more than a medium-sized battery electric vehicle.*
> 
> Assuming the majority of these SUVs will be on UK roads for at least a decade, it is estimated the extra cumulative emissions to total around 8.2 million tons of CO2, the report said.





> Professor Jillian Anable, co-director of UKERC, said: “The rapid uptake of unnecessarily large and energy consuming vehicles just in the past few years makes a mockery of UK policy efforts towards the ‘Road to Zero’.”
> 
> She added: “The decarbonisation of the passenger car market can no longer rely on a distant target to stop the sales of conventional engines. We must start to phase out the most polluting vehicles immediately.”











						Popularity of SUVs 'makes a mockery' of UK’s air pollution targets - Your Money
					

The popularity of SUVs is threatening the UK’s attempts to reduce its carbon emissions, a new report has warned.




					www.yourmoney.com
				



.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

And from just 6 days ago. They should treat SUV advertising like tobacco - both industries lied and cheated about how harmful they are, and both continue to be dangerous to public health.   



> Advertising of sports utility vehicles, which emit more greenhouse gases than other cars, should be banned so the UK can meet its climate goals, a report has said.
> 
> The large increase in numbers of SUVs in the UK and around the world is the second-largest contributor to the increase in global emissions since 2010, according to the International Energy Agency.
> 
> ...





> Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute, said: “We ended tobacco advertising when we understood the threat from smoking to public health.
> 
> “Now that we know the human health and climate damage done by car pollution, it’s time to stop adverts making the problem worse. In a pandemic-prone world, people need clean air and more space on town and city streets.” He said adverts promoting the biggest and worst emitting SUVs were in effect “upselling pollution”.





> “The UK government’s plan for reaching net zero emissions relies on British drivers quickly switching away from buying traditional petrol and diesel cars to cleaner electric vehicles instead.
> 
> “That is now starting to happen, but there’s a problem: we’ve been switching to buying SUVs even faster, and as a result the average carbon emissions of a new car sold in the UK have been going up instead of down for the past four years.”











						Ban SUV adverts to meet UK climate goals, report urges
					

High-polluting cars are threat to public health, says New Weather Institute thinktank




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> The bigger the size, the bigger the engine, the bigger the tyres. the taller the vehicle, the heavier and more polluting it is. Simple physics.
> 
> And in case you haven't noticed, we're heading for a climate catastrophe, and on a local scale people are dying because of poor air quality, to which the aforementioned heavier, more polluting cars are a contributory factor.



We've covered this already. When you lose the argument on safety, you switch to invoking the climate. But then you're presented with fully-electric SUVs and the fact electric cars need to be heavier and wider to accommodate the batteries.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

editor said:


> And from just 6 days ago. They should treat SUV advertising like tobacco - both industries lied and cheated about how harmful they are, and both continue to be dangerous to public health.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



....and we're back to the article in the first post on this thread. Around in circles.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> We've covered this already. When you lose the argument on safety, you switch to invoking the climate. But then you're presented with fully-electric SUVs and the fact electric cars need to be heavier and wider to accommodate the batteries.


Batteries only have environmental benefit in built up areas where they reduce emissions. In gross energy terms they're worse because you have to lug a battery about everywhere. That's after you've dug up half of Canada to make batteries.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> Batteries only have environmental benefit in built up areas where they reduce emissions. In gross energy terms they're worse because you have to lug a battery about everywhere. That's after you've dug up half of Canada to make batteries.



Do we have an electric car thread? This would be interesting.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 9, 2020)

This thread should be titled “let’s keep repeating the same wrong nonsense”. There’s stuff being continually posted that is demonstrably untrue.


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> This thread should be titled “let’s keep repeating the same wrong nonsense”.


That wouldn't make sense to some posters though because not everyone can read your posts.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2020)

Why isn't this thread in the transport forum anyway?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> That wouldn't make sense to some posters though because not everyone can read your posts.


In fairness mate you’ve hardly covered yourself in glory here either! Don’t think I’ve ever seen so much fabricated claptrap on the same thread! 🤣


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Why isn't this thread in the transport forum anyway?



Probably because it’s about some nonsense in the Guardian rather than transport.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Why isn't this thread in the transport forum anyway?


Because it's about more than just chit-chat about over-sized polluting cars. It's an issue that affects everyone whether they have an interest in cars or not.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 10, 2020)

I've been watching some dynamic testing videos - basically the elk test.

It's more inconsistent than you might think, e.g. a whopping great Q8 does a reasonable job, but you can watch a lot of SUVs really shit the bed.








Meanwhile in normal car land, with just a dab of the brakes later:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> And that sums up the problem right there.


Not really, no. “Big car bad” is a gross oversimplification of the problem.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I've been watching some dynamic testing videos - basically the elk test.
> 
> It's more inconsistent than you might think, e.g. a whopping great Q8 does a reasonable job, but you can watch a lot of SUVs really shit the bed.
> 
> ...




It’s almost like someone buying a vehicle should make an overall assessment of the individual characteristics of particular vehicles, and how successful the manufacturer has been in overcoming any deficiencies, rather than base their judgement on crude groupings.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Not really, no. “Big car bad” is a gross oversimplification of the problem.


The fashion trend for grossly oversized SUVs over comparable smaller cars really_ is_ the problem. If a car can't fit a regular parking space or navigate country roads, or not present a higher risk to pedestrians and other road users, then why isn't that problematic?


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It’s almost like someone buying a vehicle should make an overall assessment of the individual characteristics of particular vehicles, and how successful the manufacturer has been in overcoming any deficiencies, rather than base their judgement on crude groupings.


Except manufacturers have been proved time and time again to be liars so you'd be a bit of a fool to blindly accept their fiddled claims.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> The fashion trend for grossly oversized SUVs over comparable smaller cars really_ is_ the problem.



Do you have a similar complaint about vans? Or are big vans ok because some people might need them?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Except manufacturers have been proved time and time again to be liars so you'd be a bit of a fool to blindly accept their fiddled claims.



That’s what independent tests such as the one I was replying about are for.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Do you have a similar complaint about vans? Or are big vans ok because some people might need them?


Is there an ongoing trend for small family cars to be replaced with huge SUVs?


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> That’s what independent tests such as the one I was replying about are for.


Yet you've never mentioned such tests until another poster pointed them out to you. Funny that. But now you're such a fan, could you recommend some independent test sites?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Is there an ongoing trend for small family cars to be replaced with huge SUVs?



No, there really isn‘t. There’s a trend for SUVs to get smaller, and for large family cars to be replaced by small SUVs.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Yet you've never mentioned such tests until another poster pointed them out to you. Funny that. But now you're such a fan, could you recommend some independent test sites?



EuroNCAP for a start. I’m actually not aware of any non-independent tests, other than Volvo’s, because most manufacturers keep them secret.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2020)

Just on this idea that electric cars have to be wider, it's nonsense, isn't it? The new Mini Electric is the same width as the petrol version. 

But but but we have two kids!!!! 
Yep. They'll fit.

I don't want to be too hard on people who want big cars, but I call bullshit on anyone who lives in a city/town and says they _need_ a big car.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, there really isn‘t. There’s a trend for SUVs to get smaller, and for large family cars to be replaced by small SUVs.


Really? And your source for this claim?

Meanwhile:


> But as we know, it’s not only luxury cars whose girth is growing. The Golf, now in its seventh generation since 1974 and about to tip into its eighth, is 169mm, or 6.7 inches, wider than it was when Abba were breaking through. Will the next Golf be wider still? Probably. The 1779mm Golf Mk7 is not so far off the 1830mm width of the 1973 Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer, while the current Mini hatchback is a mere inch narrower than a 996-generation Porsche 911 Carrera of 1997. The supposedly diminutive Mazda MX-5 is now slightly wider than the 1973 Porsche 911 RS.
> 
> Indeed, the regular fattening of the 911 offers over half-a-century’s worth of road-swamping evidence. The original 1963 edition was 1610mm wide, while the latest 992 is 1852mm broad, some 44mm (1.7in) of that added during the evolution from the 991. The swelling of the 911 is particularly saddening if you like driving: the car is now far less wieldy and agile than most of its predecessors because there’s less on-road margin for error.





> Designers fight for the big wheels that give a car the right stance, and if you don’t increase the width of that wheel too, you end up with the tyres of a motorcycle. So big wheels mean bigger wheelhousings, inevitably pushing apart the car’s track if it’s to have a decent turning circle. And then there’s the sheep factor.
> 
> The car makers almost always follow each other – it’s harder to justify bucking a trend to your shareholders – and one model enlargement is driven by another. Occasionally there are brave manufacturers who try to break the spiral by maintaining a model’s width (the new Evoque is almost identically dimensioned to the old) or even slightly reducing its size, which both Peugeot and Vauxhall have managed recently. But mostly, cars keep getting bigger.











						Ever-growing cars: why they keep on getting wider | Autocar
					

The increasing girth of cars over the past several decades has been a bone of contention, but the end could be in sight




					www.autocar.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Really? And your source for this claim?
> 
> Meanwhile:
> 
> ...



What has width got to do with anything? There is zero evidence it causes any non-occupant deaths and massive evidence that it saves thousands of lives through better protection of occupants.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Do you have a similar complaint about vans? Or are big vans ok because some people might need them?


That's a bit of a silly question. The reasons for driving a van are very different from the reasons for driving a car.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> What has width got to do with anything?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a bit of a silly question. The reasons for driving a van are very different from the reasons for driving a car.



Why would the reason for driving come into it? I thought it was all about size, pedestrian deaths and global warming?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

If vans were designed and built like modern SUVs they would be a hell of a lot safer and more efficient.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Why would the reason for driving come into it? I thought it was all about size, pedestrian deaths and global warming?


Another idiotic question. Vans, mostly, are used for various kinds of work. Of course that comes into it.

Helicopters are noisy, fuel-guzzling, dangerous things. 

Billionaire flying home from a football match in a private helicopter = wanker. 
Ambulance carrying a sick person to hospital in a helicopter = not wankers.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another idiotic question. Vans, mostly, are used for various kinds of work. Of course that comes into it.



So people using their SUVs for a suitably acceptable reason are ok? And people using vans for non-work purposes e.g. camping are bad? Thats very different from what has been argued so far.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> What has width got to do with anything? There is zero evidence it causes any non-occupant deaths and massive evidence that it saves thousands of lives through better protection of occupants.


You've moved the goalposts there. 

Car manufacturers don't seem to carry out routine safety tests for non occupants so you're not comparing like with like.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If vans were designed and built like modern SUVs they would be a hell of a lot safer and more efficient.


How would they be more efficent? What is specific to SUVs in terms of efficiency that couldn't be done to a van?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another idiotic question. Vans, mostly, are used for various kinds of work. Of course that comes into it.
> 
> Helicopters are noisy, fuel-guzzling, dangerous things.
> 
> ...



Exactly, but using a helicopter = SUV analogy, we should be calling air ambulance pilots cunts, and banning helicopters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Exactly, but using a helicopter = SUV analogy, we should be calling air ambulance pilots cunts, and banning helicopters.


How do you think you're doing with your arguments here? What mark out of ten do you reckon you deserve?


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If vans were designed and built like modern SUVs they would be a hell of a lot safer and more efficient.


Why would heavier, over-styled vans that are completely over engineered for their everyday function be more efficient and safer exactly?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How do you think you're doing with your arguments here? What mark out of ten do you reckon you deserve?



I'm the only one making sense really. What am I up against? "All SUVs = bad because big , vans = ok because work.... helicopters, cars aren't like the olden days, big and shiny,  estate cars fine because not tall, blah blah,"


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Why would heavier, over-styled vans that are completely over engineered for their everyday function be more efficient and safer exactly?



Non-commercial vehicles have to meet stricter safety and environmental standards.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Cars are the safest they've ever been. Manufacturers' safety tests prove it.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Non-commercial vehicles have to meet stricter safety and environmental standards.


So fuck all to do with being SUVs then.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Cars are the safest they've ever been. Manufacturers' safety tests prove it.
> 
> View attachment 225938



When are we going to ban smartphones?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> When are we going to ban smartphones?


Soon I hope but I don't see the connection. Could you explain?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Is it all those drivers looking at their smartphones and GPS then?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Soon I hope but I don't see the connection. Could you explain?



Massive correlation, seems like there’s some causation as well

”New research finds pedestrian deaths have surged 53%. Distracted driving and walking with smartphones are factors, as is drug and alcohol abuse”









						Pedestrian deaths in U.S. hit highest level in 30 years, study finds
					

Distracted driving and walking with smartphones are factors, as is drug and alcohol abuse, according to a new report.




					www.cbsnews.com
				




Lets ban everything.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Massive correlation, seems like there’s some causation as well
> 
> ”New research finds pedestrian deaths have surged 53%. Distracted driving and walking with smartphones are factors, as is drug and alcohol abuse”
> 
> ...



Driving while using a smartphone or drunk is already banned. The problem is it isn't enforced properly or punished properly when it is enforced. That's when the distraction is the phone and not the dazzling cockpit display in the shiny new car.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Massive correlation, seems like there’s some causation as well
> 
> ”New research finds pedestrian deaths have surged 53%. Distracted driving and walking with smartphones are factors, as is drug and alcohol abuse”
> 
> ...


That's appalling reporting, as you would have discovered if you'd looked at the study it reports on. It misrepresents that study very badly, as the study presents many potential factors, including increased SUV use.

Regarding the two factors cherry-picked from the study by the article, evidence for increased 'drug and alcohol abuse' being a factor is not presented beyond an absurdly vague and hand-wavey 'people drink more in warmer weather'. Smartphones are considered in more detail, but so are many other things. Here's what it says about these two particular factors:



> Warmer temperatures could contribute to the recent rise in pedestrian fatalities by encouraging more nighttime outdoor activity (including walking). These higher temperatures are also associated with increased alcohol consumption, which increases the risk of fatal pedestrian collisions.
> 
> Regarding cellphone use, which can be a significant source of distraction for all road users, the reported number of smartphones in active use in the U.S. increased by 4% from 2017 to 2018, and by more than 400% from 2009 to 20186 (Figure 21). The amount of wireless data usage in the U.S. increased by 82% from 2017 to 2018, and by more than 7,000% from 2009 to 20187 (Figure 22). Analysis of data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance database shows the number of cellphone-related emergency department visits is increasing in parallel with the prevalence of cellphone use in the U.S.8.9 Many of these injuries are sustained while the user is engaged in text messaging rather than conventional telephone conversation, and this trend appears to have contributed to a sharper increase in the number of incidents in recent years.Although the surge in smartphone use coincides with a sharp rise in pedestrian fatalities during the same period, there is a lack of evidence to establish a definitive link. This may be due in part to the inability of police crash investigators to accurately capture momentary distraction caused by smartphones, many of which are mounted on vehicle dashboards, on windshields and in cupholders, or to determine if pedestrians were glancing at phone screens. In addition, 1 in 5 pedestrian fatalities occur in hit-and-run crashes, in which the role of driver distraction is unknown. There is, however, clear and growing evidence linking visual distraction with elevated crash risk for overall crashes. For example, researchers who investigated the relationship between cellphone use and crash risk using data from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) found that visual-manual tasks overall, and texting in particular, were associated with significantly elevated incidence of crash involvement relative to driving without performing any observable secondary tasks.10Analysis of data from the same NDS found that more than 50% of the time some type of distraction prevents drivers from engaging in the primary task of driving. The analysis concluded that driving while distracted is detrimental to safety11.



This is where cross-country comparison is needed. Smartphone use has grown everywhere, but other countries have managed to avoid sharp rises in pedestrian deaths in the age of the smartphone, including the UK. I think it's a red herring tbh - even this study admits a causal link cannot be established well. Growth in SUV use is a far more convincing explanation for this rise in the US that isn't mirrored in other places that haven't seen such a big rise in SUV use.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's appalling reporting, as you would have discovered if you'd looked at the study it reports on. It misrepresents that study very badly, as the study presents many potential factors, including increased SUV use.
> 
> Regarding the two factors cherry-picked from the study by the article, evidence for increased 'drug and alcohol abuse' being a factor is not presented beyond an absurdly vague and hand-wavey 'people drink more in warmer weather'. Smartphones are considered in more detail, but so are many other things. Here's what it says about these two particular factors:
> 
> ...



There's no more evidence for linking SUVs to the rise in US pedestrian deaths than there is smart phones, it's a red herring. If you want to get somewhere at that front, first obtain figures of pedestrian deaths adjusted for miles walked and vehicle miles traveled. 

But really we're not talking about the US are we, with it's preponderance of trucks, completely different SUVs to what we have here, and totally different pedestrian culture. 

You still haven't answered by questions as to why vans are ok because work, and why we shouldn't be calling helimedics cunts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> There's no more evidence for linking SUVs to the rise in US pedestrian deaths than there is smart phones


Yes there is. Read the report before commenting on it. You make yourself look ridiculous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> There's no more evidence for linking SUVs to the rise in US pedestrian deaths than there is smart phones, it's a red herring. If you want to get somewhere at that front, first obtain figures of pedestrian deaths adjusted for miles walked and vehicle miles traveled.
> 
> But really we're not talking about the US are we, with it's preponderance of trucks, completely different SUVs to what we have here, and totally different pedestrian culture.
> 
> You still haven't answered by questions as to why vans are ok because work, and why we shouldn't be calling helimedics cunts.


i'd love to see you call a helimedic a cunt. as they struggle to save your worthless life, only to recoil from you in disgust as you show them your true colours.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Driving while using a smartphone or drunk is already banned. The problem is it isn't enforced properly or punished properly when it is enforced. That's when the distraction is the phone and not the dazzling cockpit display in the shiny new car.


Not so any more. That used to be the case but the old bill have cracked down very hard on phone use whilst driving. It's an instant 6 points now.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> The fashion trend for grossly oversized SUVs over comparable smaller cars really_ is_ the problem. If a car can't fit a regular parking space or navigate country roads, or not present a higher risk to pedestrians and other road users, then why isn't that problematic?


No, it’s a small part of a far more complicated problem.

The mini picture quoted is a great example of why. The car shown isn’t bigger simply because of _fashion_. Peoples expectations of what cars can do for them, the safety they expect, the comfort and many other factors come into play. Then we have lives and cities built around commuting by cars, chronic lack of alternative infrastructure/alternative transport, and everything else that’s been discussed in these threads before

Cars are the problem. Not a type of car, not a size of car, not a particular engine type. 

The idea that getting rid of SUVs fixes any of this is just laughable.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes there is. Read the report before commenting on it. You make yourself look ridiculous.



They lump SUVs with light trucks, which I've already criticised the safety aspects of, so I don't know here you're getting your information from.

Many factors outside the control of traffic safety officials contribute to the observed year-to-year changes in the number of pedestrian fatalities,* including economic conditions, population growth, demographic change, weather, fuel prices, the amount of motor vehicle travel and the amount of time people spend walking.* Travel monitoring data published by FHWA indicate that motor vehicle travel on all roads and streets increased by 0.8% for the first six months of 2019 as compared with the same period in 2018.  Although comparable exposure data for nationwide pedestrian activity is not available, the U.S. Census Bureau collects information regarding walking and public transit use (which is linked to walking) through the American Community Survey.2 The Census Bureau reported a 2.6% decrease in the number of workers age 16 years and older who walked to work in 2018 compared with 2017, and a 0.8% decrease in the number of workers age 16 years and older who took public transportation to work in 2018 compared with 2017. *Other factors contributing to the recent rise in the overall number of pedestrian fatalities could include the increasing shift in U.S. vehicle sales away from passenger cars to light trucks (with light trucks generally causing more severe pedestrian impacts than cars), warmer weather and the large growth in smartphone use (which can be a significant source of distraction for all road users). *  Figure 19 shows U.S. retail sales (in thousands) of passenger cars and light trucks from 2009 to 2018, indicating a sharp increase in sales of* light trucks (which includes SUVs)* accompanied by a general decline in sales of passenger cars. Figure 20 shows a correspondingly steady increase in light trucks as a percentage of total light vehicle sales.
"https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/GHSA-Pedestrian-Spotlight-FINAL-rev2.pdf"


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Not so any more. That used to be the case but the old bill have cracked down very hard on phone use whilst driving. It's an instant 6 points now.


So you can do it _twice_ and only be banned for three years from the first offence? And no fine or other sentence? Crikey, that's tough.

Also if you kill someone while doing it you're only punished for looking at your smartphone and not for manslaughter.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd love to see you call a helimedic a cunt. as they struggle to save your worthless life, only to recoil from you in disgust as you show them your true colours.



It's littlebabyjesus who wants to do that. I don't tar all vehicle users with the same brush.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It's littlebabyjesus who wants to do that. I don't tar all vehicle users with the same brush.


you might want to adjust your post then to make that clear


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes there is. Read the report before commenting on it. You make yourself look ridiculous.



Now we've established you were the one misreading the report and being ridiculous, perhaps you could answer this?



littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a bit of a silly question. The reasons for driving a van are very different from the reasons for driving a car.





platinumsage said:


> So people using their SUVs for a suitably acceptable reason are ok? And people using vans for non-work purposes e.g. camping are bad? That's very different from what has been argued so far.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, it’s a small part of a far more complicated problem.
> 
> The mini picture quoted is a great example of why. The car shown isn’t bigger simply because of _fashion_. Peoples expectations of what cars can do for them, the safety they expect, the comfort and many other factors come into play. Then we have lives and cities built around commuting by cars, chronic lack of alternative infrastructure/alternative transport, and everything else that’s been discussed in these threads before
> 
> ...


'People's expectations' have been driven by aggressive, multi-billion marketing coupled with misinformation about the supposed green credentials of larger, heavier, wider vehicles.  

The lying, cheating SUV manufacturers have done such a good job, people could be forgiven for thinking it's positively _irresponsible_ to put their little Jimmy in anything but a big, extra safe, pedestrian squashing,  smaller car-crushing hefty SUV on their school run.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Now we've established you were the one misreading the report and being ridiculous, perhaps you could answer this?


We haven't established that at all. I'll leave you there. What marks are you giving yourself now?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We haven't established that at all. I'll leave you there. What marks are you giving yourself now?



You're doing a great job of ignoring posts that refute what you say, shall I go back and bring up some more for you to respond to or are the ones on this page enough?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Very similar to the Porsche Cayenne from that angle.  Don’t see many Infiniti’s on the road up here - main dealer in Newcastle closed a while back now.



I reckon there's more than a touch of E-type in the front end too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> 'People's expectations' have been driven by aggressive, multi-billion marketing coupled with misinformation about the supposed green credentials of larger, heavier, wider vehicles.
> 
> The lying, cheating SUV manufacturers have done such a good job, people could be forgiven for thinking it's positively _irresponsible_ to put their little Jimmy in anything but a big, extra safe, pedestrian squashing,  smaller car-crushing hefty SUV on their school run.


That cars are now safer for their occupants isn’t a debate. They are. They are also more comfortable places to be. That is why people buy them.

Why they choose to use them for a short school run is the issue.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> So you can do it _twice_ and only be banned for three years from the first offence? And no fine or other sentence? Crikey, that's tough.


There's a fine on top but I don't know what it is. £200 I think. With the 6 points that's about right for a first offence with no accidents. Most of the people who get busted doing it are sitting in traffic jams.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> 'People's expectations' have been driven by aggressive, multi-billion marketing coupled with misinformation about the supposed green credentials of larger, heavier, wider vehicles.
> 
> The lying, cheating SUV manufacturers have done such a good job, people could be forgiven for thinking it's positively _irresponsible_ to put their little Jimmy in anything but a big, extra safe, pedestrian squashing,  smaller car-crushing hefty SUV on their school run.



How's your super-eco Nokia 32whatever doing, or did you buy lots of new, resource-plundering child-slave-mined phones with more useful features since then?


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That cars are now safer for their occupants isn’t a debate. They are. They are also more comfortable places to be. That is why people buy them.


All good for the driver. All bad for the environment, and anyone who happens to get in their way.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> How's you're super-eco Nokia 32whatever doing, or did you buy lots of new, resource-plundering child-slave-mined phones with more useful features since then?


Sorry, I thought we were talking about cars here. If you want to talk about the super-eco Nokia 32whatever - whch sounds marvellous by the way - I think you  need to start a thread in the tech forum.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

What I've noticed recently, after paying little attention to traffic on the road for a decade or so is that cars aren't just bigger, there seem to be a lot more new cars on the road than 20-30 years ago? Is this actually the case or is it just because I've moved to an area where people can afford them?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Sorry, I thought we were talking about cars here. If you want to talk about the super-eco Nokia 32whatever - whch sounds marvellous by the way - I think you  need to start a thread in the tech forum.



Well, it seemed like you needed some non-car examples to understand why people might not want to drive around in 30-year old death traps. Nevermind.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> How's your super-eco Nokia 32whatever doing, or did you buy lots of new, resource-plundering child-slave-mined phones with more useful features since then?


Is it made with different child slave-mined rare minerals than the battery, display and computers on your Volvo Wotsit? I'm sure a car battery is pretty much the same size as a phone battery too.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> What I've noticed recently, after paying little attention to traffic on the road for a decade or so is that cars aren't just bigger, there seem to be a lot more new cars on the road than 20-30 years ago? Is this actually the case or is it just because I've moved to an area where people can afford them?



A lot of it is to do with the rise in car leasing. Pay a fixed monthly amount for 3 years, get to drive a new car without having to buy it. It's getting very popular.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

At the end of the day the entire premise of this thread was blown out of the water in the first 3 pages. 

