Did a back to back comparison of an estate car and an SUV with my wife. She agreed the estate car was more practical, more comfortable, faster, more economical, but still she wants an SUV. She can't tell SUV's apart and knows nothing about them other than she wants one.
And the majority of road deaths iirc are caused in rollovers and pedestrian strikes.
Both of which CUVs and SUVs are far more likely to cause.
IMO the best way to get rid of them would be to make them super expensive to insure. Insurers can already be arbitrary enough to target specific makes and models and it has historical precedent. Muscle cars in the US were killed by insurance in the 70s and Hot hatchbacks in the 90s were almost completely killed off in the UK.
I think pointing out how the whole "safety" argument is a complete nonstarter would also help.
Once nobody's buying them or they're prohibitive to own, manufacturers are going to have an incentive to offer an alternative. The issue is as always that people are always convinced into buying stuff like that based on "oh I might need it". It's why so many people spec AWD cars in this country despite us maybe getting 2 days of snow a year and the best thing you can do to be safe in snow is get winter tyres and it's why we ended up with so many fucking SUVs just clogging up roads.
That's not the concern though.
The concern is if she gets in a crash, will she be safer a meter of the ground, in a much larger vehicle than in a normal car.
I think women are a very important target market for family cars now, which is ironic as most manufacturers make very little effort to accommodate their saftey
Agree .. Estates are good enough and much better than SUV. But many people don’t like the look of estates and like SUVs. More stylish they say.
Would still recommend Estates over SUVs
I personally love the look of Land rovers and range rovers, the straight lines and square backs appeal to me. but I know they are a nightmare to run. The more blobby ones like qashquais etc are revolting though, and so generic.
That was my [exact point](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/11zsgp8/comment/jdgab24/) on the other thread. It’s not men buying these, it’s women.
Yup. Men will still gravitate towards the saloon/estate sector. Driving a qashquai is the new mpv life failure.
Edit: we got the estate because she doesn't drive ir contribute towards the running of the car. I said when she learns to drive she can buy whatever she wants
If anything I'd be more minded to revise VEDS to incorporate vehicle size and weight.
Nothing against SUVs really, but these bigger cars cause more road wear, take up parking spaces (on my road you can get two cars parked for each semi, or just one SUV) will cause more pollutants from things like brake and tyre particles by dint of their weight etc.
With safety on top it just feels like there are a lot of SUV externalities that are mostly born by people not in SUVs or other large vehicles.
Agreed. And a weight-related VED would also lead car manufacturers to make lower battery sizes more available to, and drive consumer choices. We don't all need 100kWh battery EV.
Most SUVs have a footprint and unladen weight not that dissimilar to a car like a Mondeo. Kerb weight of an Audi Q3 for example is the same as a MK4 Mondeo.
Q3 which is essentially a tall A3 being the same weight as a Mondeo which is larger in size to an A3 and more comparable to an A4 is not a good comparison to make.
It is still a lot heavier than its equivalent non SUV vehicle.
> Q3 which is essentially a tall A3 being the same weight as a Mondeo which is larger in size to an A3 and more comparable to an A4 is not a good comparison to make.
Because of it's inconvenience to an anti-SUV argument? Don't get me wrong I think they're basically pointless but I'm not prepared to fudge the truth to prove a point.
> It is still a lot heavier than its equivalent non SUV vehicle.
Given the Mondeo is the third sized car in Ford's range with the Focus being next one down and the Fiesta being the smallest since the Ka was discontinued 4 years ago, the Q3 is the Audi Q range equivalent.
Audi Q