SUVs are simply not a homologous category so every time someone says "SUV's are this" or SUV's are that" ... it's utter bollocks because many are as different as an aircraft carrier is to a dinghy. 

The rest of the thread is just for the birds and some entertainment.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> What I've noticed recently, after paying little attention to traffic on the road for a decade or so is that cars aren't just bigger, there seem to be a lot more new cars on the road than 20-30 years ago? Is this actually the case or is it just because I've moved to an area where people can afford them?




They don't own them, they are lease-hire jobbies.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Is it made with different child slave-mined rare minerals than the battery, display and computers on your Volvo Wotsit? I'm sure a car battery is pretty much the same size as a phone battery too.



I wasn't claiming smartphones were bad, I was trying to help editor understand that decrying car-upgraders on the one hand (who may be thinking about safety), while enthusiastically doing phone-upgrading on the other (not so as to reduce deaths), was slightly hypocritical.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They don't own them, they are lease-hire jobbies.


Be nice if they made them in more than three colours too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> The rest of the thread is just for the birds and some entertainment.


you could say that about almost any thread on urban


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Why they choose to use them for a short school run is the issue.



Not, perhaps, unrelated to the issue of, 'why are children so fat?'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not, perhaps, unrelated to the issue of, 'why are children so fat?'.











						A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Why they choose to use them for a short school run is the issue.



BB1 was driven to secondary school every day, driven home most days too. The trains arrive either 59 minutes before school starts or 1 minute after it starts, very similar with the bus, which costs more than the train. The council lays on school buses, closest pick up is half way to the school. This is a state school which exists to serve our town and we live in the town centre. The cycle route is hilly and dangerous, a crown court judge was squished to death 2 years ago on a bike on this route. There is no safer route. Just why can't trains and/or buses line up with a large secondary school for the timetables? Same on the return, she took the train 3 or 4 times a week, if she got out of school bang on time and speed walked to the station she'd make it, if she missed it she only needed to wait 60 short minutes for the next one.



SpookyFrank said:


> Not, perhaps, unrelated to the issue of, 'why are children so fat?'.



She ain't fat though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 10, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> BB1 was driven to secondary school every day, driven home most days too. The trains arrive either 59 minutes before school starts or 1 minute after it starts, very similar with the bus, which costs more than the train. The council lays on school buses, closest pick up is half way to the school. This is a state school which exists to serve our town and we live in the town centre. The cycle route is hilly and dangerous, a crown court judge was squished to death 2 years ago on a bike on this route. There is no safer route. Just why can't trains and/or buses line up with a large secondary school for the timetables? Same on the return, she took the train 3 or 4 times a week, if she got out of school bang on time and speed walked to the station she'd make it, if she missed it she only needed to wait 60 short minutes for the next one.



I grew up in the countryside so I get that some kids need transport to get to school. For me it was a seventy minute bus ride then a two mile walk. But I've also worked in inner city primary schools with a catchment area of 1/4 of a mile or something and still you got a large number of parents dropping off and picking up kids in cars. Worth pointing out too that the standard of driving outside schools is dire, particularly the big cars that can't do a three point turn on a narrow street without mounting the pavement.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Well, it seemed like you needed some non-car examples to understand why people might not want to drive around in 30-year old death traps. Nevermind.


Sorry, where was I advocating that people might want to  drive around in 30-year old death traps - and what his that got to do with the   super-eco Nokia 32whatever that you introduced to the debate?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I grew up in the countryside so I get that some kids need transport to get to school. But I've also worked in inner city primary schools with a catchment area of 1/4 of a mile or something and still you got a large number of parents dropping off and picking up kids in cars. Worth pointing out too that the standard of driving outside schools is dire, particularly the big cars that can't do a three point turn on a narrow street without mounting the pavement.



Totally in cities, Hampstead takes the fucking piss for this, huge Volvos dropping off at prep schools. Where we are isn't really deep countryside, but public transport is shit and road cycling is dangerous. A total lack of joined up thinking and failing to consider any option that doesn't put the car first.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I wasn't claiming smartphones were bad, I was trying to help editor understand that decrying car-upgraders on the one hand (who may be thinking about safety), while enthusiastically doing phone-upgrading on the other (not so as to reduce deaths), was slightly hypocritical.


I've had one phone upgrade in 4 years. What has this got to do with SUVs please?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Worth pointing out too that the standard of driving outside schools is dire, particularly the big cars that can't do a three point turn on a narrow street without mounting the pavement.


A not too veiled dig at women drivers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> I've had one phone upgrade in 4 years. What has this got to do with SUVs please?



I once owned this:





Apparently a tank can drive over it and it still works. Shame the designers didn't consider that when on the piss in Finsbury Park you might leave your bag with the phone in it somewhere and never see either again...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> I've had one phone upgrade in 4 years. What has this got to do with SUVs please?


ah, but were you enthusiastic when you upgraded?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I wasn't claiming smartphones were bad, I was trying to help editor understand that decrying car-upgraders on the one hand (who may be thinking about safety), while enthusiastically doing phone-upgrading on the other (not so as to reduce deaths), was slightly hypocritical.


Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of climate warriorism on these boards though. You see it time and time again on here. Posters decrying drivers for climate destruction and then discussing the how much coke they did at the weekend, the fancy holiday they're soon to be off on, or how many kids they've got; all of which are orders of magnitude more socially/environmentally damaging that sensible car ownership. I wouldn't take it at all seriously if I were you. Most of what they post is either made up on the spot or provided with links to "research" that doesn't say what they say it does! 

It's marvellous stuff


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of climate warriorism on these boards though. You see it time and time again on here. Posters decrying drivers for climate destruction and then discussing the how much coke they did at the weekend, the fancy holiday they're soon to be off on, or how many kids they've got; all of which are orders of magnitude more socially/environmentally damaging that sensible car ownership. I wouldn't take it at all seriously if I were you. Most of what they post is either made up on the spot or provided with links to "research" that doesn't say what they say it does!
> 
> It's marvellous stuff


not sure there are any sensible car owners here.

maybe kebabking. maybe not.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> not sure there are any sensible car owners here.
> 
> maybe kebabking. maybe not.


Looby and bimble probably but they are disqualified for driving super-stabby, eco-catastrophic, child-killing SUVs ... the size of Minis!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of climate warriorism on these boards though. You see it time and time again on here. Posters decrying drivers for climate destruction and then discussing the how much coke they did at the weekend, the fancy holiday they're soon to be off on, or how many kids they've got; all of which are orders of magnitude more socially/environmentally damaging that sensible car ownership. I wouldn't take it at all seriously if I were you. Most of what they post is either made up on the spot or provided with links to "research" that doesn't say what they say it does!
> 
> It's marvellous stuff



Yes, it has become clear to me on this and other threads, such as teuchter's, that no one actually cares about the issues raised sufficient to do anything about it. I suppose by criticising other people for their choices, it makes one's own choices easier to live with.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of climate warriorism on these boards though. You see it time and time again on here. Posters decrying drivers for climate destruction and then discussing the how much coke they did at the weekend, the fancy holiday they're soon to be off on, or how many kids they've got; all of which are orders of magnitude more socially/environmentally damaging that sensible car ownership. I wouldn't take it at all seriously if I were you. Most of what they post is either made up on the spot or provided with links to "research" that doesn't say what they say it does!
> 
> It's marvellous stuff


My kids will contribute more to the world than your cars or your coke habit.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Interestingly, the UK has a remarkably low annual CO2 per capita figure of 5.8 tonnes, close to the global average of 4.8 and in contrast to the US with 16.2 and Germany with 9.1 tonnes. The UK's CO2 per capita has declined faster than any other major developed country since 1990. This is due largely to the closure of coal mines, but more efficient vehicles accounted for 7% of the reduction.

Anyone serious about climate change would be out there campaigning in favour of nuclear power plants such as Sizewell C alongside offshore wind. 



But no let's get all angry about people driving in slightly taller cars. That'll help.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Interestingly, the UK has a remarkably low annual CO2 per capita figure of 5.8 tonnes, close to the global average of 4.8 and in contrast to the US with 16.2 and Germany with 9.1 tonnes. The UK's CO2 per capita has declined faster than any other major developed country since 1990. This is due largely to the closure of coal mines, but more efficient vehicles accounted for 7% of the reduction.
> 
> Anyone serious about climate change would be out there campaigning in favour of nuclear power plants such as Sizewell C alongside offshore wind.
> 
> ...


excellent whataboutery!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> My kids will contribute more to the world than your cars or your coke habit.


I doubt that because I haven't had a coke habit for 18 years.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Interestingly, the UK has a remarkably low annual CO2 per capita figure of 5.8 tonnes, close to the global average of 4.8 and in contrast to the US with 16.2 and Germany with 9.1 tonnes. The UK's CO2 per capita has declined faster than any other major developed country since 1990. This is due largely to the closure of coal mines, but more efficient vehicles accounted for 7% of the reduction.
> 
> Anyone serious about climate change would be out there campaigning in favour of nuclear power plants such as Sizewell C alongside offshore wind.
> 
> ...


Aren't those figures fiddled to fuck though? How did closing coal mines to import coal from Poland help?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I doubt that because I haven't had a coke habit for 18 years.


last time i was round at yours the bin was filled with coke cans. and several malibu bottles.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Aren't those figures fiddled to fuck though? How did closing coal mines to import coal from Poland help?



I meant the reduction in coal use for power generation generally, although no doubt if our coal mines were still going full pelt we'd still be burning lots of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Aren't those figures fiddled to fuck though? How did closing coal mines to import coal from Poland help?


or from colombia, where it's extracted with child labour UK Government 'more concerns about cheap coal than child labour behind it' - News for the Oil and Gas Sector


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> excellent whataboutery!



That's literally what this thread is about.

(I know it's actually about things not being like they were in the olden days with little mini cars, and all these big brash and nasty modern contrivances.)


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> or from colombia, where it's extracted with child labour UK Government 'more concerns about cheap coal than child labour behind it' - News for the Oil and Gas Sector



Hurrah for nuclear and wind then.

But no let's target cars with a 20cm higher roof, that'll really make a difference to climate change.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> That's literally what this thread is about.


no it isn't.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Hurrah for nuclear and wind then.
> 
> But no let's target cars with a 20cm higher roof, that'll really make a difference to climate change.


Perhaps you missed this. 

*SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal*

Growing demand for SUVs was the second largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions from 2010 to 2018, an analysis has found.

In that period, SUVs doubled their global market share from 17% to 39% and their annual emissions rose to more than 700 megatonnes of CO2, more than the yearly total emissions of the UK and the Netherlands combined.

No energy sector except power drove a larger increase in carbon emissions, putting SUVs ahead of heavy industry (including iron, steel, cement and aluminium), aviation and shipping.









						SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
					

If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't.



perhaps you should read all of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> perhaps you should read all of it.


this thread is about suvs and their shortcomings relative to electric cars. like it says in the op and the thread title. where it has meandered to is not an indication of what this thread's about, it's an indication of where the thread's been temporarily taken.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Perhaps you missed this.
> 
> *SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal*
> 
> ...



As has been pointed out, that article is nonsense. The CO2 contribution of SUVs increased because their share of the market increased. If tiny hatchbacks share of the market had increased, then their CO2 contribution would have increased. If red cars share of the market increased, then their CO2 contribution would have increased. The graph tells you nothing.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> this thread is about suvs and their shortcomings relative to electric cars. like it says in the op and the thread title. where it has meandered to is not an indication of what this thread's about, it's an indication of where the thread's been temporarily taken.



I mentioned electric SUVs, but then was told that electric cars were bad.

The thread is ostensibly about road safety and climate change.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I mentioned electric SUVs, but then was told that electric cars were bad.


Ah. You're getting confused by talking to more than one person and them having more than one opinion. Easily done.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Ah. You're getting confused by talking to more than one person and them having more than one opinion. Easily done.



No, I can remember you're the one who said electric cars were bad.


----------



## Looby (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Looby and bimble probably but they are disqualified for driving super-stabby, eco-catastrophic, child-killing SUVs ... the size of Minis!


I’m uncomfortable with the sensible label but you’re probably right. 😄
I love my car and driving though so am definitely an evil deviant.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, I can remember you're the one who said electric cars were bad.


Yes, but I haven't referred to SUVs as a homogenous entity at all so it doesn't follow the previous point. And I said electric cars were better for emissions in cities. Are you denying that batteries have mass or something?


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> As has been pointed out, that article is nonsense.


It's 'nonsense' because someone on the internet with absolutely zero relevant qualifications and expertise in this field of research has declared it thus, and that's_ all you need_ to dismiss its findings out of hand? Right. Gotcha. 









						Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market – Analysis - IEA
					

Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market - A commentary by Laura Cozzi, Apostolos Petropoulos




					www.iea.org
				











						World Energy Outlook 2019 – Analysis - IEA
					

World Energy Outlook 2019 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.




					www.iea.org


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> As has been pointed out, that article is nonsense. The CO2 contribution of SUVs increased because their share of the market increased. If tiny hatchbacks share of the market had increased, then their CO2 contribution would have increased. If red cars share of the market increased, then their CO2 contribution would have increased. The graph tells you nothing.


It's one of the worst articles I've seen on the subject, full of makey-uppy 'facts' and silly graphs. You don't have to be qualified to realise its shortcomings beyond being a non-idiot. A child would grasp the concept of 'not all of "X" are the same', yet here we have people arguing quite the opposite.

If people can't get their heads around the fact that a vehicle that does 40mpg is more fuel efficient than one that does 30mpg_ regardless of its size, weight, and shape; _and if it's emissions are lower than a car with, err, higher emissions, it's less polluting_ regardless of its size, weight, and shape, _then there's really no point in going any further. Just take the piss.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> If people can't get their heads around the fact that a vehicle that does 40mpg is more fuel efficient than one that does 30mpg_ regardless of its size, weight, and shape, _then there's really no point in going any further. Just take the piss.



Depends how it's achieved that mpg rating though, ignoring the fact that such ratings are fiddled in the first place. Most of the car's environmental impact is down to its manufacture so if you've achieved a high mpg _under certain conditions_ by mining materials in one country, shipping to another country to make batteries, shipping the batteries somewhere else to put in cars and then shipping to the uk then talking about a 25% difference in fuel economy, under certain conditions, when driven 'properly', is all a load of hot air really.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Depends how it's achieved that mpg rating though, ignoring the fact that such ratings are fiddled in the first place. Most of the car's environmental impact is down to its manufacture so if you've achieved a high mpg _under certain conditions_ by mining materials in one country, shipping to another country to make batteries, shipping the batteries somewhere else to put in cars and then shipping to the uk then talking about a 25% difference in fuel economy, under certain conditions, when driven 'properly', is all a load of hot air really.


Simply replacing the growing masses of large petrol SUVs with large electric/hybrid SUVs isn't the answer to _anything_ apart from the manufacturers' bank balances.  To tackle emission targets, we need far fewer cars of all sorts on the streets. And we definitely don't need the current huge growth in heavier, bigger, wider vehicles to continue.









						The hidden cost of the electric car boom – child labour
					

Cobalt is a vital ingredient in batteries powering electric vehicles, smartphones and computers, but most of the world’s supply comes from a country where children work in mines.




					www.weforum.org


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Depends how it's achieved that mpg rating though, ignoring the fact that such ratings are fiddled in the first place. Most of the car's environmental impact is down to its manufacture so if you've achieved a high mpg _under certain conditions_ by mining materials in one country, shipping to another country to make batteries, shipping the batteries somewhere else to put in cars and then shipping to the uk then talking about a 25% difference in fuel economy, under certain conditions, when driven 'properly', is all a load of hot air really.


That's an argument regarding the relative environmental impacts of different types of vehicles. In this case its seems you're comparing petrol v electric and I agree with you. The manufacturing process itself is a factor. That's not what's happening on this thread though. We've had assertions that that the taller, heavier, and wider the vehicles are, the more fuel it takes to shift them. That's nonsense. Engine type and design is highly relevant and loads of SUVs return better mpg than loads of cars. Many SUVs are half the weight of some estate cars and some are a third of the width of a saloon. This is why the basic premise is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's one of the worst articles I've seen on the subject, full of makey-uppy 'facts' and silly graphs. You don't have to be qualified to realise its shortcomings beyond being a non-idiot. A child would grasp the concept of 'not all of "X" are the same', yet here we have people arguing quite the opposite.
> 
> If people can't get their heads around the fact that a vehicle that does 40mpg is more fuel efficient than one that does 30mpg_ regardless of its size, weight, and shape; _and if it's emissions are lower than a car with, err, higher emissions, it's less polluting_ regardless of its size, weight, and shape, _then there's really no point in going any further. Just take the piss.


er i wouldn't be so confident. because there are other sorts of pollution from motor vehicles than simply those emitted through the exhaust.

but that may be a tale for another thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> er not at all. because there are other sorts of pollution from motor vehicles than simply those emitted through the exhaust.


See last post.

It's a question of comparing like with like. Something that this thread totally fails on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> See last post.
> 
> It's a question of comparing like with like. Something that this thread totally fails on.


yeh but this is urban so that ostensible failure is in fact something of a success.

plus you mentioned nothing of the microplastics which spew from cars.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> its seems you're comparing petrol v electric and I agree with you


I was comparing petrol with hybrid. Electric vehicles rarely have an mpg rating.



Spymaster said:


> Some are a third of the width.


A _third_? The land rover discovery is two metres across. A third would be just over two foot, about the same width as bicycle handlebars (flat, not drops).

Do you have any examples of big cars that have fabulous fuel economy without a hybrid engine?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Do you have any examples of big cars that have fabulous fuel economy without a hybrid engine?


Cheeky little goalpost shift there, "SUVs" have now turned into "big cars" 

Later on, I'll be happy to find you loads of examples of (non-hybrid) SUVs of all sizes which return better fuel economy than cars of various sizes. We can even do some age comparisons for added lolz. That is, after all, the main thrust of this thread. That by virtue of their size and shape alone, SUVs use more fuel than cars, but can we agree that for the purposes of this debate, and to minimise later wriggling, a driver of Volvo XC90 is going to attract more opprobrium from the climate twats that the driver of a Ford Mondeo?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Cheeky little goalpost shift there, "SUVs" have now turned into "big cars"


I haven't shifted anything and haven't said anything specifically about SUVs in the whole thread.

I don't like the fashion for taller and wider cars because they take up too much space on the road, the materials used to make them light enough to be economical at that size have a high manufacturing cost and the claimed safety benefits don't take into account safety of those outside the car.

See. I didn't say SUV at all.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Do you have any examples of big cars that have fabulous fuel economy without a hybrid engine?



Mine has better mpg than the hatchback it replaced, despite more HP per tonne. Volvo V40 to Volvo XC40, both 1.5L petrol turbos.

You can argue that Volvo should have produced a hatchback with better mpg, but the fact is they didn’t, I swapped vehicles, and now use less fuel.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I haven't shifted anything and haven't said anything specifically about SUVs in the whole thread.



In that case my apologies. I thought you were arguing in support of the OP. You agree then that the OP is nonsense and that "SUV" is meaningless in terms of the discussion framed at the outset of this thread (that they are necessarily less fuel efficient than other vehicle shapes)?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Mine has better mpg than the hatchback it replaced, despite more HP per tonne. Volvo V40 to Volvo XC40, both 1.5L petrol turbos.
> 
> You can argue that Volvo should have produced a hatchback with better mpg, but the fact is they didn’t, I swapped vehicles, and now use less fuel.


Yours is a hybrid though. Vast quantities of minerals were mined and shipped halfway round the world to achieve that mpg using far more energy than you could ever save.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Yours is a hybrid though. Vast quantities of minerals were mined and shipped halfway round the world to achieve that mpg using far more energy than you could ever save.


Is there any research into this _per car_?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> In that case my apologies. I thought you were arguing in support of the OP. You agree then that the OP is nonsense and that "SUV" is meaningless in terms of the discussion framed at the outset of this thread (that they are necessarily less fuel efficient than other vehicle shapes)?



It's not a school debating club. I don't have to be for or against. There is a current trend for wider and taller cars, often marketed as SUVs, that I am concerned about.  That puts me more on the side of the OP than against it. The fact that some compact SUVs have better fuel economy is neither here nor there.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Yours is a hybrid though. Vast quantities of minerals were mined and shipped halfway round the world to achieve that mpg using far more energy than you could ever save.



No it’s not a hybrid, bog standard petrol.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Is there any research into this _per car_?


I've seen figures per car for Priuses 12 years ago. That stopped Friends of the Earth associating with the supposedly environmentally taxi company I was working for at the time. There must be figures.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Mine has better mpg than the hatchback it replaced, despite more HP per tonne. Volvo V40 to Volvo XC40, both 1.5L petrol turbos.
> 
> You can argue that Volvo should have produced a hatchback with better mpg, but the fact is they didn’t, I swapped vehicles, and now use less fuel.


Whatever, but don't you feel a bit stupid going around in something that looks like this?



Have you got a large head? When I look at the drivers of these vehicles they always look sort of pin-headed, like someone put a lego man into a toddler toy that's twice the scale.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No it’s not a hybrid, bog standard petrol.


I apologise. That model comes as a hybrid too and assumed you would the have top of the range.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Whatever, but don't you feel a bit stupid going around in something that looks like this?
> 
> View attachment 225983
> 
> Have you got a large head? When I look at the drivers of these vehicles they always look sort of pin-headed, like someone put a lego man into a toddler toy that's twice the scale.



I couldn’t care less what people like you think of me. At least I don’t have those stupid big wheels though.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Yours is a hybrid though. Vast quantities of minerals were mined and shipped halfway round the world to achieve that mpg using far more energy than you could ever save.


What if he'd replaced a 10 year old 2 litre Mondeo X Sport, with a new 2 litre (petrol) XC90?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I apologise. That model comes as a hybrid too and assumed you would the have top of the range.



Why would you assume that? I already said I just wanted a replacement for my hatchback that my mum could use and that would be safer for other road users, and use less petrol. Not all SUV owners are loadsamoney flaunters.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I apologise. That model comes as a hybrid too and assumed you would the have top of the range.


So you see how you were wrong there? That's the problem with this thread.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 10, 2020)

SUV's have handy storage space for driving gloves and thermos flasks.  Plus the glove boxes are specifically designed to accommodate over 50 osteopath receipts.  They know their target market.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> What if he'd replaced a 10 year old 2 litre Mondeo X Sport, with a new 2 litre (petrol) XC90?


I'm not going to look up fuel consumption or manufacturing costs for those cars but even you would accept that if he replaced his car twice a year, for a more efficient model every time, then the environmental cost of the manufacture would outweigh any benefit in fuel consumption right?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> It's not a school debating club. I don't have to be for or against. There is a current trend for wider and taller cars, often marketed as SUVs, that I am concerned about.  That puts me more on the side of the OP than against it. The fact that some compact SUVs have better fuel economy is neither here nor there.


To be honest I'd expect a better quality of discussion from a school debatingv club than we've had on here. Your last sentence shows what bvollocks this thread has been because it's precisely what certain people here have been arguing for 30 odd pages, you've just realised it's bollocks, but are still squirming not to admit it.

I don't blame you!


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Why would you assume that? I already said I just wanted a replacement for my hatchback that my mum could use and that would be safer for other road users, and use less petrol. Not all SUV owners are loadsamoney flaunters.


We'll find out if it's really safer in 5-10 years. And you did strike me as a bit of a loadsamoney flaunter though not just for your choice of car. It was the nonsense about principles not coming into it if you couldn't afford it that did that.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm not going to look up fuel consumption or manufacturing costs for those cars but even you would accept that if he replaced his car twice a year, for a more efficient model every time, then the environmental cost of the manufacture would outweigh any benefit in fuel consumption right?


Yes. But I also think that if my aunt had a pair of bollocks, she'd have been my uncle.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> To be honest I'd expect a better quality of discussion from a school debatingv club than we've had on here. Your last sentence shows what bvollocks this thread has been because it's precisely what certain people here have been arguing for 30 odd pages, you've just realised it's bollocks, but are still squirming not to admit it.
> 
> I don't blame you!


Read the thread. I haven't wavered from my line let alone squirmed thanks.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. But I also think that if my aunt had a pair of bollocks, she'd have been my uncle.


The last thing this thread needs is a trans tangent.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Read the thread. I haven't wavered from my line let alone squirmed thanks.


Oh give over. Your post #1101 was almost like seeing a light switching on. You want to try to support the OP but have realised it's absolute dogshit and still don't want to say so!


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Oh give over. Your post #1101 was almost like seeing a light switching on. You want to try to support the OP but have realised it's absolute dogshit and still don't want to say so!


My first half dozen posts on this thread were questioning the definition of an SUV but go on, find one post where I've used the term SUV in a way you don't approve of. The politics forums aren't closed to outside users so there's really no excuse for not keeping up to date during your banning.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> My first half dozen posts on this thread were questioning the definition of an SUV but go on, find one post where I've used the term SUV in a way you don't approve of.


I've already conceded the SUV thing. I'm not going back to search your posts because it makes no difference. My assertion has always been that the premise of this thread as regards the shape of vehicles and their comparative fuel consumption is hot diddly dog shit. You even engaged me on the topic as you did Platinumsage (you also based part of your position on him owning a _hybrid SUV_ - which was wrong-) and realise you had probably pedal back a bit, which you did, but now you're doing some floaty nonsense where you won't simply say that the OP was wrong about the mpg thing!

It's hilarious


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I've already conceded the SUV thing. I'm not going back to search your posts because it makes no difference. My assertion has always been that the premise of this thread as regards the shape of vehicles and their comparative fuel consumption is hot diddly dog shit. You even engaged me on the topic as you did Platinumsage and realise you had probably pedal back a bit, which you did, but now you're doing some floaty nonsense where you won't simply say that the OP was wrong about the mpg thing!
> 
> It's hilarious



No one will concede they were wrong. If it's not pedestrian deaths or CO2 then it's narrow streets, the school run, rollover crashes or lifecycle costs. I wonder if someone will bring up insect deaths due to the 20cm higher windscreens next?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I've already conceded the SUV thing. I'm not going back to search your posts because it makes no difference. My assertion has always been that the premise of this thread as regards the shape of vehicles and their comparative fuel consumption is hot diddly dog shit. You even engaged me on the topic as you did Platinumsage and realise you had probably pedal back a bit, which you did, but but now you're doing some floaty nonsense where you won't simply say that the OP was wrong about the mpg thing!
> 
> It's hilarious



 I'm not replying to the OP and I don't even remember what it said exactly. I've been replying to you. It was a good five pages into the thread before I'd even worked out what an SUV was. I thought it was a pick up truck thingy. Do I have to chose sides in an argument based on which facts in the OP I agree with? Because I never have before.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Do I have to chose sides in an argument based on which facts in the OP I agree with?



No but it's generally good form to answer specifically put questions.

Do you agree now that the entire argument relied on by certain posters on this thread, that SUVs are less fuel efficient than other vehicles because of their size and body shape, is absolute guff?

That should be a yes or no answer really but I won't hold my breath. 🤪


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> No but it's generally good form to answer specifically put questions.
> 
> Do you agree now that the entire argument relied on by certain posters on this thread, that SUVs are less fuel efficient than other vehicles because of their size and body shape, is absolute guff?
> 
> That should be a yes or no answer really but I won't hold my breath. 🤪


Okay the no, I don't think it's absolute guff. It's poorly worded and ignores that some cars are SUVs in name only but I'm pretty sure that if they can make big ugly twat cars that compare favourably on fuel consumption to smaller ones then they could make smaller ones that were even better. I don't see how anything could be gained in fuel consumption terms by making cars bigger but then I don't think fuel consumption is the central issue anyway.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 10, 2020)

I think we should agree hybrids are wank. Looked at a Volvo estate, Audi A6 size, claims 96mpg. However the reviews say that you can get that so long as you only ever roll down hill in the fucker. If you have a heavy right foot you’ll be getting far worse mpg than a diesel or petrol estate of similar proportions.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Okay the no, I don't think it's absolute guff. It's poorly worded and ignores that some cars are SUVs in name only but I'm pretty sure that if they can make big ugly twat cars that compare favourably on fuel consumption to smaller ones then they could make smaller ones that were even better. I don't see how anything could be gained in fuel consumption terms by making cars bigger but then I don't think fuel consumption is the central issue anyway.


Ok, now we're getting somewhere. When you say "some cars are SUVs in name only", what do you mean?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, now we're getting somewhere. When you say "some cars are SUVs in name only", what do you mean?


It means they have those silly chunky cartoon car lines all over them and maybe a higher sitting position but they're just cars and it's just marketing. It is however marketing based on the idea of bigger cars being better.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> It means they have those silly chunky cartoon car lines all over them and maybe a higher sitting position but they're just cars and it's just marketing. It is however marketing based on the idea of bigger cars being better.



What's just a car? The Mazda CX-30?


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> What's just a car? The Mazda CX-30?


Dunno. Don't really get in cars very often. Renault 5? That's what my mum had.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Dunno. Don't really get in cars very often. Renault 5? That's what my mum had.



Ah yes, like in the olden days. None of this newfangled shiny plasticy stuff.


----------



## maomao (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Ah yes, like in the olden days. None of this newfangled shiny plasticy stuff.


It was pretty shiny actually. And red. Painting cars red or yellow and bright colours generally (or at least a proportion of them) is genuinely proven to reduce accidents but they've all got to be black and silver now haven't they. Wouldn't want to spoil the shininess.

Aside from making a living out of them for fifteen years I genuinely have very little use for cars.They just get in the way. I keep saying we'll get one one day but I really don't fancy driving.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> Cars are the safest they've ever been. Manufacturers' safety tests prove it.
> 
> View attachment 225938


That's America. Americans can't drive.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> A not too veiled dig at women drivers.


He did this a few pages back, with a 'joke' about a vehicle with 'handbag and jamrag storage'.  A pattern is emerging.


----------



## Sweet FA (Aug 11, 2020)

Badgers said:


>





mauvais said:


> These are universally bought by antisocial wankers so produce the worst possible outcomes. It's much-maligned but the roadside bomb has a niche.


The Raptor    doesn't even get the tax break that's supposed to make commercial vehicles attractive as it can't carry enough weight (a paltry 600kg).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 11, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> He did this a few pages back, with a 'joke' about a vehicle with 'handbag and jamrag storage'.  A pattern is emerging.



Care to quote the post you're referring to? I suspect not as it doesn't exist.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> A not too veiled dig at women drivers.



Only if you assume only women collect kids from school. Which is complete bollocks.


----------



## Athos (Aug 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Care to quote the post you're referring to?


I guess he's referring to this one.



SpookyFrank said:


> View attachment 225252


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 11, 2020)

Well I didn't read the fine print on that. It's from the Viz. I admit it's not great.


----------



## Athos (Aug 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well I didn't read the fine print on that. It's from the Viz. I admit it's not great.



In fairness, as much as we like to wind each other up, I don't belive you'd have posted that if you'd read the small print.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2020)

It's fun to bring your old dangerous polluting cars into central London just to show off, and park them on the pavement.

But when people actually need cars for practical reasons, and you know nothing about their circumstances, that's the time to start complaining.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 11, 2020)

Athos said:


> In fairness, as much as we like to wind each other up, I don't belive you'd have posted that if you'd read the small print.



Indeed not. And as someone who was worked in primary schools for years it genuinely never occurred to me that 'school run drivers' would be taken to mean 'women'. My comment about three-point turns was a reference to the shit maneuverability and general unsuitability for urban environments of big 4x4 cars, call them what you will.


----------



## Athos (Aug 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Indeed not. And as someone who was worked in primary schools for years it genuinely never occurred to me that 'school run drivers' would be taken to mean 'women'. My comment about three-point turns was a reference to the shit maneuverability and general unsuitability for urban environments of big 4x4 cars, call them what you will.


Relax.  For all your faults, I doubt anyone seriously suspects you're a misogynist.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 11, 2020)

Badgers said:


>




The Ford Raptor is designed for desert racing/jumping over sand dunes, hence why the payload is so small - so builders/tradesmen/business owners wouldn’t be able to claim VAT back on it.

Ive only seen one on the road before - actually same colour as the one pictured in that tweet but - they are absolutely massive, sit very high and are very wide.  I thought they were American import only but apparently you can buy them from any Ford dealer in the U.K.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2020)

Athos said:


> Relax.  For all your faults, I doubt anyone seriously suspects you're a misogynist.


I wouldn’t say he’s a serious misogynist either but it’s fair to say his mask has slipped a bit recently.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 11, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> The Ford Raptor is designed for desert racing/jumping over sand dunes, hence why the payload is so small - so builders/tradesmen/business owners wouldn’t be able to claim VAT back on it.



That's a European Raptor which is just a Ranger with a few bits of obnoxious plastic nailed onto it. It has a decent payload for a mid-size truck: 600+kg.

The US Raptor is based on the F-150 which also has a decent payload: 900+kg.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 11, 2020)

I'm honestly surprised manufacturers don't call the side measurement "girth"


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 11, 2020)

I remember the late demented ernestolynch reminiscing about his days selling car insurance over the phone, and how owners of cars with bull bars would always grow apoplectic with rage when he would inform that that added 25% to their insurance bill.

Anyway, regarding alternatives to the infernal combustion engine - has anyone any thoughts on algae biofuels?


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I remember the late demented ernestolynch reminiscing about his days selling car insurance over the phone, and how owners of cars with bull bars would always grow apoplectic with rage when he would inform that that added 25% to their insurance bill.
> 
> Anyway, regarding alternatives to the infernal combustion engine - has anyone any thoughts on algae biofuels?


It's not an alternative to combustion is it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> It's not an alternative to combustion is it.


No, but it lacks that certain infernal quality. Or it could, if it could ever be scaled up to industrial levels of production (AFAIK, this is the problem that has so far defeated all efforts to make algae the fuel source of the 21st century).


----------



## xenon (Aug 11, 2020)

Oh yeah I remember bullbars. Just checked, they're not actually illegal as such. You have to be a antisocial moronic shitcunt to want bullbars on anything other than a farm working vehicle in the UK.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2020)

xenon said:


> Oh yeah I remember bullbars. Just checked, they're not actually illegal as such. You have to be a antisocial moronic shitcunt to want bullbars on anything other than a farm working vehicle in the UK.


But don't SUV type vehicles provide safety in a similar way? Ie. safety transferred from other road users by being bigger and higher up. And because manufacturers safety checks only measure safety for car occupants it's really difficult to know how much.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> But don't SUV type vehicles provide safety in a similar way? Ie. safety transferred from other road users by being bigger and higher up. And because manufacturers safety checks only measure safety for car occupants it's really difficult to know how much.



No, all car new front ends, including SUVs, have pedestrian impact mitigation measures built in. The manufacturers test these measures just as they test every other aspect of their cars.

e.g. Here they are in independent tests -

Saloon, Ford Mondeo:



SUV, Mercedes GLE:


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2020)

Older cars tended not to feature any pedestrian protection whatsoever

https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/10011/euroncap_skoda_superb_2003_4stars.pdf <- scroll to the bottom

I'd much rather bit hit by a brand new Range Rover than anything from 15 years ago.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No, all car new front ends, including SUVs, have pedestrian impact mitigation measures built in. The manufacturers test these measures just as they test every other aspect of their cars.
> 
> e.g. Here they are in independent tests -
> 
> ...


Well that's all new since I used to get hit by cars on a regular basis.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It's fun to bring your old dangerous polluting cars into central London just to show off, and park them on the pavement.
> 
> But when people actually need cars for practical reasons, and you know nothing about their circumstances, that's the time to start complaining.


I'm trying to think what's been your most ridiculous point so far in this thread. You whining about a small selection of classic cars being parked on a quiet side street in Waterloo for four hours every month is pretty good stuff, but the winner has to be your insistence that tens of millions of pounds should be spent on trackside cameras in an utterly futile attempt to stop desperate, suicidal people jumping off bridges in front of 125mph trains.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I'd much rather bit hit by a brand new Range Rover than anything from 15 years ago.


Depends on your height and the angle of attack. Do they crumple enough to actually stop sending children (and adults, been there done that) flying into the air or just to reduce impact with the car itself? Won't do much for small children getting dragged under either.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 11, 2020)

Idris2002 said:


> I remember the late demented ernestolynch reminiscing about his days selling car insurance over the phone, and how owners of cars with bull bars would always grow apoplectic with rage when he would inform that that added 25% to their insurance bill.



Ern was the fucking best. I remember when somebody produced a BBC link as putative proof of something or other. Ern shot back with, "NON CIA SOURCE PLEASE!"


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 11, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Ern was the fucking best. I remember when somebody produced a BBC link as putative proof of something or other. Ern shot back with, "NON CIA SOURCE PLEASE!"


It's true what they say, "game recognize game".


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> Depends on your height and the angle of attack. Do they crumple enough to actually stop sending children (and adults, been there done that) flying into the air or just to reduce impact with the car itself? Won't do much for small children getting dragged under either.



I'm not sure there's any research which concludes whether it's better to fling a pedestrian over the roof, to the side or forward.

Obviously it's not ideal for any car to hit a pedestrian, and the outcome is dependent on too many variables to try an engineer a specific outcome. A well-specced car with a pedestrian airbag and soft surfaces might end up killing someone at low speed if they unfortunately land on their head on the road, whereas a brutal fronted truck could strike a glancing blow in just the right place and cause minimal injury.

This is why autonomous emergency braking with pedestrian detection is such an important innovation, despite it not yet being perfect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I'm not sure there's any research which concludes whether it's better to fling a pedestrian over the roof, to the side or forward.
> 
> Obviously it's not ideal for any car to hit a pedestrian, and the outcome is dependent on too many variables to try an engineer a specific outcome. A well-specced car with a pedestrian airbag and soft surfaces might end up killing someone at low speed if they unfortunately land on their head on the road, whereas a brutal fronted truck could strike a glancing blow in just the right place and cause minimal injury.
> 
> This is why autonomous emergency braking with pedestrian detection is such an important innovation, despite it not yet being perfect.


i wonder how many crashes occur because of someone's unexpected braking.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder how many crashes occur because of someone's unexpected braking.



Relevance?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Relevance?


if you you mention autonomous braking which isn't yet perfect perhaps you might like to think about how that might impact - pun certainly intended - on other drivers. you seem to have a mind which lumbers along well within the speed limit


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> oh do engage brain. if you you mention autonomous braking which isn't yet perfect perhaps you might like to think about how that might impact - pun certainly intended - on other drivers. you seem to have a mind which lumbers along well within the speed limit



Emergency braking is always unexpected, whatever the reason for it. If the car behind crashes into the emergency braker, it's always their fault for traveling too close, whether the braking was due to a random child or a false positive on the automatic system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Emergency braking is always unexpected, whatever the reason for it. If the car behind crashes into the emergency braker, it's always their fault for traveling too close, whether the braking was due to a random child or a false positive on the automatic system.


i don't care about whose fault it is, i was asking about the number of such crashes. and i suspect this wonder technology wouldn't reduce it, it might well increase it in part because other options of avoiding a collision with a pedestrian might be removed by this autonomous action.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 11, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> That's a European Raptor which is just a Ranger with a few bits of obnoxious plastic nailed onto it. It has a decent payload for a mid-size truck: 600+kg.
> 
> The US Raptor is based on the F-150 which also has a decent payload: 900+kg.



Ah, makes sense as I was reading a U.K. review of one and it said it only had a 2ltr engine.  The one I saw made a very low brassy burbling noise as it pulled away which would suggest a much bigger (US import) engine.  Absolute monster of a vehicle.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't care about whose fault it is, i was asking about the number of such crashes. and i suspect this wonder technology wouldn't reduce it, it might well increase it in part because other options of avoiding a collision with a pedestrian might be removed by this autonomous action.



Suspect all you want, if you think the technology is on balance dangerous you'll have to come up with some evidence.

There's a long list of safety advancements that people have objected to with claims that they are dangerous...seat belts, airbags, ABS... wrong every time. What makes you think you're right this time, or are you just being contrary Pickman's model?


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 11, 2020)

xenon said:


> Oh yeah I remember bullbars. Just checked, they're not actually illegal as such. You have to be a antisocial moronic shitcunt to want bullbars on anything other than a farm working vehicle in the UK.



There’s a driver at work with chrome bull bars on his van - seem a bit dated with no practical use.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Suspect all you want, if you think the technology is on balance dangerous you'll have to come up with some evidence.
> 
> There's a long list of safety advancements that people have objected to with claims that they are dangerous...seat belts, airbags, ABS... wrong every time. What makes you think you're right this time, or are you just being contrary Pickman's model?


not certain a 'safety advancement' which you admit is not perfect, and could conceivably stop a car doing 70 on a motorway because it thinks it sees a pedestrian crossing the road (which might easily lead to several cars crashing into each other) can quite be considered less than dangerous atm.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 11, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> not certain a 'safety advancement' which you admit is not perfect, and could conceivably stop a car doing 70 on a motorway because it thinks it sees a pedestrian crossing the road (which might easily lead to several cars crashing into each other) can quite be considered less than dangerous atm.



Is there much of that going on?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Ern was the fucking best. I remember when somebody produced a BBC link as putative proof of something or other. Ern shot back with, "NON CIA SOURCE PLEASE!"


Absolute quality poster. You could tell how amusing he was being by who he was annoying at the time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2020)

8ball said:


> Is there much of that going on?


there are a lot of possible problems with the technology as it stands, as platinumsage will aver


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> Well that's all new since I used to get hit by cars on a regular basis.


Why did you keep getting hit by cars?


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Why did you keep getting hit by cars?


I was a courier so clocked up a huge amount of time on the road. It was the 90s and there were far less bikes on the road. Three out of the four were drivers speeding up and turning left on me and couldn't be my fault. One was me being reckless draughting a van who couldn't see me and didn't signal when he turned as there were no other vehicles around.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> I was a courier so clocked up a huge amount of time on the road. It was the 90s and there were far less bikes on the road. Three out of the four were drivers speeding up and turning left on me and couldn't be my fault. One was me being reckless draughting a van who couldn't see me and didn't signal when he turned as there were no other vehicles around.


Blimey. You should have got another job. I must have done the best part of 40,000 miles, much in Central London, as a motorcycle courier in the 80s and 90s and only got hit once (arseholed by a black cab at some lights), and fell off once. You were probably positioning yourself badly if you kept getting knocked off by left turners. I'd say 90% of the accidents, or close shaves, I witness between cycles and cars would be the cyclist's fault.


----------



## maomao (Aug 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> You should have got another job


I did! Or I wouldn't have lived this long. 

The first accident could be put down to inexperience and it's the only one I can't remember in excruciating detail. Number two and number three were definitely not my fault though. I was riding at traffic speed in a positive position and they just thought bike = slow and that they must be able to get round me.

Black cab once bumped me at lights because I didn't move quick enough. Didn't knock me off though. I took out one of his lights with my lock.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> Black cab once bumped me at lights because I didn't move quick enough. Didn't knock me off though.


Mine was at a red light. The Junction of the A4 at West Ken station. When I got up there was a Chinese bloke with a broom having a go at the cabbie.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 13, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> there are a lot of possible problems with the technology as it stands, as platinumsage will aver



We're all walking around in the field test for this stuff, which is not a situation I'm keen on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> We're all walking around in the field test for this stuff, which is not a situation I'm keen on.


Stick to the fields


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 13, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Blimey. You should have got another job. I must have done the best part of 40,000 miles, much in Central London, as a motorcycle courier in the 80s and 90s and only got hit once (arseholed by a black cab at some lights), and fell off once. You were probably positioning yourself badly if you kept getting knocked off by left turners. I'd say 90% of the accidents, or close shaves, I witness between cycles and cars would be the cyclist's fault.



Positive positioning can help cyclists to avoid the 'left hook' ie a driver passing you then immediately turning left and cutting you off. Sadly cycle lanes are often designed to keep cyclists in the gutter where they're most at risk. 

The one time I got left-hooked I was passing slow traffic on the inside, and a bloke in a van turned without signalling. I went straight into his nearside door, no chance to react. I got back on my bike and fucked off because I felt there was a non-trivial chance of this bloke feeling aggrieved that I'd dented his door. He caught me up, but only to apologise and check I was OK. It's not the smartest thing, passing traffic on the left, but bike lanes encourage it. The presence of a bike lane might at least encourage drivers to check their mirrors and blind spots before doing anything, but then good drivers will do that anyway.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 13, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Positive positioning can help cyclists to avoid the 'left hook' ie a driver passing you then immediately turning left and cutting you off. Sadly cycle lanes are often designed to keep cyclists in the gutter where they're most at risk.
> 
> The one time I got left-hooked I was passing slow traffic on the inside, and a bloke in a van turned without signalling. I went straight into his nearside door, no chance to react. I got back on my bike and fucked off because I felt there was a non-trivial chance of this bloke feeling aggrieved that I'd dented his door. He caught me up, but only to apologise and check I was OK. It's not the smartest thing, passing traffic on the left, but bike lanes encourage it. The presence of a bike lane might at least encourage drivers to check their mirrors and blind spots before doing anything, but then good drivers will do that anyway.




The latest amendments to the Highway Code will explicitly allow passing on the left.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 13, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The latest amendments to the Highway Code will explicitly allow passing on the left.



It's fine in many circumstances. If you're not passing any junctions for example, or bus stops. But cyclists should be encouraged to return to primary position when approaching roundabouts etc, so they have a lane to themselves and can more easily be seen. 

Proper road position is possibly more important than signalling for cyclists. A driver may miss a signal, but if the cyclist in front of them is slap bang in the middle of the right turn lane approaching a roundabout, then the driver knows exactly what she's going to do and everything will be fine.

But anyway, not a cycling thread. As you were.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> The one time I got left-hooked I was passing slow traffic on the inside, and a bloke in a van turned without signalling. I went straight into his nearside door, no chance to react. I got back on my bike and fucked off because I felt there was a non-trivial chance of this bloke feeling aggrieved that I'd dented his door.


Both times I've been left hooked by vans I was left standing despite damage to the bike. It helps being built like an SUV.


----------



## stavros (Aug 13, 2020)

Some thoughts which may or may not resonate with participants in this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2020)

stavros said:


> Some thoughts which may or may not resonate with participants in this thread.


What's it about?


----------



## stavros (Aug 15, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> What's it about?



The social evolution of road users, comparing the UK to those in Europe.


----------



## Marty1 (Aug 16, 2020)

Aston Martin have just released their first SUV, with a turbo charged V8 producing 542bhp.

Apparently other luxury SUV’s like the Lamborghini Urus have rear wheel steering to help their manoeuvrability but the Aston doesn’t have this feature and test drivers have remarked of how wide the car is.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 16, 2020)

Why is Keir Starmer reviewing it


----------



## stavros (Aug 16, 2020)

S☼I said:


> Why is Keir Starmer reviewing it



I see the bastard lovechild of Gavin Williamson and Lance Armstrong.


----------



## T & P (Aug 16, 2020)

stavros said:


> The social evolution of road users, comparing the UK to those in Europe.


I’ll probably be too lazy to listen to it, and I’m not sure what’s meant by social evolution, but IME and perception road users in this country are far more hostile towards each other than in every country in Europe I’ve been to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2020)

T & P said:


> I’ll probably be too lazy to listen to it, and I’m not sure what’s meant by social evolution, but IME and perception road users in this country are far more hostile towards each other than in every country in Europe I’ve been to.


The comment I hear most from Europeans I know is that UK drivers are much more considerate than drivers in their country.

The stats tend to support that too. UK comes out very well wrt road safety compared to other countries. Second only to Sweden in the EU last year for deaths on the road.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The comment I hear most from Europeans I know is that UK drivers are much more considerate than drivers in their country.
> 
> The stats tend to support that too. UK comes out very well wrt road safety compared to other countries. Second only to Sweden in the EU last year for deaths on the road.



Nobody in France indicates at roundabouts, which is very annoying.


----------



## xenon (Aug 17, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nobody in France indicates at roundabouts, which is very annoying.



Zebra crossings are just pretty markings on the road too.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 17, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Blimey. You should have got another job. I must have done the best part of 40,000 miles, much in Central London, as a motorcycle courier in the 80s and 90s and only got hit once (arseholed by a black cab at some lights), and fell off once. You were probably positioning yourself badly if you kept getting knocked off by left turners.* I'd say 90% of the accidents, or close shaves, I witness between cycles and cars would be the cyclist's fault.*



was reading the same wholly invented / anecdotal bobbins on FB last week - v silly / counterproductive  stuff


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2020)

cantsin said:


> was reading the same wholly invented / anecdotal bobbins on FB last week - v silly / counterproductive  stuff


You're either kidding yourself or you're not in London.


----------



## stavros (Aug 17, 2020)

T & P said:


> I’m not sure what’s meant by social evolution



Social _hierarchy_ would've been a better way of phrasing it.



littlebabyjesus said:


> The comment I hear most from Europeans I know is that UK drivers are much more considerate than drivers in their country.



That R4 show suggested that cyclists, both pedal and motor varieties, are accorded more respect by those behind a steering wheel in the western European countries they mentioned. I think they were referring specifically to the Netherlands and the Scandanavians. I'm not sure the "pay your road tax!" adage is used there, and I'm certain there's a deeper cycling culture in France and Low Countries than in the UK.

Of course, it's difficult to go into too much depth in a 15 minute radio show.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 17, 2020)

The ‘road tax’ thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2020)

stavros said:


> Social _hierarchy_ would've been a better way of phrasing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess specifically wrt cyclists, yes certainly the Netherlands is very different. tbh drivers in Holland know they are in deep shit if they hit a cyclist. But the built environment in Holland is so radically different that the opportunity for conflict between drivers and cyclists is greatly reduced. Very largely they don't share the same space. Hence Dutch cyclists virtually never wearing a helmet. No need if you're always on a dedicated cycle lane.  I think the physical environment plays a huge part in shaping behaviour.


----------



## stavros (Aug 17, 2020)

8ball said:


> The ‘road tax’ thing.



That wasn't used in the show. I merely cite it as something which is occasionally heard in discussions here.


----------



## stavros (Aug 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I guess specifically wrt cyclists, yes certainly the Netherlands is very different. tbh drivers in Holland know they are in deep shit if they hit a cyclist. But the built environment in Holland is so radically different that the opportunity for conflict between drivers and cyclists is greatly reduced. Very largely they don't share the same space. Hence Dutch cyclists virtually never wearing a helmet. No need if you're always on a dedicated cycle lane.  I think the physical environment plays a huge part in shaping behaviour.



Isn't there also the presumption of culpability on the driver in a car-bike accident? I know it exists in some countries, including almost certainly the Netherlands, but doesn't in the UK.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2020)

stavros said:


> Isn't there also the presumption of culpability on the driver in a car-bike accident? I know it exists in some countries, including almost certainly the Netherlands, but doesn't in the UK.


In the Netherlands, yes there is.

ime in various Dutch cities, it's pedestrians who are most in danger.  There isn't always an obvious place to walk. Cyclists first, cars/trams second, pedestrians last. It's probably partly just being a dumb foreigner, but it's easy to get it wrong as a pedestrian. Easy for me anyway.


----------



## T & P (Aug 17, 2020)

stavros said:


> Social _hierarchy_ would've been a better way of phrasing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m sure that’s true, but perhaps the reason might be that most road users in that part of Europe are far most polite and respectful to others and the law. Cyclists don’t jump red lights or ride on the pavement. Pedestrians (in Germany at least) religiously abide by the green man lights. Unsurprisingly enough most drivers around them also behave in a considerate and law-abiding way.

In here by contrast a significant number of drivers break the speed limit, most cyclists (in London at least) routinely jump red lights, and most pedestrians ignore green man traffic lights. And every one hates each other it seems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2020)

T & P said:


> I’m sure that’s true, but perhaps the reason might be that most road users in that part of Europe are far most polite and respectful to others and the law. Cyclists don’t jump red lights or ride on the pavement. Pedestrians (in Germany at least) religiously abide by the green man lights. Unsurprisingly enough most drivers around them also behave in a considerate and law-abiding way.
> 
> In here by contrast a significant number of drivers break the speed limit, most cyclists (in London at least) routinely jump red lights, and most pedestrians ignore green man traffic lights. And every one hates each other it seems.


Come now. Be accurate at least. Most cyclists do not routinely jump red lights. Some do, but they are a minority, quite a small one. 

As for the comparisons with the rest of Europe, I don't think your characterisation fits well with the road safety figures. 

Annoyingly, this EU report has removed the UK, so you'll have to take my word for it that the UK would be second behind Sweden, just before Ireland, wrt road deaths, on 28 per million per year. That's significantly lower than Germany.


----------



## T & P (Aug 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come now. Be accurate at least. Most cyclists do not routinely jump red lights. Some do, but they are a minority, quite a small one.
> 
> As for the comparisons with the rest of Europe, I don't think your characterisation fits well with the road safety figures.
> 
> Annoyingly, this EU report has removed the UK, so you'll have to take my word for it that the UK would be second behind Sweden, just before Ireland, wrt road deaths, on 28 per million per year. That's significantly lower than Germany.


Oh I am being accurate on what I see on my daily commute. Before continuing let me mention that I have numerous times said I believe some Highway Code violations are fine in my book and absolutely not unsafe or irresponsible in the right circumstances. That includes cyclists jumping red lights, as well as car drivers breaking the speed limit.

But let me reaffirm my earlier statement. In London at least, the great majority of cyclists I see every single day will jumó at least some traffic lights. Not when it is unsafe to do so for the most part, which is why I believe some Highway Code breaking is perfectly fine. But be in doubt that at certain traffic lights when there’s virtually no danger of hitting pedestrians or being hit by traffic, a significantly majority of cyclists on my route will jump the lights.

And at the moment when there are countless roadworks in London with 3 or 4-way temporary traffic lights at junctions that take a good 2 minutes to turn green, I can assure you that I have watched literally 100% of cyclists jump them. Every single one of them. Every single time I have found myself at certain temporary lights. I if I had a helmet cam I’d be more than happy to show you.

As I said I think nothing of it. But it’s naive to think a majority of cyclists don’t jump at least some traffic lights routinely.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Most cyclists do not routinely jump red lights. Some do, but they are a minority, quite a small one.


Lol!


----------



## stavros (Aug 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Most cyclists do not routinely jump red lights.





Spymaster said:


> Lol!



I'm not aware of any data which backs up either viewpoint (if I'm correct in inferring Spymaster's). Maybe we agree that not every cyclist does, just as not every driver goes above the speed limit.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 18, 2020)

stavros said:


> Maybe we agree that not every cyclist does


97.9% do


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> 97.9% do


98.6 actually

It seems that all U75 cyclists are in the other 1.4%


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2020)

And, predictably, it's gone back to cyclist bashing, rather than focusing on the massive environmental damage caused by oversized, gas guzzling, polluting SUVs.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2020)

stavros said:


> I'm not aware of any data which backs up either viewpoint (if I'm correct in inferring Spymaster's).


The fact that you are unaware rather supports the assertion.

I'm almost prepared to accept the position, argued by so many here, that incompetent cyclists are a particularly London problem.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that South London cyclists without formal training are particularly dangerous to other road users and socieity in general.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that you are unaware rather supports the assertion.
> 
> I'm almost prepared to accept the position, argued by so many here, that incompetent cyclists are a particularly London problem.


In fairness, it isn't just cyclists. Basically, Londeners are a bunch of cunts, with little or no regard for others, although cyclists do seem to be more proficient at it.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I'd even go so far as to suggest that South London cyclists without formal training are particularly dangerous to other road users and socieity in general.


enjoying this new material spy - pretty funny - not as funny as the greta thunberg stuff, but i think you may have peaked with that routine


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2020)

ska invita said:


> enjoying this new material spy - pretty funny - not as funny as the greta thunberg stuff, but i think you may have peaked with that routine


I've used the same bait for nearly 20 years, Ska. 

It still catches some usless old cunts who don't have driving licenes because they're incompetent. As you've agreed. Pretty much every cyclist in South London sucks shit as far as road ability is concerned.

I find Brixton cyclists are the biggest tools of the lot. 

Total piss-tanks


----------



## stavros (Aug 19, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that you are unaware rather supports the assertion.



I perhaps should've said _empirical_ data, rather than that of anecdote. For example, traffic counts from a busy interchange over a length of time demonstrating that 98.6% of cyclists run red lights.

If you do it would be informative to have the comparable data for car drivers and motorbike riders.


----------



## sim667 (Aug 20, 2020)

I’m considering buying my dads suv at the moment because it does just under double the amount of MPG than my hatchback, has less emissions, and I carry sound equipment into fields which my hatchback isn’t really coping with 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 20, 2020)

sim667 said:


> I’m considering buying my dads suv at the moment because it does just under double the amount of MPG than my hatchback, has less emissions, and I carry sound equipment into fields which my hatchback isn’t really coping with 🤷‍♂️



Don't worry chap, we all become old men with bad backs at some point.


----------



## sim667 (Aug 20, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Don't worry chap, we all become old men with bad backs at some point.


 Im embracing my descent into middle age mediocrity wth open arms


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 20, 2020)

sim667 said:


> Im embracing my descent into middle age mediocrity wth open arms



You say that now but soon as you're driving it we'll be hearing all about the viewing position and all the other gubbins old men with bad backs say to justify the fact they are driving an old man daddy cool car.


----------



## sim667 (Aug 20, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> You say that now but soon as you're driving it we'll be hearing all about the viewing position and all the other gubbins old men with bad backs say to justify the fact they are driving an old man daddy cool car.


Im pretty sure no one considers a CRV as a daddy cool car 😂

Actually Ive been driving it quite a bit lately trying to decide if i like it, and it doesn't feel high up particularly. That said i drive ambulances which are obviously high up so my take on "high up" is probably a bit skewed


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2020)

And from under all the eco-bullshit the truth emerges. Throw in the pointless extra weight and needless over-engineered bulk of a hybrid SUV and it's not a pretty picture.



> Carbon dioxide emissions from plug-in hybrid cars are as much as two-and-a-half times higher than official tests suggest, according to new research.
> 
> Plug-in hybrid vehicles are powered by an electric motor using a battery that is recharged by being plugged in or via an on-board petrol or diesel engine.
> 
> ...





> The pressure groups have analysed what they say is "real-world" data on fuel efficiency collected from some 20,000 plug-in hybrid drivers around Europe.
> 
> These are drivers who have chosen to record their mileage and fuel consumption for surveys or who drive company or leased vehicles whose fuel efficiency is recorded.
> 
> ...











						Plug-in hybrids are a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'
					

Although marketed as a green option, the cars cause more polluting than is claimed, campaigners say.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## mx wcfc (Sep 16, 2020)

editor said:


> And from under all the eco-bullshit the truth emerges. Throw in the pointless extra weight and needless over-engineered bulk of a hybrid SUV and it's not a pretty picture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I saw that, and, as we have a hybrid, it was a bit disappointing, though not a surprise.

It all "depends" of course.  We use no petrol going to the shops and local stuff like that, and mrs mx can just about get to work and back on a single charge, so uses no petrol on her commute.  All good stuff.

When she goes up to London to see her parents though (120 mile round trip), it uses petrol on the motorway, and the mpg is so bad we haven't dared try to figure it out. It is appalling.  

My defence is that it was it was the best I could do to talk her out of a diesel SUV.  

There are tales of company car drivers getting hybrids for the low income tax charge, but never charging them.  They need shooting.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2020)

I don't understand the 'electric up to 50% of the time' they advertise with plug-in hybrids. Does that mean they charge up at the same rate they discharge? I'd have thought regenerative braking would have made them a lot more efficient. Do they not use regenerative braking when driving on petrol?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I don't understand the 'electric up to 50% of the time' they advertise with plug-in hybrids.



No, that seems to need a few qualifiers in order to make any sense.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> I don't understand the 'electric up to 50% of the time' they advertise with plug-in hybrids. Does that mean they charge up at the same rate they discharge? I'd have thought regenerative braking would have made them a lot more efficient. Do they not use regenerative braking when driving on petrol?


I suspect that marketing speak, IE on average 50% of journeys made are  short and thus within the car's electric only range assuming it has been charged of course.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 16, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> I suspect that marketing speak, IE on average 50% of journeys made are  short and thus within the car's electric only range assuming it has been charged of course.



If it’s that, it really shouldn’t get past the ASA.


----------



## mx wcfc (Sep 16, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Do they not use regenerative braking when driving on petrol?


They do, but if you manage to save up a couple of miles of electric range, you've done well, on ours anyway.  The regenerative system also works when driving on electric. The advertising on ours said "up to 135 miles on a single charge".  Yeah, right, maybe rolling down hill.  

I do understand the physics (broadly), but as an illustration of how bad the mileage on a big heavy hybrid can be in certain circumstances, when I take it _down_ to the football, I can add one or two miles to the electric range shown on the display, driving economically.  Coming back home, the two mile trip can use 15 miles of range.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 16, 2020)

It's a good job electricity magics is way from ecectricheaven into electric cars, otherwise we'd be able to rip to pieces these claims that electric cars are good for the environment.


----------



## mx wcfc (Sep 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a good job electricity magics is way from ecectricheaven into electric cars, otherwise we'd be able to rip to pieces these claims that electric cars are good for the environment.


Point taken, but it's the best option we've got at the moment to cut diesel and petrol usage causing pollution in heavily populated towns and cities.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 16, 2020)

mx wcfc said:


> Point taken, but it's the best option we've got at the moment to cut diesel and petrol usage causing pollution in heavily populated towns and cities.


What annoys me is these EVs are being pushed as zero emissions, when they're far from it. They actually create more greenhouse gases than modern diesels.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> What annoys me is these EVs are being pushed as zero emissions, when they're far from it. They actually create more greenhouse gases than modern diesels.


I used to think electric vehicles were the answer. Then I found out that exhaust emissions are only part of the picture. The small particles from brakes, tyres and road surface wear are just as dangerous. And electric vehicles still obviously emit those.


----------



## mx wcfc (Sep 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> What annoys me is these EVs are being pushed as zero emissions, when they're far from it. They actually create more greenhouse gases than modern diesels.


 I'm not getting into a row over this, I'm being honest about the limitations of the honest effort we made to do the right thing, but you are sounding like the big oil and the car manufacturers when they are trying to slow down the development of electric cars and renewable energy generally.  
All of a sudden, I wish I'd let my missus buy that Volvo SUV she wanted.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 16, 2020)

mx wcfc said:


> I'm not getting into a row over this, I'm being honest about the limitations of the honest effort we made to do the right thing, but you are sounding like the big oil and the car manufacturers when they are trying to slow down the development of electric cars and renewable energy generally.
> All of a sudden, I wish I'd let my missus buy that Volvo SUV she wanted.


A row? I think you need to go to bed.


----------



## mx wcfc (Sep 16, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I used to think electric vehicles were the answer. Then I found out that exhaust emissions are only part of the picture. The small particles from brakes, tyres and road surface wear are just as dangerous. And electric vehicles still obviously emit those.


Yep, sure, but that type of emission is surely the same whether we drive EV/petrol or diesel.  The answer is clearly to make public transport cheaper, more widely available and more attractive, but that ain't going to happen.
I managed fine without a car when I lived in London, but out here in the sticks it's a different matter.


----------



## mx wcfc (Sep 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> A row? I think you need to go to bed.


I think I meant I just wasn't interested in getting involved in a lengthy debate.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 16, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I used to think electric vehicles were the answer. Then I found out that exhaust emissions are only part of the picture. The small particles from brakes, tyres and road surface wear are just as dangerous. And electric vehicles still obviously emit those.



With brake particles being airborne so worse than the other two, although reduced by regenerative braking


----------



## NoXion (Sep 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> What annoys me is these EVs are being pushed as zero emissions, when they're far from it. They actually create more greenhouse gases than modern diesels.



That sounds unlikely.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> That sounds unlikely.


Yet true.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yet true.



Because... ? Where are the extra emissions coming from?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Because... ? Where are the extra emissions coming from?


Making electricity and getting it from the source into the batteries.








						Ifo study casts doubt on electric vehicles' climate-saving credentials | DW | 25.04.2019
					

A Tesla Model 3 has a worse life-cycle carbon footprint than a similar-sized Mercedes diesel car, the renowned German think tank has found. It warns that electric vehicles are "no panacea" against climate change.




					m.dw.com
				



And making new batteries to replace the old ones.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Making electricity and getting it from the source into the batteries.



This has been comprehensively debunked as far as I am aware, but I’d need to know your source(s) to go into more detail.

(Though it’s fair to say that EV’s are no kind of panacea)


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Making electricity and getting it into the batteries.



I don't believe you. Electric motors are more efficient than ICEs. More and more electricity is being produced in the UK by non-fossil means. It sounds like you're parroting fossil fuel lobbyist bollocks.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> I don't believe you. Electric motors are more efficient than ICEs. More and more electricity is being produced in the UK by non-fossil means. It sounds like you're parroting fossil fuel lobbyist bollocks.


You're going down the same route as the electric car wankers, assuming electricity and batteries are carbon free,


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You're going down the same route as the electric car wankers, assuming electricity and batteries are carbon free,



I never said that. I'm doubting your assertion that they are worse than diesel motors, because your say-so isn't good enough.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> I don't believe you. Electric motors are more efficient than ICEs. More and more electricity is being produced in the UK by non-fossil means. It sounds like you're parroting fossil fuel lobbyist bollocks.


How efficient is the electricity in the batteries?
How carbon free is the battery production?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> I never said that. I'm doubting your assertion that they are worse than diesel motors, because your say-so isn't good enough.



To be fair, the makers of EV’s have a very rosy take on the figures, but in terms of being worse than diesel I’m only aware of a couple of studies which included glaring errors.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> I never said that. I'm doubting your assertion that they are worse than diesel motors, because your say-so isn't good enough.


It isn't my assertion. It was a professor at the IFO. I'm merely relating the message


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

8ball said:


> To be fair, the makers of EV’s have a very rosy take on the figures, but in terms of being worse than diesel I’m only aware of a couple of studies which included glaring errors.


Which errors?








						Ifo study casts doubt on electric vehicles' climate-saving credentials | DW | 25.04.2019
					

A Tesla Model 3 has a worse life-cycle carbon footprint than a similar-sized Mercedes diesel car, the renowned German think tank has found. It warns that electric vehicles are "no panacea" against climate change.




					m.dw.com


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Which errors?



For starters, all battery production costs etc. are fully accounted for, as it should be, whereas the diesel appears magically in the car’s fuel tank with no energy used in production or distribution (according to one report - I haven’t seen source data yet).

There are plenty more, including the weightings for electricity generation, and the general cherry-picking of input variables, including ones where the diesel car industry has been caught blatantly lying, and others from studies that had been discredited prior to this study’s publication

The first 3 links on a quick Google search were references to the debunking of this conclusion from the study.  There is quite a bit of detail there.

I expect the professor had right to reply but nothing is turning up...

As an aside, the study was not subject to any peer review.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

8ball said:


> For starters, all battery production costs etc. are fully accounted for, as it should be, whereas the diesel appears magically in the car’s fuel tank with no energy used in production or distribution (according to one report - I haven’t seen source data yet).
> 
> There are plenty more, including the weightings for electricity generation, and the general cherry-picking of input variables, including ones where the diesel car industry has been caught blatantly lying, and others from studies that had been discredited prior to this study’s publication
> 
> ...


The fuel transportation was taken into account. What isn't taken into account is that batteries aren't lasting anywhere near as long as predicted. EV emissions are based on one set of batteries, which, it seems, isn't the case?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> The fuel transportation was taken into account. What isn't taken into account is that batteries aren't lasting anywhere near as long as predicted. EV emissions are based on one set of batteries, which, it seems, isn't the case?



You appear to be making things up with no reference to sources.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

8ball said:


> You appear to be making things up with no reference to sources.


I gave a link to the professor's studies.

You seem to be assuming that I don't want electric vehicles. I absolutely do, and I want them to be powered by renewable things (energy and batteries). Unfortunately, this isn't (currently) the case.

Would you like to discuss batteries?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I gave a link to the professor's studies.
> 
> You seem to be assuming that I don't want electric vehicles. I absolutely do, and I want them to be powered by renewable things (energy and batteries). Unfortunately, this isn't (currently) the case.
> 
> Would you like to discuss batteries?



You gave a link to a news story. Now you are flapping about hoping to obfuscate with some electronics jargon. 

This is a poor troll.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

8ball said:


> You gave a link to a news story. Now you are flapping about hoping to obfuscate with some electronics jargon.
> 
> This is a poor troll.


I'm sorry you're not able to dig a little deeper.
And it has nothing to do with electronics. It's chemistry, and the chemicals used in batteries, and their (lack.of) sustainability.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm sorry you're not able to dig a little deeper.
> And it has nothing to do with electronics. It's chemistry, and the chemicals used in batteries, and their (lack.of) sustainability.



Yeah, the debunkings went into some detail about that.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

The study was also based in Germany. For some _unfathomably fucking stupid reason_, Germany has decided to phase out nuclear energy in favour of burning more Russian gas. France is also apparently planning to reduce the presence of nuclear fission in their energy mix from 71% to 50%. _Again_, I have yet to see a reason to justify this completely fucking batshit idea.

So yeah, if you live in a country that is deciding to go backwards in terms of carbon emissions, an electric vehicle might not be as environmentally friendly as it could have otherwise been.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> So yeah, if you live in a country that is deciding to go backwards in terms of carbon emissions, an electric vehicle might not be as environmentally friendly as it could have otherwise been.


I like how you associate nuclear energy with environmental friendliness 
But yeah, I do live in one of those countries. As do most people.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I like how you associate nuclear energy with environmental friendliness



Because it is. If we're serious as a civilisation about reigning in climate change, then nuclear fission must be a part of the solution.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Because it is. If we're serious as a civilisation about reigning in climate change, then nuclear fission must be a part of the solution.


Tell that to the people of Pripyat.
I'd rather see clean, renewable energy being used.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> The study was also based in Germany. For some _unfathomably fucking stupid reason_, Germany has decided to phase out nuclear energy in favour of burning more Russian gas. France is also apparently planning to reduce the presence of nuclear fission in their energy mix from 71% to 50%. _Again_, I have yet to see a reason to justify this completely fucking batshit idea.
> 
> So yeah, if you live in a country that is deciding to go backwards in terms of carbon emissions, an electric vehicle might not be as environmentally friendly as it could have otherwise been.



Germany reacted (ha) as a direct response to Fukushima.  It was a daft and short sighted decision then and it looks even worse today.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Tell that to the people of Pripyat.
> I'd rather see clean, renewable energy being used.



No time to go 100% renewable.

Far more people die from fossil fuels, from coal mining to mercury contamination, than died in Pripyat.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Tell that to the people of Pripyat.
> I'd rather see clean, renewable energy being used.



We can and should do both. It's madness to let the planet burn because of a baseless fear over RBMK reactors that nobody builds any more.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> No time to go 100% renewable.
> 
> Far more people die from fossil fuels, from coal mining to mercury contamination, than died in Pripyat.


Plenty of time, no will.
I'm not talking numbers of deaths, I'm talking about the cost to the environment.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Plenty of time, no will.
> I'm not talking numbers of deaths, I'm talking about the cost to the environment.



On the one hand we have fossil fuels, which are heating the entire planet up. On the other hand we've got nuclear fission, which got a small city evacuated in an incident that won't be repeated because RBMKs aren't a thing any more.

Yet the decision is made to burn more gas and shut down reactors with different designs?! Fucking stupid.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 17, 2020)

Germany shut down half of its reactors after Fukushima.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Germany shut down half of its reactors after Fukushima.



Which makes no damn sense whatsoever. Did the Yakuza build Germany's reactors as well?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Which makes no damn sense whatsoever. Did the Yakuza build Germany's reactors as well?



It was in a panic.  They then relied upon dirty Polish coal and as you say its now all about Russian gas.  Its a pile of wank.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

Isn't it quicker to get renewables on line than nuclear? Yes you need to balance supply and demand but with the bulk being supplied by renewables, gas can take up the slack in relatively short periods when wind and sun drop.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Isn't it quicker to get renewables on line than nuclear? Yes you need to balance supply and demand but with the bulk being supplied by renewables, gas can take up the slack in relatively short periods when wind and sun drop.



With regard to Germany they took nuclear offline and replaced it with fossil.  That was a while ago and will take a very long time to replace with renewables.  I'm not that keen on nuclear in itself but if you have the reactors than use them because it is better than fossil.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Isn't it quicker to get renewables on line than nuclear? Yes you need to balance supply and demand but with the bulk being supplied by renewables, gas can take up the slack in relatively short periods when wind and sun drop.



I'd rather we stop burning gas altogether. Use fission for baseload power, and have renewables do the rest. You're gonna need to build extra energy storage and a smarter grid if you're using renewables anyway.

Fuck gas. It's promotion is a desperate attempt by the fossil fuels industry to keep their skin in the game. Also it funds Putin's regime, so fuck that too.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> On the one hand we have fossil fuels, which are heating the entire planet up. On the other hand we've got nuclear fission, which got a small city evacuated in an incident that won't be repeated because RBMKs aren't a thing any more.
> 
> Yet the decision is made to burn more gas and shut down reactors with different designs?! Fucking stupid.



Regardless of how safe you believe the reactors to be, we still have spent fuel rods to deal with, and their numbers are growing, to the extent that some cooling pools are as dense with rods as the actual reactors. They're just disasters that haven't happened yet.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> Fuck gas. It's promotion is a desperate attempt by the fossil fuels industry to keep their skin in the game.



As baseload I totally agree - as emergency supply to fire up quickly when there's no wind or sun then I think there's a place for it.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> With regard to Germany they took nuclear offline and replaced it with fossil.  That was a while ago and will take a very long time to replace with renewables.  I'm not that keen on nuclear in itself but if you have the reactors than use them because it is better than fossil.



Yes I totally agree with that.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Regardless of how safe you believe the reactors to be, we still have spent fuel rods to deal with, and their numbers are growing, to the extent that some cooling pools are as dense with rods as the actual reactors. They're just disasters that haven't happened yet.



The volume of spent nuclear fuel can be reduced significantly with reprocessing and especially with the use of fast neutron reactors, which can "burn" stuff that would be considered waste in other reactor designs. The only country having a problem with spent fuel is the USA, because for some stupid reason they decided to stop fuel reprocessing in the 1970s, and so since then they have built up a massive stockpile of fuel they can't use.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

NoXion said:


> The volume of spent nuclear fuel can be reduced significantly with reprocessing and especially with the use of fast neutron reactors, which can "burn" stuff that would be considered waste in other reactor designs. The only country having a problem with spent fuel is the USA, because for some stupid reason they decided to stop fuel reprocessing in the 1970s, and so since then they have built up a massive stockpile of fuel they can't use.



When are fast neutron reactors coming on line?


----------



## NoXion (Sep 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> When are fast neutron reactors coming on line?



Some research reactors are already online. The FBTR in particular is focused on significant burn-up levels, which is of interest for those concerned with waste.

Reprocessing is already being done in many countries. The US is a definite anomaly in that regard.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

So still 10 years or more off? And the UK's still got a pretty big stockpile, I thought. TBH I trust the nuclear industry about af far as I can throw the gas industry, right back to "electricity too cheap to meter". I also think the whole nuclear supply chain is too vulnerable to terrorists, but last time I said that as I recall I was told not to give them ideas. 

It's not going to impact me directly as it'll be the next generation(s) that have to live with it, but I think we should be concentrating on renewables since that has to be the long term solution.

But ... bit of a (somewhat relevant) diversion back to SUVs


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2020)

When are nuclear-powered SUVs going to make an appearance? Boris Johnson was on about small modular reactors recently, so surely the next step is to make even smaller ones for road vehicles.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> When are nuclear-powered SUVs going to make an appearance? Boris Johnson was on about small modular reactors recently, so surely the next step is to make even smaller ones for road vehicles.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2020)

You’d be able to drive a nuclear SUV from Land’s End to John O’Groats non-stop without refuelling. You could even go around the M25 for like, a year without stopping, smashing the previous record.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You’d be able to drive a nuclear SUV from Land’s End to John O’Groats non-stop without refuelling. You could even go around the M25 for like, a year without stopping, smashing the previous record.


Go round the M25 without stopping?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You’d be able to drive a nuclear SUV from Land’s End to John O’Groats non-stop without refuelling.



You have to balance the endless fuel with the car being made by Jaguar Land Rover, it'll be stopped and waiting on the RAC by Bodmin.


----------



## Signal 11 (Sep 17, 2020)

8ball said:


> This has been comprehensively debunked as far as I am aware, but I’d need to know your source(s) to go into more detail.
> 
> (Though it’s fair to say that EV’s are no kind of panacea)


Looks like this one.









						Mostly false: “Electric cars generate higher emissions than diesel cars”
					

According to a study conducted by the Ifo, under the leadership of German physics professor Christoph Buchal, the CO2 emissions of electric vehicles are higher than those of diesel cars. The Belgian newspaper De Standaard published this claim on their website on the 18th of April. We rate this...




					eufactcheck.eu


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

Signal 11 said:


> Looks like this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, it does, doesn't it.  There are lots more rebuttals in the month or so following the publishing of the alleged study.
Right of reply was seemingly not asserted.

It is pertinent, though, that the figures should even be in the right comparative ballpark when better methods are used.  You could be forgiven for getting the impression that EV's environmental impact is orders of magnitude below an ICE, as opposed to it mostly being a case of moving the source and changing the forms of pollution that result.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 17, 2020)

The point as well is that EV are agnostic as to the ultimate source of their electricity.  Even if it is produced by gas today, this can become renewable tomorrow.  Improvement becomes about the tangible, incremental change of the nature of power stations.  By contrast, a car that uses petrol will always need to burn petrol.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

Is why I don't understand why you'd have a non-plug-in hybrid  ? It can't make much difference to design and build costs surely, and with a plug-in hybrid people could charge them at night, for example, when there's excess wind generated power, or midday when there could be an excess of solar power. That means car batteries add to the grid's battery backup.

Eta: and with a non-plug-in hybrid it has to reduce fuel efficiency when you're charging up the battery.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

kabbes said:


> By contrast, a car that uses petrol will always need to burn petrol.



Well, there are other possible fuels, but I think you'd always be mugging yourself efficiency-wise.
</silly pedantry>


----------



## 8ball (Sep 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> That means car batteries add to the grid's battery backup.



Get what you mean.  Seems like a funny way of looking at it, though.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

yes perhaps not backup because they're being run down during the daily driving (works for full EV only) - but evening out supply and demand which is a major problem with renewables.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 17, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Is why I don't understand why you'd have a non-plug-in hybrid  ? It can't make much difference to design and build costs surely, and with a plug-in hybrid people could charge them at night, for example, when there's excess wind generated power, or midday when there could be an excess of solar power. That means car batteries add to the grid's battery backup.
> 
> Eta: and with a non-plug-in hybrid it has to reduce fuel efficiency when you're charging up the battery.



Charging your car overnight is not easy for everyone.  A lot of people (like me) live in a block of flats.  I can't really hang a cable down from my bedroom window.  This is one of the reasons I've had a self charging before and will likely get one again.  The main reason though is the stats are good from a company car tax perspective.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2020)

Indeed we're going to need charging points - at company premises too for charging during the day. 

But no real technical/financial reason for the car itself?


----------



## stavros (Sep 17, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You’d be able to drive a nuclear SUV from Land’s End to John O’Groats non-stop without refuelling.



Pah! Norfolk to Dundee, only powered by Toblerone, was done years ago.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> When are nuclear-powered SUVs going to make an appearance? Boris Johnson was on about small modular reactors recently, so surely the next step is to make even smaller ones for road vehicles.


Didn't the Russians have some launch problems with nuclear propelled ICBMs just lately?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Didn't the Russians have some launch problems with nuclear propelled ICBMs just lately?



They have nuclear powered ice breakers.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 18, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> They have nuclear powered ice breakers.



They may even be safe to use in 10,000 years...


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2021)

To no one's surprise:



> To put it simply, pickup trucks and SUVs are two to three times more likely than smaller personal vehicles to kill people walking in the event of a crash. Recent research from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found the share of pedestrian deaths involving trucks, vans, and SUVs has increased from 22 to 44 percent since the mid-1980s. More SUVs and trucks in the fleet = more pedestrian injuries becoming deaths instead.
> 
> You don’t need a PhD to see why trucks and SUVs are more likely to kill people walking: They’re taller, have worse visibility, and are more likely to produce head/neck injuries than leg injuries.











						Bigger vehicles are directly resulting in more deaths of people walking - Smart Growth America
					

Dangerous by Design 2021 chronicles the impact of street design on pedestrian deaths, but the increasing size of the vehicle fleet is also contributing to the growing numbers of people struck and killed while walking. Federal policymakers so far appear to be asleep at the switch.




					smartgrowthamerica.org


----------



## hash tag (Sep 24, 2021)

But the cars in the States are generally much bigger than cars in the UK. Their driving tests are much easier and roadworthiness of vehicles are not nearly so good.


----------



## maomao (Sep 24, 2021)

hash tag said:


> But the cars in the States are generally much bigger than cars in the UK. Their driving tests are much easier and roadworthiness of vehicles are not nearly so good.


Cars in the UK have got considerably bigger as well, ridulously so in some cases. Some of it's down to crumple structures for crashes and some of them claim that crumple zones work for pedestrians too but mostly bigger cars protect the drivers at the expense of pedestrians' lives.


----------



## stavros (Sep 24, 2021)

One could argue that any vehicle marketed as "off-road" shouldn't be on the public highway.


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 24, 2021)

The new Audi and BMW suvs are obscenely wide. Seeing them in Central London is ridiculous


----------



## kabbes (Sep 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cars in the UK have got considerably bigger as well, ridulously so in some cases. Some of it's down to crumple structures for crashes and some of them claim that crumple zones work for pedestrians too but mostly bigger cars protect the drivers at the expense of pedestrians' lives.


That’s true but it’s still also true that US SUVs are at a whole different level of stupid even than UK ones.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 24, 2021)

They have a particular problem with the bonnets of pickups being so high that they're taller than many children. And the top-selling car in the US is usually a pickup.


----------



## maomao (Sep 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> That’s true but it’s still also true that US SUVs are at a whole different level of stupid even than UK ones.


Their roads are wider. Stupidity will always expand to fill the available space.


----------



## souljacker (Sep 24, 2021)

This was well known already surely? I had an argument years ago with a mate who had a big Volvo thing. She was very proud of the fact that her kids were safe in their massive truck, but hadn't considered that it would have flattened my little 306 (with both my kids inside) if we'd had a crash.


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 24, 2021)

I don't think the kind of people who buy a massive SUV are going to be bothered about the other people in a crash.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 24, 2021)

crojoe said:


> I don't think the kind of people who buy a massive SUV are going to be bothered about the other people in a crash.


They probably will be after they’ve actually killed someone. Few people are unaffected by that kind of thing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> They have a particular problem with the bonnets of pickups being so high that they're taller than many children. And the top-selling car in the US is usually a pickup.



These fucking things are much more common in the UK now too, probably since so many people now drive SUVs that pathetic twats can no longer get their 'driving something bigger than what everything else is driving' fix without resorting to a commercial vehicle.


----------



## LDC (Sep 25, 2021)

Interview with Andreas Malm which mentions a small scale sabotage campaign against SUVs in Sweden
Sabotage, Survival, and SUVs: An Interview with Andreas Malm

"Sabotage can take so many different forms, and I’m not even sure that what we did could be classified as sabotage. It’s almost like a prank. What we did – although we did it systematically and on a large scale – was that we inserted pieces of gravel into the valves of SUVs in rich neighborhoods and thereby deflated the tires, and that meant that the owners of the SUVs would have to fill up their tires to be able to drive wherever they wanted to drive, but the cars were not damaged, they weren’t destroyed or anything like that. They were just temporarily disabled. I don’t even know if that counts as sabotage. But it’s sabotage at the very softest end of the spectrum."


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 25, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Interview with Andreas Malm which mentions a small scale sabotage campaign against SUVs in Sweden
> Sabotage, Survival, and SUVs: An Interview with Andreas Malm
> 
> "Sabotage can take so many different forms, and I’m not even sure that what we did could be classified as sabotage. It’s almost like a prank. What we did – although we did it systematically and on a large scale – was that we inserted pieces of gravel into the valves of SUVs in rich neighborhoods and thereby deflated the tires, and that meant that the owners of the SUVs would have to fill up their tires to be able to drive wherever they wanted to drive, but the cars were not damaged, they weren’t destroyed or anything like that. They were just temporarily disabled. I don’t even know if that counts as sabotage. But it’s sabotage at the very softest end of the spectrum."



Let down the tyres on a car which is then not driven for a few days, the tyre will be destroyed. This is criminal damage.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 25, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> This is criminal damage.


Driving a massive SUV damages far more, fuck ‘em


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Let down the tyres on a car which is then not driven for a few days, the tyre will be destroyed. This is criminal damage.



So remember kids, always wear gloves when you do it.


----------



## klang (Sep 25, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Driving a massive SUV damages far more, fuck ‘em



Yeah letting down the tyres of SUVs doesn't permanently destroy the SUV and prevent the driver buying another one.

The "protest" is the most pathetic thing I've heard of descried as such.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah letting down the tyres of SUVs doesn't permanently destroy the SUV and prevent the driver buying another one.
> 
> The "protest" is the most pathetic thing I've heard of descried as such.


I agree. Set fire to the selfish fuckers.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> I agree. Set fire to the selfish fuckers.



I know it's a bit twatish to go around deflating tyres, but I think sentencing the perpetrators to community service in a municipal tyre disposal facility would be a more appropriate punishment than death by fire.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I know it's a bit twatish to go around deflating tyres, but I think sentencing the perpetrators to community service in a municipal tyre disposal facility would be a more appropriate punishment than death by fire.


Don't be silly. I obviously meant the drivers.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 25, 2021)

shutting down range  rover production and criminalising existing ones would remove the most vulgar and dirtiest SUVs from London streets. Any SUV is the world has to be better than these 


/snob


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 25, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> shutting down range  rover production and criminalising existing ones would remove the most vulgar and dirtiest SUVs from London streets. Any SUV is the world has to be better than these
> 
> 
> /snob



Is it beyond the wit of man to institute size rules in cities? I completely agree that large SUV's that never leave London are beyond pointless. 

Exemptions for disability are always possible.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 25, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Is it beyond the wit of man to institute size rules in cities? I completely agree that large SUV's that never leave London are beyond pointless.
> 
> Exemptions for disability are always possible.


Builders, carpenters etc.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

Exactly, SUVs are just small vans, but I don’t see much van hate.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> So remember kids, always wear gloves when you do it.


And always make sure you let a responsible adult know where you're going and what time you'll be home.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Is it beyond the wit of man to institute size rules in cities? I completely agree that large SUV's that never leave London are beyond pointless.
> 
> Exemptions for disability are always possible.



They're no good in the countryside either. Plenty of lanes round here don't let two range rovers pass each other.

The car park where I currently work, the big 4x4s are bigger than the spaces. Doesn't stop people driving them to work there though. Everyone else just has to climb into their cars through the sunroof. And my car doesn't have a sunroof


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 25, 2021)

eh? vans are needed by people who need a boot full of stuff, normally for work. suvs are just so people can feel like they own the road and get an ego boost.


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

crojoe said:


> eh? vans are needed by people who need a boot full of stuff, normally for work. suvs are just so people can feel like they own the road and get an ego boost.


There's lots of small tradesmen drive cunty SUVs now. 

But yes, some sort of licensing for vehicles above a certain size demonstrating a need would be good.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 25, 2021)

im hopeful the electric car era will lead to having smaller lighter cars so as to get maximum range out of the battery
+ a cultural change once climate change takes even more effect


----------



## klang (Sep 25, 2021)

ska invita said:


> im hopeful the electric car era will lead to having smaller lighter cars so as to get maximum range out of the battery
> + a cultural change once climate change takes even more effect


i'm kind of hoping that electric cars won't be what they are promised and we can shift away from this truly outdated culture.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

ska invita said:


> im hopeful the electric car era will lead to having smaller lighter cars so as to get maximum range out of the battery
> + a cultural change once climate change takes even more effect



Electric cars are typically 25% to 50% heavier due to the weight of the batteries.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Electric cars are typically 25% to 50% heavier due to the weight of the batteries.


that doesnt contradict my point - SUVs are over the top bulk - that will have to go to extend range


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 25, 2021)

Lots of EVs are doing 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. It's going to be great when the cunts with the Range Rover Sports get the finance to buy a truck as fast as a motorbike. They'll be trying to hit 80 between the lights on Brixton Road, and there won't be any exhaust noise, so obviously they'll be doing wheelspins constantly. Look at me! Look at me! Look at meeeee! 

I will be taking action. I've had enough.


----------



## klang (Sep 25, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

ska invita said:


> that does contradict my point - SUVs are over the top bulk - that will have to go to extend range



They're always looking at economical weight savings. For example the new Qashqai will have a plastic boot and aluminum doors, an additional cost that might not be economical on a hatchback.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 25, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> They have a particular problem with the bonnets of pickups being so high that they're taller than many children. And the top-selling car in the US is usually a pickup.




Jaywalking is illegal in the US, so there's no reason law-abiding people will ever find themselves in front of one of these things.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 25, 2021)

If my numbers come up tonight I am so getting a Mansory Urus £440K well spent...


----------



## LDC (Sep 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If my numbers come up tonight I am so getting a Mansory Urus £440K well spent...
> 
> View attachment 290099View attachment 290100



Bat-hof Man-rasse?


----------



## Serge Forward (Sep 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If my numbers come up tonight I am so getting a Mansory Urus £440K well spent...
> 
> View attachment 290099View attachment 290100


It looks like the batmobile. Anyway, the sills rot on them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 25, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> It looks like the batmobile. Anyway, the sills rot on them.




I wouldn’t take it out during inclement weather. Tbh at nearly half a million quid I’d be scared to take it out at all…


----------



## klang (Sep 25, 2021)

400 grand and not even water proof?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 25, 2021)

klang said:


> 400 grand and not even water proof?




The Mona Lisa costs a lot more than that and is also not waterproof.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 25, 2021)

My house cost more than that, and its not waterproof.

It doesn't go anywhere either, and it's full of bloody kids....


----------



## maomao (Sep 25, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Redacted by request.


Taxing is just silly. Part of it should be cultural but is tough to do, there'll always be some wanker who doesn't give a fuck. They need straight up banning. 

When the cost of climate change starts to interfere with profits properly, then capital will be making the rules and banning things left, right and centre while insisting we continue to pay for them.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 25, 2021)

kebabking said:


> My house cost more than that, and its not waterproof.
> 
> It doesn't go anywhere either, and it's full of bloody kids....


They do go eventually, 2 of mine have gone permanently (cough), another goes next month and the last is temporarily gone to Uni for the next few years.  Things is when they do come back they bring strays with them.


----------



## klang (Sep 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> They do go eventually, 2 of mine have gone permanently (cough), another goes next month and the last is temporarily gone


just how many houses does one person need?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 25, 2021)

His royal nonceness' far-from-waterproof alibi is going to cost him a lot more than that.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 25, 2021)

klang said:


> just how many houses does one person need?


One but getting it all to myself is hard work


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I wouldn’t take it out during inclement weather. Tbh at nearly half a million quid I’d be scared to take it out at all…



You could give it to me? I'd sell it and buy three different Volvo SUVs so I could be sure of using an appropriately-sized one for whichever place I intended to drive to. 

There's nothing worse than people using cars that seem to be slightly inappropriately-sized for their apparent needs is there? It's like driving an Audi when you could easily make do with a Skoda and nothing whatever to do with climate change.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 25, 2021)

klang said:


> just how many houses does one person need?



Surely that depends on how many mistresses one has?

Ridiculous question...


----------



## stavros (Sep 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They're always looking at economical weight savings.


Getting rid of the driver would save a fair few kilos.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 26, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You could give it to me? I'd sell it and buy three different Volvo SUVs so I could be sure of using an appropriately-sized one for whichever place I intended to drive to.
> 
> There's nothing worse than people using cars that seem to be slightly inappropriately-sized for their apparent needs is there? It's like driving an Audi when you could easily make do with a Skoda and nothing whatever to do with climate change.
> 
> View attachment 290112



Volvo are pushing subscription cars at the moment, they're so expensive.


----------



## Cloo (Sep 26, 2021)

I was just thinking there'll be a spike in electric car buying after this - albeit only for people who have a driveway and can afford it. We're pretty comfortably off and couldn't afford one, plus like most people in London we don't have off street parking, which would make it a bit of a challenge.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 26, 2021)

Cloo said:


> I was just thinking there'll be a spike in electric car buying after this - albeit only for people who have a driveway and can afford it. We're pretty comfortably off and couldn't afford one, plus like most people in London we don't have off street parking, which would make it a bit of a challenge.


My work have announced they want us all to switch to electric cars to commute to bring down their carbon footprint, how they think I'm going to afford that on my shitty 20K a year salary I've no idea.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 26, 2021)

Cloo said:


> I was just thinking there'll be a spike in electric car buying after this - albeit only for people who have a driveway and can afford it. We're pretty comfortably off and couldn't afford one, plus like most people in London we don't have off street parking, which would make it a bit of a challenge.


The myth that you need to be able to charge an electric car at home really needs getting rid of.

You don’t fill up your petrol car at home. Why is an electric car different?


----------



## Cloo (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The myth that you need to be able to charge an electric car at home really needs getting rid of.
> 
> You don’t fill up your petrol car at home. Why is an electric car different?


I'm sure it will be possible, but it seems some way off until there is a viable solution to meet the need on street, especially on intensely parked-up roads like ours where many of the house are subdivided into flats.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 26, 2021)

sim667 said:


> My work have announced they want us all to switch to electric cars to commute to bring down their carbon footprint, how they think I'm going to afford that on my shitty 20K a year salary I've no idea.


The only valid response to that is fuck you, if you want me to drive an electric car buy me one


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 26, 2021)

Cloo said:


> I'm sure it will be possible, but it seems some way off until there is a viable solution to meet the need on street, especially on intensely parked-up roads like ours where many of the house are subdivided into flats.


Again, you don’t fill your car up with fuel when it’s parked in the street. Why should an electric car be different? Charge it when you’re doing your shopping, at a services on a long journey, at work if points are available etc etc


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Again, you don’t fill your car up with fuel when it’s parked in the street. Why should an electric car be different? Charge it when you’re doing your shopping, at a services on a long journey, at work if points are available etc etc



At two or three or more times the cost of people with the luxury of having a driveway? And not everyone has chargers at work or the ability to spend some spare hours going for a charge between commutes.


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

klang said:


> i'm kind of hoping that electric cars won't be what they are promised and we can shift away from this truly outdated culture.


They're already not what they're promised. They still have tyres so we don't get clean air and the world can't afford the environmental cost of replacing the more than a billion combustion engines in the world with lithium batteries. They're a sop for big western cities.


----------



## LDC (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Taxing is just silly. Part of it should be cultural but is tough to do, there'll always be some wanker who doesn't give a fuck. They need straight up banning.
> 
> When the cost of climate change starts to interfere with profits properly, then capital will be making the rules and banning things left, right and centre while insisting we continue to pay for them.



Sorry, that was a half written post that got posted by mistake, bloody board glitches. can you edit yours to delete it please maomao ?


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Again, you don’t fill your car up with fuel when it’s parked in the street. Why should an electric car be different? Charge it when you’re doing your shopping, at a services on a long journey, at work if points are available etc etc


Of those, the only one that might work with current (no pun intended) technology is at work - the capacity of the batteries and the time they take to charge make the others unrealistic.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> At two or three or more times the cost of people with the luxury of having a driveway?


I was unaware of this part. Is it really more expensive to charge a car at a station than at home?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I was unaware of this part. Is it really more expensive to charge a car at a station than at home?



Yes, you can charge at home off-peak for less than 10p per kWh: Compare the Best EV Energy Tariffs | Smart Home Charge

Public chargers vary a lot: The true cost of using public charging points


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Of those, the only one that might work with current (no pun intended) technology is at work - the capacity of the batteries and the time they take to charge make the others unrealistic.


If you run it down to zero, maybe. You just need to approach it differently to a petrol vehicle. Popping to Tesco? Charge it for the 20 mins you’re in there. Use the apps available to know where public chargers are when you go out etc. You change little and often, not one big lump every week.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If you run it down to zero, maybe. You just need to approach it differently to a petrol vehicle. Popping to Tesco? Charge it for the 20 mins you’re in there. Use the apps available to know where public chargers are when you go out etc. You change little and often, not one big lump every week.


Some people don’t really go out.  Supermarkets deliver. Workplaces don’t all have car parks.  People going out socially in the evening tend to leave their cars at home.  

Notwithstanding the limitations on producing the numbers of lithium batteries required, what would make a difference would be a clean, ejectable cartridge-style battery with a handle (and possibly little wheels if it’s too big and heavy to carry by less physically fit people) so that people without driveways can easily, safely and cleanly bring their battery indoors overnight.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If you run it down to zero, maybe. You just need to approach it differently to a petrol vehicle. Popping to Tesco? Charge it for the 20 mins you’re in there. Use the apps available to know where public chargers are when you go out etc. You change little and often, not one big lump every week.



Most people only go to Tesco once a week.   The hour you're there wouldn't get much charge in. That's not even considering the lack of charging points, or the fact that half the time they're not working!


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Some people don’t really go out.  Supermarkets deliver. Workplaces don’t all have car parks.  People going out socially in the evening tend to leave their cars at home.
> 
> Notwithstanding the limitations on producing the numbers of lithium batteries required, what would make a difference would be a clean, ejectable cartridge-style battery with a handle (and possibly little wheels if it’s too big and heavy to carry by less physically fit people) so that people without driveways can easily, safely and cleanly bring their battery indoors overnight.



Or, better still, swap them at charging stations, where, as you put an empty one in, it unlocks a charged one for you to take. There's a project underway amongst some motorcycle manufacturers for this very thing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Some people don’t really go out.  Supermarkets deliver. Workplaces don’t all have car parks.  People going out socially in the evening tend to leave their cars at home.
> 
> Notwithstanding the limitations on producing the numbers of lithium batteries required, what would make a difference would be a clean, ejectable cartridge-style battery with a handle (and possibly little wheels if it’s too big and heavy to carry by less physically fit people) so that people without driveways can easily, safely and cleanly bring their battery indoors overnight.


The batteries are far too large and heavy for that.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Or, better still, swap them at charging stations, where, as you put an empty one in, it unlocks a charged one for you to take. There's a project underway amongst some motorcycle manufacturers for this very thing.



Batteries in electric cars are tightly packaged and managed. Turning cars into milk floats so the batteries can be pulled out easily will result in a considerable increase in vehicle size and reduction in efficiency and battery lifetime.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Batteries in electric cars are tightly packaged and managed. Turning cars into milk floats so the batteries can be pulled out easily will result in a considerable increase in vehicle size and reduction in efficiency and battery lifetime.


Yeah, I think the tech is still a little way from this being a workable model for cars.


----------



## souljacker (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Or, better still, swap them at charging stations, where, as you put an empty one in, it unlocks a charged one for you to take. There's a project underway amongst some motorcycle manufacturers for this very thing.


Taiwan already doing it for mopeds I believe:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Some people don’t really go out.  Supermarkets deliver. Workplaces don’t all have car parks.  People going out socially in the evening tend to leave their cars at home.


Are they (currently) for everyone? No. But for an awful lot of people the supposed barriers simply require a change of approach/mindset. People just want to change one car for another. Well, tough. We need to make changes, and in doing so will make things easier for those who have less choice in doing so.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are they (currently) for everyone? No. But for an awful lot of people the supposed barriers simply require a change of approach/mindset. People just want to change one car for another. Well, tough. We need to make changes, and in doing so will make things easier for those who have less choice in doing so.


The limitations of the tech mean that's unworkable. You need to be able to regularly charge for long periods, so that means space and a charge box at home, and a massive increase in what's provided by employers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> The limitations of the tech mean that's unworkable. You need to be able to regularly charge for long periods, so that means space and a charge box at home, and a massive increase in what's provided by employers.


No, you don’t. Modern rapid charge points will get you a significant range added in 20 mins.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, you don’t. Modern rapid charge points will get you a significant range added in 20 mins.


Hmmm, not in my experience. And that's not effective taking into account the paucity of them, and the fact that many of them don't work at all!


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, you don’t. Modern rapid charge points will get you a significant range added in 20 mins.


They also take a shitload more power, a dedicated charger at home pulls 7kw on a 230V domestic circuit, plug into an ordinary socket and it pulls 2kw. Fast charge points are 3 phase 450V, that's how they are able to whack it in so fast. This means very heavy demand at peak time rather than modest demand overnight so loads of infrastructure to take that load. It works out loads cheaper and environmentally friendly to charge at home.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Some people don’t really go out.  Supermarkets deliver. Workplaces don’t all have car parks.  People going out socially in the evening tend to leave their cars at home.
> 
> Notwithstanding the limitations on producing the numbers of lithium batteries required, what would make a difference would be a clean, ejectable cartridge-style battery with a handle (and possibly little wheels if it’s too big and heavy to carry by less physically fit people) so that people without driveways can easily, safely and cleanly bring their battery indoors overnight.



Removable batteries aren't feasible for cars. The battery pack in a Tesla Model 3 weighs over 500kg.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 26, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> They also take a shitload more power, a dedicated charger at home pulls 7kw on a 230V domestic circuit, plug into an ordinary socket and it pulls 2kw. Fast charge points are 3 phase 450V, that's how they are able to whack it in so fast. This means very heavy demand at peak time rather than modest demand overnight so loads of infrastructure to take that load. It works out loads cheaper and environmentally friendly to charge at home.



It's also kinder on the batteries, and public fast chargers are always going to be more expensive than domestic night rate, normally several times so.


----------



## souljacker (Sep 26, 2021)

DownwardDog said:


> Removable batteries aren't feasible for cars. The battery pack in a Tesla Model 3 weighs over 500kg.


And they take up pretty much the whole floor of the car. Good luck getting that out easily.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are they (currently) for everyone? No.


Unless there's some new technological breakthrough in the meantime I think this is what will ultimately happen over the next twenty years - there will be less privately owned cars because for many, particularly less well off people, it wont be practical.
Like much I think trends are for greater inequality, and that will extend to transport


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

ska invita said:


> Unless there's some new technological breakthrough in the meantime I think this is what will ultimately happen over the next twenty years - there will be less privately owned cars because for many, particularly less well off people, it wont be practical.
> Like much I think trends are for greater inequality, and that will extend to transport


Yes. It will be fancy cars on subscription for the rich and e-scooters and occasional use of club cars for everyone else. And bike lanes will still be shit.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 26, 2021)

ska invita said:


> ess there's some new technological breakthrough in the meantime I think this is what will ultimately happen over the next twenty years - there will be less privately owned cars because for many, particularly less well off people, it wont be practical.
> Like much I think trends are for greater inequality, and that will extend to transport



To paraphrase, I think - particularly given the 40% rise in the cost of used cars over the last 18 months - we're coming to the end of the 'car owning democracy': being able to choose where you live, where your kids go to school, where you shop, where you work are really big freedoms (I accept they are variable) that many simply are going to lose as cheap(ish) personal transport dies a death.

Life might be cleaner, but its only going to be the well off who can afford to live anywhere that doesn't have mass public transport - poor in the hot, dirty, flood-risk cities, rich in the countryside.

I'm not sure that's quite the achievement some think it will be...


----------



## ska invita (Sep 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> To paraphrase, I think - particularly given the 40% rise in the cost of used cars over the last 18 months - we're coming to the end of the 'car owning democracy': being able to choose where you live, where your kids go to school, where you shop, where you work are really big freedoms (I accept they are variable) that many simply are going to lose as cheap(ish) personal transport dies a death.
> 
> Life might be cleaner, but its only going to be the well off who can afford to live anywhere that doesn't have mass public transport - poor in the hot, dirty, flood-risk cities, rich in the countryside.
> 
> I'm not sure that's quite the achievement some think it will be...


+ flying (perhaps)


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 26, 2021)

I think bioLPG ought to be a big part of the solution. It's almost carbon neutral and you can extend the life of existing petrol cars instead of making new EVs. But nobody ever talks about bioLPG so I must be wrong. What am I missing?


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 26, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> I think bioLPG ought to be a big part of the solution. It's almost carbon neutral and you can extend the life of existing petrol cars instead of making new EVs. But nobody ever talks about bioLPG so I must be wrong. What am I missing?


They produce particulates and CO2 in the combustion process so it will be impossible to get type approval on them soon.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes. It will be fancy cars on subscription for the rich and e-scooters and occasional use of club cars for everyone else. And bike lanes will still be shit.


It's not clear to me why subscription cars are only for the rich. ARK investment calculates that robot taxis might cost as little at 20p per mile. You'll subscribe to a service and be able to choose fro ma stable of vehicles of various sizes/functions, depending on your requirements.









						Ark Estimates $11–12 Trillion Robotaxi Market in 2030 | NextBigFuture.com
					

ARK estimates that autonomous driving could reduce the cost of ride-hail significantly, expanding the addressable market. Today, the average price of an Uber




					www.nextbigfuture.com


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

DownwardDog said:


> They produce particulates and CO2 in the combustion process so it will be impossible to get type approval on them soon.


The average life of car is about 12 years. It costs about £1,500 to convert a car to LPG. So a midlife conversion is pretty dicey fro man economic point of view, spending such a large sum on a wasting asset with a terminal value of £0. Such a car has no prospect of becoming self-driving, but still produces local pollution, neither particularly attractive features.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> To paraphrase, I think - particularly given the 40% rise in the cost of used cars over the last 18 months - we're coming to the end of the 'car owning democracy': being able to choose where you live, where your kids go to school, where you shop, where you work are really big freedoms (I accept they are variable) that many simply are going to lose as cheap(ish) personal transport dies a death.
> 
> Life might be cleaner, but its only going to be the well off who can afford to live anywhere that doesn't have mass public transport - poor in the hot, dirty, flood-risk cities, rich in the countryside.
> 
> I'm not sure that's quite the achievement some think it will be...


I think there are three, overlapping developments taking place: 1) switch to battery electric vehicles, 2) switch to self-driving, 3) end of private ownership and switch to "Mobility as a Service". There a lot on imponderables, but it's quite possible that with the 20p per mile possible through MaaS, households will first give up their second cars, and then in most cases their primary car. So by say 2035, we could see a much smaller world fleet of subscription Robotaxis, offering rather cheap transport, with a handful of rich and/or heavy users sticking to private ownership.


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> It's not clear to me why subscription cars are only for the rich. ARK investment calculates that robot taxis might cost as little at 20p per mile. You'll subscribe to a service and be able to choose fro ma stable of vehicles of various sizes/functions, depending on your requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An investment company is predicting that one of their businesses will do really well. Wow, I'm sold.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)




----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

Here's a picture of an autonomous ride sharing vehicle from Westworld.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> An investment company is predicting that one of their businesses will do really well. Wow, I'm


What flaws did you spot in the analysis ?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> Here's a picture of an autonomous ride sharing vehicle from Westworld.


That's excellent. Any idea on the release date? 

Here's the Jetsons' take on it.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> What flaws did you spot in the analysis ?




This is the underlying spreadsheet model. Let me know where you thinks the errors lie.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's excellent. Any idea on the release date?
> 
> Here's the Jetsons' take on it.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

I'd say about 2035. Here are some less glamorous examples that exist right now. While Urbanites sneer, Chinese companies just get on with it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> What flaws did you spot in the analysis ?


I didn't read the analysis, I discounted the source as ridiculous after a thirty second scan.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> I didn't read the analysis, I discounted the source as ridiculous after a thirty second scan.


I stand corrected - I thought this was a debate being conducted in good faith


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> I stand corrected - I thought this was a debate being conducted in good faith


Who will be responsible in the event of an accident in a self-driving car?


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Who will be responsible in the event of an accident in a self-driving car?


Cyclists, probably.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Cyclists, probably.


Only if there's one nearby, but assuming the car fails to see another car, and people die as a result, who would be liable? I'm sure it's not an insurmountable issue but it is one that will have to be addressed.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Who will be responsible in the event of an accident in a self-driving car?


Let me Google that for you:









						Can You Sue a Robocar?
					

A pedestrian killed by a self-driving Uber in Tempe shows that the legal implications of autonomous cars are as important, if not more so, than the technology.




					www.theatlantic.com
				












						Insurers ask: Who pays when self-driving vehicles crash? - Roll Call
					

Federal regulator says it’s investigating 34 crashes involving advanced driver assistance systems, most of them related to Teslas.




					www.rollcall.com


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> I'd say about 2035. Here are some less glamorous examples that exist right now. While Urbanites sneer, Chinese companies just get on with it.


They're taxis. With 'Robotaxi' written on them. We have the former over here already and could easily arrange the latter.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> Let me Google that for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what's the answer? Because that just seems to be people asking the same question I asked.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Sep 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> They're taxis. With 'Robotaxi' written on them. We have the former over here already and could easily arrange the latter.











						China’s robotaxi services get backing of Chinese transport ministry
					

Autonomous driving seen as an essential part of building China’s smart transport system, with transport ministry encouraging cities to roll out pilot robotaxi services




					www.scmp.com
				




Chinese self-driving companies such as Baidu, Didi Chuxing, WeRide and AutoX have all launched robotaxi services in different cities
Autonomous driving and V2X expected to be part of China’s 14th five-year plan which will outline the country’s long-term objectives through to 2035

Anyway, that's enough for me for today. I've only myself to blame I suppose, hoping for a sensible discussion on U75, rather than snide, uninformed, angry little sophomoric comments from the permanently disgruntled.


----------



## maomao (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> China’s robotaxi services get backing of Chinese transport ministry
> 
> 
> Autonomous driving seen as an essential part of building China’s smart transport system, with transport ministry encouraging cities to roll out pilot robotaxi services
> ...


They're not autonomous cars. They have drivers. It's no different from Uber.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> Here's a picture of an autonomous ride sharing vehicle from Westworld.





urbanspaceman said:


> Anyway, that's enough for me for today. I've only myself to blame I suppose, hoping for a sensible discussion on U75, rather than snide, uninformed, angry little sophomoric comments from the permanently disgruntled.


----------



## klang (Sep 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Only if there's one nearby, but assuming the car fails to see another car, and people die as a result, who would be liable? I'm sure it's not an insurmountable issue but it is one that will have to be addressed.


the car will be shot.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 26, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> The average life of car is about 12 years. It costs about £1,500 to convert a car to LPG. So a midlife conversion is pretty dicey fro man economic point of view, spending such a large sum on a wasting asset with a terminal value of £0. Such a car has no prospect of becoming self-driving, but still produces local pollution, neither particularly attractive features.bio


I've just bought a 2010 3.5 litre petrol MPV. Planning to make it into an LPG camper, burning mostly bioLPG, as most of the mileage will be on the continent. It seems the only affordable cleanish option. Planning to keep it for at least 10 years. I wonder how much the road tax will rise during that period, or whether it will remain ULEZ compliant? I'm sure it will be forced off the road by legislation at some point, but I don't know when. Maybe EV conversion will become affordable one day.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> To paraphrase, I think - particularly given the 40% rise in the cost of used cars over the last 18 months - we're coming to the end of the 'car owning democracy': being able to choose where you live, where your kids go to school, where you shop, where you work are really big freedoms (I accept they are variable) that many simply are going to lose as cheap(ish) personal transport dies a death.
> 
> Life might be cleaner, but its only going to be the well off who can afford to live anywhere that doesn't have mass public transport - poor in the hot, dirty, flood-risk cities, rich in the countryside.
> 
> I'm not sure that's quite the achievement some think it will be...


In this skip fire of a country, maybe. But look to the continent to see ways cities can be pleasant environments.


----------



## stavros (Sep 26, 2021)

sim667 said:


> My work have announced they want us all to switch to electric cars to commute to bring down their carbon footprint, how they think I'm going to afford that on my shitty 20K a year salary I've no idea.


Has it been pointed out to them that EVs fall some way below walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing in the green travel hierarchy? Do they advocate and support those modes in any way?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Only if there's one nearby, but assuming the car fails to see another car, and people die as a result, who would be liable? I'm sure it's not an insurmountable issue but it is one that will have to be addressed.


It won’t surprise you to know that this is a very actively pondered question by insurance companies. We don’t know for sure right now. However, some manufacturers seem to be short-cutting the problem by indicating that they will simply accept the liability themselves. That’s probably simplest because my semi-informed opinion is that in most jurisdictions I know something about, that will probably end up being at least largely the case anyway.


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 27, 2021)

SUVs should simply be banned, and idiots in built up areas who insist on driving them (despite a weekend in Gloucestershire once a year being the closest they ever come to challenging driving conditions) should be taxed to make the bastard things unaffordable.

It's one of the clearest examples yet of private company profit mattering more than the rest of our lives. They are hideously profitable and big car companies intend squeezing every last penny of profit out of them before they are banned. Which they probably will be, eventually.

Unless you are a farmer, working tradesman who carries a lot, or live in a very remote area with many unclassified roads, you simply should not be allowed to own one of these vehicles.

There is no excuse for vehicles like the Ford Ranger in built up areas. A hideous macho lump of metal- a gas guzzling one-bedroom flat on four fat tires. See also VW Amarok, Nissan Navra, Skoda's endless SUVs. The car companies know they are terrible for the environment and urban health / pollution/ travel, and simply do not care.

Disincentivising people from owning one of these should come with a mixture of restricted licences and eye watering tax, on a sliding scale, based on income.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 27, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> There is no excuse for vehicles like the Ford Ranger in built up areas. A hideous macho lump of metal- a gas guzzling one-bedroom flat on four fat tires. See also VW Amarok, Nissan Navra,



None of those are SUVs, all trucks.



steeplejack said:


> Skoda's endless SUVs.



What like the Karoq, which has the same emissions profile as their estate car, the Superb?



steeplejack said:


> Disincentivising people from owning one of these should come with a mixture of restricted licences and eye watering tax, on a sliding scale, based on income.



Nonsense. Disincentives should be based on actual damage caused, not the height of the roof above the ground.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> None of those are SUVs, all trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Height = damage done when they hit people. 

Car companies should be punished for squandering technological advances on bigger cars rather than cleaner ones. I'm not in favour of taxes because that just let's the rich have what they want and we know that the rich produce far more pollution than the rest of us already. I'm in favour of shooting SUV designers though.

And does 'emissions profile' just mean emissions?


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> 1. None of those are SUVs, all trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. I don't really care how you might choose to categorise them- the point is they should not be on the road in built up areas driven by utter idiots who don;t need a vehicle of that capacity.

2. why build the Karoq at all? What purpose does it serve? Why populate most of your range with three different types of exactly the same vehicle? A touching faith too in the emissions figure of a company whose parent was fined enormously for fiddling them not so long ago.

3. Yup. Not sure where I said otherwise.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> None of those are SUVs, all trucks.
> 
> Nonsense. Disincentives should be based on actual damage caused, not the height of the roof above the ground.


Indeed, and there IS an incentive to buy these as they are tax deductible for the self employed, so they proliferate.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 27, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> 1. I don't really care how you might choose to categorise them- the point is they should not be on the road in built up areas driven by utter idiots who don;t need a vehicle of that capacity.
> 
> 2. why build the Karoq at all? What purpose does it serve? Why populate most of your range with three different types of exactly the same vehicle? A touching faith too in the emissions figure of a company whose parent was fined enormously for fiddling them not so long ago.
> 
> 3. Yup. Not sure where I said otherwise.



So you want to ban idiots driving vehicles that are bigger than they need - good luck with implementing that equitably.

I presume the Karoq appeals to buyers who want something of a suitable size for their dogs/kids/luggage but are put off by the length of an estate car. For example it would appeal to me due to the fact my driveway can only fit a car 445cm long without sticking out onto the pavement. It’s also much easier for those with limited mobility to access than a low-down estate car.

You’re on about banning SUVs, which is very different from banning idiots from driving cars that are too big for their needs.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So you want to ban idiots driving vehicles that are bigger than they need - good luck with implementing that equitably.
> 
> I presume the Karoq appeals to buyers who want something of a suitable size for their dogs/kids/luggage but are put off by the length of an estate car. For example it would appeal to me due to the fact my driveway can only fit a car 445cm long without sticking out onto the pavement. It’s also much easier for those with limited mobility to access than a low-down estate car.
> 
> You’re on about banning SUVs, which is very different from banning idiots from driving cars that are too big for their needs.



Yes, well done, SUV is an imprecise marketing term not a useful definition to apply for a ban. However, cars are getting bigger, making roads more dangerous and contributing to climate change. It should be stopped and nosy people understand that ban SUVs means ban unnecessarily large vehicles, not ban only those marketed as SUVs. But just keep disrupting the argument with pointless pedantry as a way of justifying your ownership of a fucking tank.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> However, cars are getting bigger, making roads more dangerous and contributing to climate change. It should be stopped and nosy people understand that ban SUVs means ban unnecessarily large vehicles, not ban only those marketed as SUVs.


My wife's SUV has lower emissions and a higher ncap safety rating for pedestrians (as well as occupants) than my neighbour's Ford Fiesta.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> My wife's SUV has lower emissions and a higher ncap safety rating for pedestrians (as well as occupants) than my neighbour's Ford Fiesta.


And if it was smaller it would have even lower emissions or are you braking the laws of physics?


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> And if it was smaller it would have even lower emissions or are you braking the laws of physics?



I'm not sure that's necessarily true. She's got a plug in Toyota Rav 4; it has lower emissions than the smaller plug in Toyota Prius.  Maybe something about the optimum ratio of size to battery capacity?

But, in any event, there are greater gains to be made using taxation to insentivise my neighbour to move from his car to something greener and safer (there's no reason he needs his car to be high polluting and more dangerous), than my wife to get something smaller, given her demand is fairly price inelastic because something smaller wouldn't suit her needs e.g. transporting elderly relatives with mobility issues and medical equipment, and given that smaller doesn't mean safer or cleaner.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure that's necessarily true. She's got a plug in Toyota Rav 4; it has lower emissions than the smaller plug in Toyota Prius.  Maybe something about the optimum ratio of size to battery capacity?
> 
> But, in any event, there are greater gains to be made using taxation to insentivise my neighbour to move from his car to something greener and safer (there's no reason he needs his car to be high polluting and more dangerous), than my wife to get something smaller, given her demand is fairly price inelastic because something smaller wouldn't suit her needs e.g. transporting elderly relatives with mobility issues and medical equipment, and given that smaller doesn't mean safer or cleaner.


You live in the countryside don't you?


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> You live in the countryside don't you?


Yes.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, well done, SUV is an imprecise marketing term not a useful definition to apply for a ban. However, cars are getting bigger, making roads more dangerous and contributing to climate change. It should be stopped and nosy people understand that ban SUVs means ban unnecessarily large vehicles, not ban only those marketed as SUVs. But just keep disrupting the argument with pointless pedantry as a way of justifying your ownership of a fucking tank.



I, for one, look forward to the creation of the post of People's Commissar for the Determination of What Size Car People Need...


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes.


EVs are good for making cities cleaner but if you live in the countryside I can't see you've got anything to boast about. You've just moved the emissions to another bit of countryside and shipped a bunch of lithium over from Canada to do that with. What's the point of that?


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I, for one, look forward to the creation of the post of People's Commissar for the Determination of What Size Car People Need...


It will be decided by wealth, as always, but we're allowed to talk about a better world aren't we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

stavros said:


> One could argue that any vehicle marketed as "off-road" shouldn't be on the public highway.



If found/used on the public highway it should be subjected to a punitive daily charge. Say £50 a go.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Oh and 



Athos said:


> She's got a plug in Toyota Rav 4; it has lower emissions than the smaller plug in Toyota Prius.





Knew it wouldn't be long.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

crojoe said:


> The new Audi and BMW suvs are obscenely wide. Seeing them in Central London is ridiculous



The width is certainly an issue where on-street parking occurs.
Still, can't have Jemima & Harry doinng the 400m journey to school on foot, or in a less opulent vehicle, can we?


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> EVs are good for making cities cleaner but if you live in the countryside I can't see you've got anything to boast about. You've just moved the emissions to another bit of countryside and shipped a bunch of lithium over from Canada to do that with. What's the point of that?



It wasn't a boast.  It was a comparison to demonstrate that you were wrong to say that SUVs pollute more and make the roads less safe than smaller cars.  Her SUV does better on both counts than the neighbour's smaller car.

Whatever car she got was going to involve importing parts. And I'm not sure what you mean about moving emissions to another bit of the countryside?


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure what you mean about moving emissions to another bit of the countryside?


Are you aware of any power stations in urban areas?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> Height = damage done when they hit people.


Imagine if we built carriageways specifically for these dangerous vehicles. We could call them roads, and teach pedestrians how to cross them safely.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> Oh and
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah,  'cos a Toyota is really a conspicuous show of wealth.  I think maybe you're confusing it with BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, or even Audi.  Desperate stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> shutting down range  rover production and criminalising existing ones would remove the most vulgar and dirtiest SUVs from London streets. Any SUV is the world has to be better than these
> 
> 
> /snob



You'd do thousands of mechanics out of hundreds of hours of work per year, though.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> Are you aware of any power stations in urban areas?


Oh, I see what you mean. Well, all our electricity comes from renewable sources.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yeah,  'cos a Toyota is really a conspicuous show of wealth.  I think maybe you're confusing it with BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, or even Audi.


The lowest priced model is more than a year's wages for me and for most of the country. Check your class privilege.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Imagine if we built carriageways specifically for these dangerous vehicles. We could call them roads, and teach pedestrians how to cross them safely.


We've done that. Very few road deaths are the fault of pedestrians (mostly late night pissheads).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 27, 2021)

Chris Eubank's motor




If you want to dig folk out cos their car's too big, start with him, walk right up and call him a cunt...


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> Oh, I see what you mean. Well, all our electricity comes from renewable sources.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Is it beyond the wit of man to institute size rules in cities? I completely agree that large SUV's that never leave London are beyond pointless.
> 
> Exemptions for disability are always possible.



Germany uses progressive - as in gets higher as your engine gets bigger - purchase taxation to "incentivise" smaller cars. Berlin & other cities brought in "town car" ordinances that gave high scrappage values to old cars if you traded in for a new car with an engine of 1.4l or less.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> The lowest priced model is more than a year's wages for me and for most of the country.


That may be so, but it's hardly the car anyone would choose to flaunt their wealth!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Builders, carpenters etc.



...can use vans, like they used to before they got into posing contests with their mates.

Who the fuck needs a Ford Ranger in a city, anyway?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Exactly, SUVs are just small vans, but I don’t see much van hate.



TBF, many vans have smaller engines than SUVs.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> Oh, I see what you mean. Well, all our electricity comes from renewable sources.


Is this even possible? Surely it means you pay a company more than the standard rate and they produce renewable energy and sell you the same energy as everyone else, off the grid. Or did they rewire your house?


----------



## hash tag (Sep 27, 2021)

Having a 4 door pick up could mean the trades person only has one vehicle instead of two as they can use it personally with their family as well as work.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> View attachment 290381


Lol.  It was cheaper to switch to Octopus' green tariff than stay with Eon, even more so when you factor in what we save on petrol.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> Is this even possible? Surely it means you pay a company more than the standard rate and they produce renewable energy and sell you the same energy as everyone else, off the grid. Or did they rewire your house?











						What makes Octopus Energy so very green?
					

Find out about all the meaningful ways Octopus Energy is supporting a green future, today.




					octopus.energy


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> EVs are good for making cities cleaner but if you live in the countryside I can't see you've got anything to boast about. You've just moved the emissions to another bit of countryside and shipped a bunch of lithium over from Canada to do that with. What's the point of that?





maomao said:


> EVs are good for making cities cleaner but if you live in the countryside I can't see you've got anything to boast about. You've just moved the emissions to another bit of countryside and shipped a bunch of lithium over from Canada to do that with. What's the point of th



NaH. Here you go, half an hour ago my charge was 3/4 low carbon and 1/4 gas. That will mostly be CCGT so even with the losses of generation and transmission that quarter will be similar to a car ICE.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> What makes Octopus Energy so very green?
> 
> 
> Find out about all the meaningful ways Octopus Energy is supporting a green future, today.
> ...


That's exactly what I said.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's exactly what I said.


Not quite, since I'm now paying less than I was on my previous supplier's standard tariff.   If you're serious about the environment, you should look into switching.  Though I'm not sure you are; it's just you grasping for a (misconceived) basis - along with safety - from which to criticise SUVs.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> NaH. Here you go, half an hour ago my charge was 3/4 low carbon and 1/4 gas. That will mostly be CCGT so even with the losses of generation and transmission that quarter will be similar to a car ICE.
> 
> View attachment 290383


Only if you insist on calling nuclear 'low carbon' which is the widely contested opinion of the nuclear industry, not a fact as such.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> NaH. Here you go, half an hour ago my charge was 3/4 low carbon and 1/4 gas. That will mostly be CCGT so even with the losses of generation and transmission that quarter will be similar to a car ICE.
> 
> View attachment 290383


When I see tables like this I’m always hoping it refers to power plants that are physically incinerating bits of France and Belgium to create power, slowly chipping bits off the south edge of the English Channel and shipping them to Kingsnorth.

is the French bit actually powered by burning sheep?


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> Only if you insist on calling nuclear 'low carbon' which is the widely contested opinion of the nuclear industry, not a fact as such.


Thats the first thing you have said that is flat wrong rather than opinion.. Lots of problems with Nukes but no one seriously debates they are low carbon any more. If only there were a book you could read...


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> When I see tables like this I’m always hoping it refers to power plants that are physically incinerating bits of France and Belgium to create power, slowly chipping bits off the south edge of the English Channel and shipping them to Kingsnorth.
> 
> is the French bit actually powered by burning sheep?


I one went to a swimming pool in France that was heated by the nuclear power station next door...


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> Thats the first thing you have said that is flat wrong rather than opinion.. Lots of problems with Nukes but no one seriously debates they are low carbon any more. If only there were a book you could read...


If you want to quote a book, feel free. I have to read an actual book for my real job tonight.

And your book is written by someone who is paid by the nuclear industry.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> If you want to quote a book, feel free. I have to read an actual book for my real job tonight.
> 
> And your book is written by someone who is paid by the nuclear industry.


Sorry but you are wrong on this. but feel free to pontificate away without an evidence base  as you so often do,,,

BTW it's not 'my book' that would have magic ponies in it.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 27, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Some people don’t really go out.  Supermarkets deliver. Workplaces don’t all have car parks.  People going out socially in the evening tend to leave their cars at home.


If someone uses a car this little, they probably don't really need one. Just hire one as and when. Much cheaper


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> Sorry but you are wrong on this.


On what? You have one source written by a man who is a paid propagandist for the nuclear industry who writes articles jam-packed with assumptions, strawmen and age old pro-nuclear memes. On top of this you don't quote it or use it to support your arguments you just tell everyone they have to read the whole book. I will be rereading the Merchant of Venice tonight, not your book.

I'm teaching twelve year olds (in a different class) how to use quotes to support their arguments next week. You should come. None of them would say 'no, you have to read the whole book'.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> We've done that. Very few road deaths are the fault of pedestrians (mostly late night pissheads).


I think you need to check your facts. The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities are caused by pedestrians. 


> For accidents where a pedestrian was injured or killed, pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 48 per cent of accidents and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 17 per cent of accidents





			https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a11
		


Incidents where the pedestrian had been drinking account for around 50% of pedestrian fatilities. It's no surprise that that figure is around 2/3 in Ireland.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> On what? You have one source written by a man who is a paid propagandist for the nuclear industry who writes articles jam-packed with assumptions, strawmen and age old pro-nuclear memes. On top of this you don't quote it or use it to support your arguments you just tell everyone they have to read the whole book. I will be rereading the Merchant of Venice tonight, not your book.
> 
> I'm teaching twelve year olds (in a different class) how to use quotes to support their arguments next week. You should come. None of them would say 'no, you have to read the whole book'.


 . 

Thanks teacher you are indeed an expert on everything. A true renaissance man. We bow before your universal knowledge  and would crowd  to sit at your feet for the crumbs or wisdom you throw out. Your pupils are truly blessed.


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> .
> 
> Thanks teacher you are indeed an expert on everything. A true renaissance man. We bow before your universal knowledge  and would crowd  to sit at your feet for the crumbs or wisdom you throw out. Your pupils are truly blessed.


Well, I don't know if I can really compare myself to you, a man who has read a book.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 27, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> If someone uses a car this little, they probably don't really need one. Just hire one as and when. Much cheaper


Please, give me a break. 90%+ of my car use is for work, I have to have it for work as I am always visiting clients plus I work a great deal of anti social hours. I probably get through a tank of petrol a month, maybe even less. Using a bicycle, walking or public transport is not an option


----------



## maomao (Sep 27, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Please, give me a break. 90%+ of my car use is for work, I have to have it for work as I am always visiting clients plus I work a great deal of anti social hours. I probably get through a tank of petrol a month, maybe even less. Using a bicycle, walking or public transport is not an option


They weren't replying to you.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 27, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> If someone uses a car this little, they probably don't really need one. Just hire one as and when. Much cheaper


Not having a car park at work to charge your car in, doesn’t mean you don’t commute by car.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 27, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Germany uses progressive - as in gets higher as your engine gets bigger - purchase taxation to "incentivise" smaller cars. Berlin & other cities brought in "town car" ordinances that gave high scrappage values to old cars if you traded in for a new car with an engine of 1.4l or less.



My new to me car has a 1368cc engine, drive at 55 and you get 60 to the gallon.

It will also move surprisingly briskly if you need to, mpg suffers of course. 

A combination of increasing age and Scottish frugality has slowed me down.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> NaH. Here you go, half an hour ago my charge was 3/4 low carbon and 1/4 gas. That will mostly be CCGT so even with the losses of generation and transmission that quarter will be similar to a car ICE.
> 
> View attachment 290383



What about a couple of weeks ago when there was so little wind they had to fire up coal plants for the first time in a while?

Wind is too unpredictable to base your baseload on.

We came back from Irvine to Livingston one frosty bright Winter morning, and counted 80 windmills entirely static.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> What about a couple of weeks ago when there was so little wind they had to fire up coal plants for the first time in a while?
> 
> Wind is too unpredictable to base your baseload on.
> 
> We came back from Irvine to Livingston one frosty bright Winter morning, and counted 80 windmills entirely static.




Frau Bahn had a five bean chilli at the Spoons on Friday, plenty of wind.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> What about a couple of weeks ago when there was so little wind they had to fire up coal plants for the first time in a while?
> 
> Wind is too unpredictable to base your baseload on.
> 
> We came back from Irvine to Livingston one frosty bright Winter morning, and counted 80 windmills entirely static.



Then they would have run the gas CCGTs and the carbon intensity would have gone up.

I think the coal ran as a last hurrah as their are lots of nukes and gas on outage getting ready for the winter and it’s cheaper to burn what’s left on site a d take the hit when prices are high than to move and expiry the coal. But I’m not fully sighted on trading any more.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> What about a couple of weeks ago when there was so little wind they had to fire up coal plants for the first time in a while?
> 
> Wind is too unpredictable to base your baseload on.
> 
> We came back from Irvine to Livingston one frosty bright Winter morning, and counted 80 windmills entirely static.



The big problem with our current mix, hence the debate over new nukes re CCGTs,  is a lull caused by a winter high pressure system stalling over the North Sea for four or five days. No wind and clear sky’s would mean it’s cold so gas  use goes up for hearing hitting both prices and perhaps availability . That’s kind of what many market interventions are there for. It’s why I think we need three new nukes.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 27, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Frau Bahn had a five bean chilli at the Spoons on Friday, plenty of wind.


Now Frau bean? She who is also good at burning gas.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> The big problem with our current mix, hence the debate over new nukes re CCGTs,  is a lull caused by a winter high pressure system stalling over the North Sea for four or five days. No wind and clear sky’s would mean it’s cold so gas  use goes up for hearing hitting both prices and perhaps availability . That’s kind of what many market interventions are there for. It’s why I think we need three new nukes.



Have a look up the West coast of Scotland. There are a number of huge sea lochs with narrow entrances that could be used for grid and hydrogen.

I worked it out for Loch Linnhe/Loch Eil, it was many megawatts a day. About forty square miles by an average of 20 feet of tide.


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Have a look up the West coast of Scotland. There are a number of huge sea lochs with narrow entrances that could be used for grid and hydrogen.
> 
> I worked it out for Loch Linnhe/Loch Eil, it was many megawatts a day. About forty square miles by an average of 20 feet of tide.



Grid have  already built two new  ‘boot strap’ transmission lines to bring more power from the North of Scotland to England.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 27, 2021)

A380 said:


> Grid have  already built two new  ‘boot strap’ transmission lines to bring more power from the North of Scotland to England.


Was there not a huge tidal project scheduled for Cardiff? (I think it was Cardiff, certainly Wales.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> My new to me car has a 1368cc engine, drive at 55 and you get 60 to the gallon.
> 
> It will also move surprisingly briskly if you need to, mpg suffers of course.
> 
> A combination of increasing age and Scottish frugality has slowed me down.



Many 1.4 engines are so efficient - in comparison to 30 yrs ago - that it's all you need. You're aware that my parents live just up the road from Happisburgh. Up until 2 yrs ago, my dad has always driven a 2 litre plus 4x4 car, because of the many unadopted roads. He bought a 1.6 Focus C-Max in 2019 which he prefers to his Honda C-RV & other big cars. It has decent ground clearance, plenty of torque, & doesn't spare the horses!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Was there not a huge tidal project scheduled for Cardiff? (I think it was Cardiff, certainly Wales.)



Swansea Tidal Barrage. Knocked on the head because the guy trying to develop it was a little bit shifty.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 27, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Swansea Tidal Barrage. Knocked on the head because the guy trying to develop it was a little bit shifty.



That was peanuts compared to the Severn Barrage, which was opposed by environmental groups:









						Severn Barrage - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## A380 (Sep 27, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Was there not a huge tidal project scheduled for Cardiff? (I think it was Cardiff, certainly Wales.)



Cardiff Bay and the massive Seven Barrage.  I think. The trouble with tidal barrages is that do enormous damage to coastal habitats. But it might be that we have to suck that up to prevent climate catastrophe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That was peanuts compared the Severn Barrage, which was opposed by environmental groups:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I remember someone on Facebook opposing that because "I want to surf the Severn Bore some day".


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 27, 2021)

The infrastructure cost is colossal, however, once you have built the barrier and installed your turbines, the raw material is free. Free forever. Turbines need replaced but are the smallest part of the initial cost.

I've been a hydrogen enthusiast forever, and to see it finally becoming real is very nice.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 27, 2021)

There were various barrage proposals that tried to mitigate the impact on places upstream like Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust, one was a kind of lagoon in the middle of the channel, or some kind of barrier that went around some of the more sensitive sites. The huge capital cost is likely what has prevented progress (though probably on a scale with new nukes), but there are other potential benefits like a new crossing for trains/cars over the top of the barrage (one scheme was WSM to Cardiff), and a permanent high tide on the Avon estuary which would benefit leisure and shipping (via a massive lock for the latter presumably).


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 28, 2021)

Fascinating piece from the Volts newsletter about the pros and cons of Uber Taking an Uber or Lyft just makes everything worse



> Here’s a question: is it better to drive somewhere or to take a ride-hailing service like Uber or Lyft?
> 
> I don’t mean better for you personally — faster or cheaper. I mean better for the world, for society, for the air and atmosphere … better, all things considered.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Fascinating piece from the Volts newsletter about the pros and cons of Uber Taking an Uber or Lyft just makes everything worse


Summary?


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Summary?


Taxis have dead mileage between jobs. Groundbreaking stuff.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Taxis have dead mileage between jobs. Groundbreaking stuff.


You missed some bits you would have liked because you didn't read it.  You were in too much of a hurry to say something dickish. You used to post sensible things. Pity.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Taxis have dead mileage between jobs. Groundbreaking stuff.


Fascinating stuff indeed. I'm glad I went to the trouble of not reading it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That was peanuts compared to the Severn Barrage, which was opposed by environmental groups:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Still don't understand why they think a barrage should go across the estuary, if it is side on it doesn't disrupt the waterway and you can have just as many turbine all in a row...


----------



## mauvais (Sep 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> None of those are SUVs, all trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Karoq (C segment) is not equivalent to the Superb (D). Scala or Octavia probably.

Not sure what you mean by 'emissions profile' but inevitably kerb weight and drag coefficient will be worse on the SUV, and so you have to pay for that somehow. Not as different as they used to be, though.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 28, 2021)

mauvais said:


> The Karoq (C segment) is not equivalent to the Superb (D). Scala or Octavia probably.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by 'emissions profile' but inevitably kerb weight and drag coefficient will be worse on the SUV, and so you have to pay for that somehow. Not as different as they used to be, though.



No, it isn't a coincidence that all small saloons look the same these days. You have to look at the badge to see what model it is.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> You missed some bits you would have liked because you didn't read it.  You were in too much of a hurry to say something dickish. You used to post sensible things. Pity.


Fair enough, it had one extra interesting fact that I had sort of guessed anyway. Ride sharing apps increase overall car ownership because the drivers need new cars but no-one actually scraps their cars because of them.


----------



## seeformiles (Sep 28, 2021)

The amount of SUV/4x4s in our street is getting really stupid. Too wide to park in driveways built in the 1930s they’re all double parked kerbside and their height creates a hazard to all other drivers, children and pets. I fucking hate them with a passion - esp. the twats who seem incapable of manoeuvring or parking the things at the supermarket.

 (I realise all these sentiments have probably already been expressed multiple times on this 50+ page thread but it makes me feel better to throw in my ten bobs’ worth anyway 😠)


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 28, 2021)

People don't use Uber as an alternative to owning their own car, it's an alternative to phoning for  a taxi or flagging one down when they can't or won't use their own vehicle. It's not a new business model it's the old one with a shiny app grafted on the front.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

seeformiles said:


> The amount of SUV/4x4s in our street is getting really stupid. Too wide to park in driveways built in the 1930s they’re all double parked kerbside and their height creates a hazard to all other drivers, children and pets. I fucking hate them with a passion - esp. the twats who seem incapable of manoeuvring or parking the things at the supermarket.
> 
> (I realise all these sentiments have probably already been expressed multiple times on this 50+ page thread but it makes me feel better to throw in my ten bobs’ worth anyway 😠)


But some of those cars aren't marketed as SUVs while others are marketed as SUVs but aren't much wider than standard cars so you have nothing to complain about!

It is fucking ridiculous. Though I did remark on the cycling thread the other day that the one good thing is they have to overtake properly because they can't sneak past a bicycle like an old fashioned car. Not a lot of comfort when one's coming the other way and you get forced off the road though.


----------



## seeformiles (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> But some of those cars aren't marketed as SUVs while others are marketed as SUVs but aren't much wider than standard cars so you have nothing to complain about!
> 
> It is fucking ridiculous. Though I did remark on the cycling thread the other day that the one good thing is they have to overtake properly because they can't sneak past a bicycle like an old fashioned car. Not a lot of comfort when one's coming the other way and you get forced off the road though.



Whether they’re marketed as SUVs or not they annoy me all the same - the height more than the width is my biggest bugbear 🙂


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

seeformiles said:


> Whether they’re marketed as SUVs or not they annoy me all the same - the height more than the width is my biggest bugbear 🙂


I know, I was mocking the arguments that are always used when anyone moans about SUVs on these boards.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 28, 2021)

I just wish people could buy a car which uses no more energy than necessary. BITD a Golf was seen as aspirational, but now everybody wants SUVs instead. It's just marketing/status bullshit. Even a compact hybrid SUV is indefensible if it's excessive for its job. People are taking zero responsibility for their actions. If they can't be responsible, nanny state should take their toys away.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> nanny state should take their toys away.


The state depends on car sales because it's something people are willing to get in debt for and debt is good for 'growth'. And if the state tried to restrict choice everyone would scream blue murder. Nothing will happen till the costs of climate change start messing with the profits of capitalism. Unless XR can get about fifty times bigger and accept some physical confrontation with the state.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 28, 2021)

Many compact hybrid SUV's are smaller than an average Merc. BMW, Audi etc. Not to mention to supercars that get driven around London.
Once upon a time this was an aspirational car that would have been the choice of a professional person. You won't put the genie back in the bottle, sorry.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 28, 2021)

Exactly.  Norway is an interesting case study. Years ago they put such a huge tariff on imported cars that almost everyone contented themselves with something modest. Anyone with a big engine or a high trim level looks a bit of an idiot. It helps that in Norwegian culture, flashing your cash is deeply uncool. Wealthy people holiday in little huts. They still have plenty of teenagers who are desperate to indulge in petrolhead culture, but there's fuck all flash wheels for them to buy.  Swingeing taxes are what we need, but we'll never get them. Never. Even if Labour somehow becomes electable, they won't risk taking on car industry + car owners. 

(I don't know why Norway had the above tariffs....anybody know? They are pariahs where oil exploration is concerned. But their investment in cycling infra is many times that of far bigger countries, and they have the world's highest uptake of EVs. It's a very unusual place....a sort of progressive liberal utopia, except for the oil.)


----------



## Leafster (Sep 28, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Many compact hybrid SUV's are smaller than an average Merc. BMW, Audi etc. Not to mention to supercars that get driven around London.
> Once upon a time this was an aspirational car that would have been the choice of a professional person. You won't put the genie back in the bottle, sorry.
> View attachment 290505


I'd rather have the Citroen parked next to it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Swingeing taxes are what we need,


Swinging axes more like.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 28, 2021)

Wasn't it the '69s oil crisis that steered America away from gas guzzlers and on to more economical cars. Even the TR's were modified for the American market to make them more efficient. It didn't work for long as witnessed by the size of American cars today. They are big.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 28, 2021)

Well, CO2 per bus passenger mile is 80. Our car with two in is 135, so 67.5. Less than taking the bus.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 28, 2021)

You are a bit behind the times up there. Maybe when some of these are past there best before date a few could be sent up Low emission buses in London - Wikipedia


----------



## souljacker (Sep 28, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, CO2 per bus passenger mile is 80. Our car with two in is 135, so 67.5. Less than taking the bus.



Not in Reading! Our buses run on bio-gas produced from cow shit.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think you need to check your facts. The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities are caused by pedestrians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah reported by the motorist who somehow survives unscathed 

"He was just walking around oblivious officer, I couldn't stop. Please ignore the mobile in my hand"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 28, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Still don't understand why they think a barrage should go across the estuary, if it is side on it doesn't disrupt the waterway and you can have just as many turbine all in a row...


Doesn't get as much tidal motion as going across.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 28, 2021)

Leafster said:


> I'd rather have the Citroen parked next to it.


Ah, le Traction Avant!


----------



## stavros (Sep 28, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Exactly.  Norway is an interesting case study. Years ago they put such a huge tariff on imported cars that almost everyone contented themselves with something modest. Anyone with a big engine or a high trim level looks a bit of an idiot. It helps that in Norwegian culture, flashing your cash is deeply uncool. Wealthy people holiday in little huts. They still have plenty of teenagers who are desperate to indulge in petrolhead culture, but there's fuck all flash wheels for them to buy.  Swingeing taxes are what we need, but we'll never get them. Never. Even if Labour somehow becomes electable, they won't risk taking on car industry + car owners.
> 
> (I don't know why Norway had the above tariffs....anybody know? They are pariahs where oil exploration is concerned. But their investment in cycling infra is many times that of far bigger countries, and they have the world's highest uptake of EVs. It's a very unusual place....a sort of progressive liberal utopia, except for the oil.)


I think I'm right in saying that the Scandanavian nations all have relatively high taxes rates, and that this is accepted by their populations due the high quality public services delivered. Can anyone substantiate this?

They tend to feature high on the national happiness indexes: last year Finland made it three in a row at the top of the World Happiness Report, with Denmark and Iceland in second and fourth respectively. I'm not sure where Norway or Sweden rank.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 28, 2021)

souljacker said:


> Not in Reading! Our buses run on bio-gas produced from cow shit.



Which is methane. CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O









						Gas Buses
					

We're running the largest fleet of super environmentally friendly Bio-Gas double decks in the world!




					www.nctx.co.uk
				




Claims here that CO2 is reduced by 84%, I can't see how.









						Gas Buses
					

We're running the largest fleet of super environmentally friendly Bio-Gas double decks in the world!




					www.nctx.co.uk


----------



## souljacker (Sep 28, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Which is methane. CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That link is from Nottingham. They probably fuck it up, unlike Reading.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 28, 2021)

stavros said:


> I think I'm right in saying that the Scandanavian nations all have relatively high taxes rates, and that this is accepted by their populations due the high quality public services delivered. Can anyone substantiate this?
> 
> They tend to feature high on the national happiness indexes: last year Finland made it three in a row at the top of the World Happiness Report, with Denmark and Iceland in second and fourth respectively. I'm not sure where Norway or Sweden rank.


Norway are always near the top.  One reason is the small (compared to us) gap between rich and poor. This has been proven to be the biggest component in national happiness. Whereas a low skilled manual worker might be sneered at or feel like a failure here, in Norway they get more respect because they can afford a house and to raise children who are decently educated, etc. Free healthcare, free dental care until you're 18, no university fees, a book allowance for students, lots of maternity/paternity benefits, and many, many other things which give people on min wage jobs a reasonable standard of living. It helps that they're all mad about the great outdoors, which is free. There's equal access to it. They have a law permitting freedom to roam.  You can camp anywhere if you're not less than 50m (I think) from a house.  People in different income brackets holiday next to each other in huts. The whole place just oozes contentment. The big gripe you hear is that people worry it's a bit boring. IMO it's about eleventy trillion times better than our setup. There's hardly any crime outside Oslo, doors unlocked, people looking out for each other, etc. (The serious crime in Oslo is mostly Russian gangsters.)  If you look at the international community of people in do-gooding organisations,like NGOs, charities, the UN and so on, Norway is huuugely over-represented. They're everywhere, doing good deeds. But there are only 5.3m of them.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 28, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Please, give me a break. 90%+ of my car use is for work, I have to have it for work as I am always visiting clients plus I work a great deal of anti social hours. I probably get through a tank of petrol a month, maybe even less. Using a bicycle, walking or public transport is not an option


Of course you need a car. The post I was replying to was, in thought about drivers who's cars were pretty much parked at home 90% of the time. 
Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 28, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Doesn't get as much tidal motion as going across.




It does. The barrage idea wouldn’t have turbines going down to the seabed, the difference would be tiny.

There seems to be massive resistance to tidal power in the U.K., an island with large tides around it all day, everyday.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 28, 2021)

souljacker said:


> That link is from Nottingham. They probably fuck it up, unlike Reading.



Nottingham is actually one of the best cities in the country for progressive transport policies. There are trams, a city-owned bus company with the largest electric bus fleet in the country, fully-funded cycle awareness training for cabbies and driving instructors, and a workplace parking levy to fund public transport.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There seems to be massive resistance to tidal power in the U.K., an


I don't get it either. It obviously means taking some space from some wildlife but it I lived in the South West I would infinitely prefer the whole Bristol channel turned over to tidal than Hinckley point.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't get it either. It obviously means taking some space from some wildlife but it I lived in the South West I would infinitely prefer the whole Bristol channel turned over to tidal than Hinckley point.




I’ve been banging on about it for a while only to be met with the waves are nasty to the turbine blades and that’s before you get to them meeting water, much of which has salt in it. So yeah, when faced with technological challenges like water and salt there’s nothing to be done but build a nuclear reactor then.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 28, 2021)

Perhaps we need another 100 years to think about it

This is from 1921


----------



## _Russ_ (Sep 28, 2021)

Politicians love nuclear....cheap and clean till long after they have left their seats and have feathered their nests and being cunts what happens years later is none of their concern and anyway it wont be built anywhere near their country retreat so its win win


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps we need another 100 years to think about it
> 
> This is from 1921
> 
> View attachment 290532


Is it supposed to look like a diagram of human reproductive anatomy?


----------



## A380 (Sep 28, 2021)

The RSPB's position of tidal barrages:









						Wave and Tidal Power | Climate Change - The RSPB
					

The seas around the UK offer a huge source of energy that can be used to generate electricity, & contribute to the carbon-free energy system we need. Read more




					www.rspb.org.uk
				





Every development should be subject to an appropriate evaluation of its environmental impacts.
Strategic Environmental Assessment is a useful tool which can help ensure decisions about the location of developments are made with a fuller understanding of their potential environmental impacts.
Tidal barrages pose a very high risk to wildlife and therefore we have not been able to support any barrage proposals to date.
A well managed tidal lagoon pilot project can help us understand how these could be developed in harmony with nature but currently other forms of renewable energy are cheaper and more wildlife friendly.
The issue is nukes can cause massive localised damage but mostly don't.* Whereas tidal barrages will definitely damage or destroy wet land habitats. As I said above personally i'd rather not build them, but we may have to add them to the energy mix.

(And of course the wildlife near Chernobyl has actually benefited from the exclusion zone!  https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife     Not that that makes up for the human deaths and health  damage of course.)


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 28, 2021)

Nuclear power is a status symbol for politicians and nations, and uses big shiny buildings which appeal to the simple minded politicians.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2021)

Most SUVs I’ve seen, especially the compact types, have really small boots partly due to the high floor level, often less than you’d get in something like a fiesta. It seems bollocks that I’ve known people buy them because they have kids and kids come with a lot of equipment these days and they ‘need the space’. If you really need space get an estate car or dayvan.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 29, 2021)

A380 said:


> The RSPB's position of tidal barrages:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Aye the new species, the four headed song thrush is doing well at Chernobyl.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 29, 2021)

stavros said:


> Has it been pointed out to them that EVs fall some way below walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing in the green travel hierarchy? Do they advocate and support those modes in any way?


They do. But the practicality of doing 1/2 hour journeys via public transport prior to and after 12 hour shifts which start/finish at 2-6 am is obviously problematic. Not just on a practical level but also on a safety level (lots of people say they feel unsafe travelling in the middle of the night)

For me to get the train, it’s 2 hours, and the trains don’t start early enough to get me to work on time. I’m not fucking cycling at that time in the morning either, it’s about 1&1/4 hr cycle each way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It does. The barrage idea wouldn’t have turbines going down to the seabed, the difference would be tiny.
> 
> There seems to be massive resistance to tidal power in the U.K., an island with large tides around it all day, everyday.



I think it's a great idea, but the "traditional" generators - the power station owners - want continuing high returns on their assets, & lobby govt very effectively, hence so many Tory MPs being anti-wind & tidal power.


----------



## stavros (Sep 29, 2021)

sim667 said:


> They do. But the practicality of doing 1/2 hour journeys via public transport prior to and after 12 hour shifts which start/finish at 2-6 am is obviously problematic. Not just on a practical level but also on a safety level (lots of people say they feel unsafe travelling in the middle of the night)
> 
> For me to get the train, it’s 2 hours, and the trains don’t start early enough to get me to work on time. I’m not fucking cycling at that time in the morning either, it’s about 1&1/4 hr cycle each way.


Is there any kind of car share scheme in place? You mention the role involves shift work, which presumably suits the concept of staff arriving en masse.


----------



## T & P (Sep 30, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> Most SUVs I’ve seen, especially the compact types, have really small boots partly due to the high floor level, often less than you’d get in something like a fiesta. It seems bollocks that I’ve known people buy them because they have kids and kids come with a lot of equipment these days and they ‘need the space’. If you really need space get an estate car or dayvan.


Aye, my boss has a BMW X5 and the interior space, for both the boot and the rear passengers, is laughably shit for a car of that size and cost.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 30, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> Most SUVs I’ve seen, especially the compact types, have really small boots partly due to the high floor level, often less than you’d get in something like a fiesta. It seems bollocks that I’ve known people buy them because they have kids and kids come with a lot of equipment these days and they ‘need the space’. If you really need space get an estate car or dayvan.



Space isn’t just about fitting a washing machine in the boot. It’s a lot easier to fit and remove child seats in most SUVs for example.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 30, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think it's a great idea, but the "traditional" generators - the power station owners - want continuing high returns on their assets, & lobby govt very effectively, hence so many Tory MPs being anti-wind & tidal power.


25% of this countries power is now from wind which is more than nuclear and indeed more than anything except gas. The thing about wind is it can grow incrementally, you can stick turbines up one at a time and they're relatively cheap per unit.
Tidal power needs a pretty massive investment up front in order to get off the ground which means a long return on the money. Without large scale state support it probably won't get anywhere.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Space isn’t just about fitting a washing machine in the boot. It’s a lot easier to fit and remove child seats in most SUVs for example.



I think this is a fundamental point - SUV's (an unreliable term) are simply easier to live with than 'normal' cars: they are easier to get in and out of, easier to do kids seatbelts up in, pleasant to drive, and while some of them feel a bit pokey in terms of interior space, they do a job, and they do it well.

I drive an estate, and I'll probably drive another estate - but I'll be honest, having driven a Skoda Kodiak, I'll be sorely tempted...


----------



## souljacker (Sep 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Space isn’t just about fitting a washing machine in the boot. It’s a lot easier to fit and remove child seats in most SUVs for example.


Maybe compared to a Porsche 911 but I've never struggled with a car seat in any of the cars I've owned.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 2, 2021)

stavros said:


> Is there any kind of car share scheme in place? You mention the role involves shift work, which presumably suits the concept of staff arriving en masse.


Its not very practical unfortunately, there's only 2 or 3 people starting a shift at a time..... We all live quite spread out too, so the only other person I could care share with is my cremate, who lives the same distance on a tangent, so it would defeat the object.


----------



## pbsmooth (Oct 2, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I think this is a fundamental point - SUV's (an unreliable term) are simply easier to live with than 'normal' cars: they are easier to get in and out of, easier to do kids seatbelts up in, pleasant to drive, and while some of them feel a bit pokey in terms of interior space, they do a job, and they do it well.
> 
> I drive an estate, and I'll probably drive another estate - but I'll be honest, having driven a Skoda Kodiak, I'll be sorely tempted...



I think another fundamental point, like with so many things, is whether you're prepared to think of anything other than yourself...


----------



## kebabking (Oct 2, 2021)

crojoe said:


> ink another fundamental point, like with so many things, is whether you're prepared to think of anything other than yourself...



Well, I'm prepared to _think_ of things other than myself.

(I'm currently thinking that Audi did a 4.5l Q7 - if I got that and drove with my toes down that Lundun shithole would flood, to the great distress of a huge proportion of the world's cunts, and to the great amusement of the rest of us.)

See, told you...


----------



## Carvaged (Oct 2, 2021)

Personally I would want either a coal or nuclear powered car, both of which would protect me from recent price rises and shortages.

I'm hoping Tesla might bring out those options in their next updates...


----------



## stavros (Oct 2, 2021)

sim667 said:


> Its not very practical unfortunately, there's only 2 or 3 people starting a shift at a time..... We all live quite spread out too, so the only other person I could care share with is my cremate, who lives the same distance on a tangent, so it would defeat the object.


I see, a much smaller operation than I had assumed.

Car sharing has a lot to offer when it comes to reducing the miles driven in this country. It can't be seen as "anti-car", and the concept of "half price petrol" is something cure to prick the ears of many a driver.

Plus if you've bought a vehicle the size of a studio flat it makes sense to fill that space, with other people.


----------



## Carvaged (Oct 2, 2021)

I love the idea of car sharing. It's almost like a substitute for a bus or train journey in a country that's disbanded most of its bus and train routes.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 2, 2021)

Gas turbine perhaps? 








						Prototype Rover gas turbine motor car | Science Museum Group Collection
					

Prototype Rover gas turbine motor car, JET 1, built by the Rover Company, Solihull, England, 1946-1950.




					collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk


----------



## hash tag (Oct 2, 2021)

Carvaged said:


> I love the idea of car sharing. It's almost like a substitute for a bus or train journey in a country that's disbanded most of its bus and train routes.


Oh dear. Not even my wife shares my Alfa.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 2, 2021)

Carvaged said:


> I love the idea of car sharing. It's almost like a substitute for a bus or train journey in a country that's disbanded most of its bus and train routes.





stavros said:


> I see, a much smaller operation than I had assumed.
> 
> Car sharing has a lot to offer when it comes to reducing the miles driven in this country. It can't be seen as "anti-car", and the concept of "half price petrol" is something cure to prick the ears of many a driver.
> 
> Plus if you've bought a vehicle the size of a studio flat it makes sense to fill that space, with other people.



I'm afraid I think this misses a huge part of the psychological/emotional joy/necessity of driving on your own - I leave a busy, noisy house where I'm being relentlessly badgered for attention, and I go to a large office where I interact with people all day. The 90 minute each way commute in my car - sometimes with a podcast or the radio, often without, is the most/only peaceful, quiet, 'me' time I get. It's a sanctuary without which I would explode.

Sharing it would be hell. It's not just a way, interchangeable with others, of getting from A to B, it's an essential part of mental and emotional health - like being able to go for a walk, or chat with friends, or stretch out in clean, crisp sheets.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 2, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Well, I'm prepared to _think_ of things other than myself.
> 
> (I'm currently thinking that Audi did a 4.5l Q7 - if I got that and drove with my toes down that Lundun shithole would flood, to the great distress of a huge proportion of the world's cunts, and to the great amusement of the rest of us.)
> 
> See, told you...


If there was ever a good reason to accelerate global warming...


----------



## maomao (Oct 2, 2021)

When London floods you will wipe out hundreds of thousands of poor people in Barking and Dagenham's homes while apart from the Lea Valley, North London will remain safely above water.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> When London floods you will wipe out hundreds of thousands of poor people in Barking and Dagenham's homes while apart from the Lea Valley, North London will remain safely above water.


Then I guess bigger engines will be needed.


----------



## Carvaged (Oct 3, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I'm afraid I think this misses a huge part of the psychological/emotional joy/necessity of driving on your own - I leave a busy, noisy house where I'm being relentlessly badgered for attention, and I go to a large office where I interact with people all day. The 90 minute each way commute in my car - sometimes with a podcast or the radio, often without, is the most/only peaceful, quiet, 'me' time I get. It's a sanctuary without which I would explode.
> 
> Sharing it would be hell. It's not just a way, interchangeable with others, of getting from A to B, it's an essential part of mental and emotional health - like being able to go for a walk, or chat with friends, or stretch out in clean, crisp sheets.



Fair enough. I don't think sharing should be compulsory anyway.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 3, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Gas turbine perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pah steam cars is what we need: 








First one in 1672 apparently.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 3, 2021)

two sheds said:


> Pah steam cars is what we need:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I (we) love a bit of steam but I am not keen on steam cars, now steam lorries


----------



## two sheds (Oct 3, 2021)

they don't design them like that any more


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Oct 3, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I'm afraid I think this misses a huge part of the psychological/emotional joy/necessity of driving on your own - I leave a busy, noisy house where I'm being relentlessly badgered for attention, and I go to a large office where I interact with people all day. The 90 minute each way commute in my car - sometimes with a podcast or the radio, often without, is the most/only peaceful, quiet, 'me' time I get. It's a sanctuary without which I would explode.
> 
> Sharing it would be hell. It's not just a way, interchangeable with others, of getting from A to B, it's an essential part of mental and emotional health - like being able to go for a walk, or chat with friends, or stretch out in clean, crisp sheets.



I'm in the midst of decent length train ride today to collect a car. Although I tend to avoid them, I'd embraced it, bring the laptop, catch up on some stuff and let a mild hangover pass.

Tickets had jumped to £120 this morning, eventually found a split ticket site that brought the cost back down, but stress none the less. First train I had a couple having a bitter argument next to me. This one has a group of pissed up leary people. I'm quite looking forward to a quiet drive back home later.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 4, 2021)

stavros said:


> I see, a much smaller operation than I had assumed.
> 
> Car sharing has a lot to offer when it comes to reducing the miles driven in this country. It can't be seen as "anti-car", and the concept of "half price petrol" is something cure to prick the ears of many a driver.
> 
> Plus if you've bought a vehicle the size of a studio flat it makes sense to fill that space, with other people.


Car sharing would be great. But unfortunately our shifts are staggered as there needs to be 24 hour coverage at all times.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 4, 2021)

Wot SIM said.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2021)

COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow
					

A number of SUVs in the city's West End were left with flyers branding them a "climate violation".



					www.bbc.co.uk
				







> *Climate activists say they have deflated tyres on "luxury" vehicles parked in Glasgow, to raise awareness of carbon emissions during COP26.*
> A number of SUVs in the city's upmarket West End were left with flyers that branded them a "climate violation".







Some bold claims there.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 12, 2021)

> Climate activists say they have deflated tyres on "luxury" vehicles parked in Glasgow, to raise awareness of carbon emissions during COP26.
> A number of SUVs in the city's upmarket West End were left with flyers that branded them a "climate violation"



Excellent work 👏👏👏


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 12, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I'm afraid I think this misses a huge part of the psychological/emotional joy/necessity of driving on your own - I leave a busy, noisy house where I'm being relentlessly badgered for attention, and I go to a large office where I interact with people all day. The 90 minute each way commute in my car - sometimes with a podcast or the radio, often without, is the most/only peaceful, quiet, 'me' time I get. It's a sanctuary without which I would explode.
> 
> Sharing it would be hell. It's not just a way, interchangeable with others, of getting from A to B, it's an essential part of mental and emotional health - like being able to go for a walk, or chat with friends, or stretch out in clean, crisp sheets.



That's a hell of a commute. How many miles/year do you do?


----------



## kebabking (Nov 12, 2021)

DownwardDog said:


> s a hell of a commute. How many miles/year do you do?


 It was getting silly - 1000 miles a week or so. 

Trimmed it down to one or two days a week in the office, and the rest at home.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow
> 
> 
> A number of SUVs in the city's West End were left with flyers branding them a "climate violation".
> ...


So the sum total of their actions is that a person they don't know will spend 15-20 maybe even 30 whole mins having to reflate their tyres whilst muttering damn hippies under their breath. Real world changing activism there, somehow I can't imagine these people stood in front of a tank. And if it's a well to do area, they're probably on camera as well. Idiots.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> So the sum total of their actions is that a person they don't know will spend 15-20 maybe even 30 whole mins having to reflate their tyres whilst muttering damn hippies under their breath. Real world changing activism there, somehow I can't imagine these people stood in front of a tank. And if it's a well to do area, they're probably on camera as well. Idiots.




Most people would just call out the AA to send a van or truck around to do the needful.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I'm afraid I think this misses a huge part of the psychological/emotional joy/necessity of driving on your own - I leave a busy, noisy house where I'm being relentlessly badgered for attention, and I go to a large office where I interact with people all day. The 90 minute each way commute in my car - sometimes with a podcast or the radio, often without, is the most/only peaceful, quiet, 'me' time I get. It's a sanctuary without which I would explode.
> 
> Sharing it would be hell. It's not just a way, interchangeable with others, of getting from A to B, it's an essential part of mental and emotional health - like being able to go for a walk, or chat with friends, or stretch out in clean, crisp sheets.


Wow. That's three hours of pollution you're creating every day. What car are you driving?


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Most people would just call out the AA to send a van or truck around to do the needful.


Possibly I've got both an electric and a manual foot pump so I would do it myself. But others might not, so all these twerps have done is generate 60 extra van journeys.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2021)

kebabking said:


> The 90 minute each way commute in my car - sometimes with a podcast or the radio, often without, is the most/only peaceful, quiet, 'me' time I get. It's a sanctuary without which I would explode.
> 
> .



Maybe you should get a job and/or a family that you don't hate.


----------



## gosub (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Most people would just call out the AA to send a van or truck around to do the needful.


That is a sad reflection of the decline in our society, If you ask me. Though do remember talking to someone who got a flat in a company car while doing his rounds who found it nuts that his boss had been admentered on health and safety grounds that he shouldn't change it  ,wasted best part of a morning waiting on a mechanic


----------



## BigTom (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow
> 
> 
> A number of SUVs in the city's West End were left with flyers branding them a "climate violation".
> ...


First two claims are from this article:








						SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
					

If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Flavour (Nov 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Possibly I've got both an electric and a manual foot pump so I would do it myself. But others might not, so all these twerps have done is generate 60 extra van journeys.



There was a similar campaign to deflate SUV tires in Sweden around 2007-2009, and apparently it negatively impacted the sales of SUVs (according to Andreas Malm)


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 12, 2021)

Flavour said:


> There was a similar campaign to deflate SUV tires in Sweden around 2007-2009, and apparently it negatively impacted the sales of SUVs (according to Andreas Malm)


Someone I've never heard of, but I would be very doubtful there is anything to that claim. If someone let the tyres on my car down once it would annoy me but I would forget about it soon enough. If someone kept coming round to do it and the Plod failed to do anything about it, I would start laying bear traps for them.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Someone I've never heard of, but I would be very doubtful there is anything to that claim. If someone let the tyres on my car down once it would annoy me but I would forget about it soon enough. If someone kept coming round to do it and the Plod failed to do anything about it, I would start laying bear traps for them.


But would the next car you bought, knowing it'd be getting done over regularly due to its type, be an SUV? Consistency is obv a major factor, but if SUV ownership is made inconvenient/stressful/slightly shaming then it's entirely logical the purchase rate would drop. Who needs the hassle etc. And after a while all you really need is enough media warning people about this threatening phenomenon.


----------



## Flavour (Nov 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Someone I've never heard of, but I would be very doubtful there is anything to that claim. If someone let the tyres on my car down once it would annoy me but I would forget about it soon enough. If someone kept coming round to do it and the Plod failed to do anything about it, I would start laying bear traps for them.


Are you Saul Goodman in disguise? lol. bear traps.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Someone I've never heard of, but I would be very doubtful there is anything to that claim. If someone let the tyres on my car down once it would annoy me but I would forget about it soon enough. If someone kept coming round to do it and the Plod failed to do anything about it, I would start laying bear traps for them.



It's important that we choose which lines we will not suffer to be crossed and will gladly defend with extreme violence if necessary. A cynic might suggest that someone who chose to draw such a line encircling their own right to drive a cunt's car for cunts was likely to be some kind of cunt, but not me. No, I for one applaud your courage and indefatigable sense of moral purpose. 

And to gob off about it online when there's no prospect of ever having to actually do anything to back it up. Bravo sir. Bravo.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 12, 2021)

Rob Ray said:


> But would the next car you bought, knowing it'd be getting done over regularly due to its type, be an SUV? Consistency is obv a major factor, but if SUV ownership is made inconvenient/stressful/slightly shaming then it's entirely logical the purchase rate would drop. Who needs the hassle etc. And after a while all you really need is enough media warning people about this threatening phenomenon.


Good question, the reasons I buy a particular car are many and varied and they change in priority. I've never bought an SUV since they it's not been the ideal vehicle to suit my needs. I would agree it's possible that someone knowing that buying a certain type of vehicle would make them the target of criminal behaviour (which is what this is no matter how someone tries to dress it up) might very well be an extra factor in swaying their decision. But I think the other social consequences of that such as an ever growing public demand for the authorities to do something about it (which is why I am dubious about this) would also come into play. And for everyone who thinks it's not worth the while to buy one because of the aggro you will probably get someone who it makes more stubborn.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 12, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's important that we choose which lines we will not suffer to be crossed and will gladly defend with extreme violence if necessary. A cynic might suggest that someone who chose to draw such a line encircling their own right to drive a cunt's car for cunts was likely to be some kind of cunt, but not me. No, I for one applaud your courage and indefatigable sense of moral purpose.
> 
> And to gob off about it online when there's no prospect of ever having to actually do anything to back it up. Bravo sir. Bravo.


Why thank you Frank, while you're screaming in pain with blood flowing down your leg, I will remind you that your suffering is for a worthwhile cause.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Why thank you Frank, while you're screaming in pain with blood flowing down your leg, I will remind you that your suffering is for a worthwhile cause.



Yeah, I'm not doing fun banter with you thanks cunt.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 12, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah, I'm not doing fun banter with you thanks cunt.


But you are Frank that's what I love about you, your responses to my posts always make me chuckle. The fact that you don't intend them to just makes me chuckle even more.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> criminal behaviour


What crime is committed here?
I don't think criminal damage would cover this.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 12, 2021)

BigTom said:


> First two claims are from this article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More tedious climate stats comparisons.

The internet uses more CO2 than commercial aviation. Turn your computer off now!


----------



## BigTom (Nov 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> More tedious climate stats comparisons.
> 
> The internet uses more CO2 than commercial aviation. Turn your computer off now!


Yeah, these figures are useful for working out priorities but not as raw figures in no context.

Although tbf the analaogy wouldn't have them saying "turn off your computer", more "you don't need a 1000w high end gaming PC to browse the internet and play minesweeper, get a 200w normal pc or use the library computers instead!"


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Are you Saul Goodman in disguise? lol. bear traps.


I wouldn't use bear traps. I'd use a Louisville slugger. Much more fun. Just remember to get ballied up.



BigTom said:


> What crime is committed here?
> I don't think criminal damage would cover this.


Criminal damage
Theft
And some road traffic act about endangering road users


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, these figures are useful for working out priorities but not as raw figures in no context.
> 
> Although tbf the analaogy wouldn't have them saying "turn off your computer", more "you don't need a 1000w high end gaming PC to browse the internet and play minesweeper, get a 200w normal pc or use the library computers instead!"



It's the upstream end of things that uses the most juice. Storage and transmission of streamed video, music games etc is particularly energy-intensive IIRC.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, these figures are useful for working out priorities but not as raw figures in no context.
> 
> Although tbf the analaogy wouldn't have them saying "turn off your computer", more "you don't need a 1000w high end gaming PC to browse the internet and play minesweeper, get a 200w normal pc or use the library computers instead!"


Servers are the problem. Servers don't care if you're using a PC or a Kindle.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> More tedious climate stats comparisons.
> 
> The internet uses more CO2 than commercial aviation. Turn your computer off now!


The internet is essential for many services, often with no practical alternatives.

However, for most drivers there is an absolute abundance of alternative options to driving a polluting, oversized slab of metal about.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 12, 2021)

editor said:


> The internet is essential for many services, often with no practical alternatives.
> 
> However, for most drivers there is an absolute abundance of alternative options to driving a polluting, oversized slab of metal about.



What proportion of internet traffic is "essential services" as opposed to e.g. streaming Netflix or storing photos?

For many of those living in central London perhaps there is an abundance of alternatives. However targeting random SUVs is about as reasonable as targeting random internet users and telling them they aren't doing anything essential.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What proportion of internet traffic is "essential services" as opposed to e.g. streaming Netflix or storing photos?


I've no idea but the point you're completely missing is that barely anyone needs a huge slab of SUV for their transport needs when they can get around in far more environmentally friendly ways.


----------



## stavros (Nov 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What proportion of internet traffic is "essential services" as opposed to e.g. streaming Netflix or storing photos?


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 12, 2021)

stavros said:


>


So about 47% is essential then?


----------



## sim667 (Nov 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> What crime is committed here?
> I don't think criminal damage would cover this.


Road traffic act and the criminal attempts act I think…… I’ve asked a copper out of interest if they knew because someone tampered with one of our work vehicles.


----------



## sim667 (Nov 13, 2021)

editor said:


> I've no idea but the point you're completely missing is that barely anyone needs a huge slab of SUV for their transport needs when they can get around in far more environmentally friendly ways.


A lot of people also miss that there’s plenty of SUV’s that are electric, hybrid or have small engines. The one in my mums CRV is 1.6 engine, it’s a band C VED, more akin to a small hatchback than a mini SUV.

They’re looking at changing to a hybrid one, I’d like to go hybrid too but I won’t be able to afford to change my car to something suitable for my needs in hybrid for years.


----------



## _Russ_ (Jan 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Exactly, SUVs are just small vans, but I don’t see much van hate.


Ludicrous


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Exactly, SUVs are just small vans, but I don’t see much van hate.



Apart from how small vans exist and are manifestly different from SUVs because they have different functions, namely moving cargo vs moving maladjusted children.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 2, 2022)

Right. So if you have a van and a SUV that are the same size and weight, the van is fine because it's got a bit of Amazon tat in it, whereas the SUV is objectionable because it carries people? Good to know where your priorities lie.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 2, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Apart from how small vans exist and are manifestly different from SUVs because they have different functions, namely moving cargo vs moving maladjusted children.



Given your utter loathing for anyone who isn't you, I'd have thought you'd have been a huge supporter of climate catastrophe...

You're a very odd duck Frank.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Right. So if you have a van and a SUV that are the same size and weight, the van is fine because it's got a bit of Amazon tat in it, whereas the SUV is objectionable because it carries people? Good to know where your priorities lie.



Humans can be moved in normal sized cars. Bulky cargo items less so. There is a valid reason for a van to be big.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Right. So if you have a van and a SUV that are the same size and weight, the van is fine because it's got a bit of Amazon tat in it, whereas the SUV is objectionable because it carries people? Good to know where your priorities lie.



the misanthropic moralising of people who revel in globalisation, have everything delivered to them, and tap out shite on Chinese government phones is something you should be used to by now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 2, 2022)

kebabking said:


> Given your utter loathing for anyone who isn't you, I'd have thought you'd have been a huge supporter of climate catastrophe...
> 
> You're a very odd duck Frank.



Yeah maybe but I can still tell a van apart from an SUV.

Although for the record, I've been doing direct action on climate change and environmental issues for 20 years. But I guess I must still hate humans. Unlike someone who joined the army so he could help slaughter a bunch of them.


----------



## seeformiles (Jan 2, 2022)

editor said:


> I've no idea but the point you're completely missing is that barely anyone needs a huge slab of SUV for their transport needs when they can get around in far more environmentally friendly ways.



I agree there’s plenty of cheap viable alternatives to private transport (SUV or otherwise) if you’re in London. Outside, not so much - esp. as the 4th bus in an hour knocks, you’re catastrophically late for work/hospital appointment, etc. and the overpriced ticket in your hand is not repaying the faith you put in it. 
In a past life my job was to promote green transport initiatives in Leeds. However when the reality falls far short of the ideal you’re selling it’s no surprise when the people you’re trying to convert laugh in your face and hop in their car. 🙁


----------



## teqniq (Jan 5, 2022)

Good bit of reportage, just published today:


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

Yeah I'm sure a 15-minute YouTube video by a libertarian communist political activist running around Chelsea doing vox pops will give us really insightful take on wealth and vehicle ownership in cities with special regard to vehicle size and fuel efficiency.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 5, 2022)

It's certainly better than the vacuous drivel you tend to post on here.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 5, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> maybe but I can still tell a van apart from an SUV.
> 
> Although for the record, I've been doing direct action on climate change and environmental issues for 20 years. But I guess I must still hate humans. Unlike someone who joined the army so he could help slaughter a bunch of them.



Oh Frank, I didn't join the Army for that, I joined for the interesting, varied career, the travel, the pay and the pension.

The opportunities for wholesale slaughter was just a retention perk...


----------



## Leafster (Jan 5, 2022)

My neighbour has a Land Rover Discovery. She says she needs it for her "boys".

Her "boys" are four yappy dogs all of which are less than knee height. They are so small they can't climb into the back of the Disco - she has to lift them up to put them into the back. They would probably all fit into the back of something like a VW Polo. You might not even need to lower the back seats!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

Leafster said:


> My neighbour has a Land Rover Discovery. She says she needs it for her "boys".
> 
> Her "boys" are four yappy dogs all of which are less than knee height. They are so small they can't climb into the back of the Disco - she has to lift them up to put them into the back. They would probably all fit into the back of something like a VW Polo. You might not even need to lower the back seats!




I've seen 11 greyhounds folded in to the back of a Volvo estate with the back seats up, so your neighbour has no excuse.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

Leafster said:


> My neighbour has a Land Rover Discovery. She says she needs it for her "boys".
> 
> Her "boys" are four yappy dogs all of which are less than knee height. They are so small they can't climb into the back of the Disco - she has to lift them up to put them into the back. They would probably all fit into the back of something like a VW Polo. You might not even need to lower the back seats!



Perhaps she also has five covert teenage sons from another marriage? It's none of your business really.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps she also has five covert teenage sons from another marriage? It's none of your business really.



If we didn't spend our time on here chatting about stuff that isn't our business we wouldn't have much to talk about.

As for the video and the general thread topic I really think this whole rich person - suv - gas guzzling - climate destroyer thing is a bit of a dead end.  Whilst its mostly all true for some unfathomable reason (to me anyway) suv's are extremely popular.  It really doesn't have anything to do with wealth because there are shit tons of cheap suv's on the road.  Look at how many Qashqai there are on the road.  A terrible car in every respect (apart from engine reliability) buts its cheap and its an suv.  That's what matters to people.

People are no more likely to give up their suv's then they are their cars in general.  Its no surprise that the majority of new electric car models are suv's. 

The solution to my mind has to be a combination of a shift to EV's, making the grid greener and redesigning our towns and cities to be more structured towards other forms of transport rather than cars.  It ain't going to happen of course*.  Humanity and most of the other flora and fauna on earth is fucked, but there we are.

*Even if by some miracle we do achieve this in the UK spending time in the Americas has shown me anything we do is just pissing in the ocean.


----------

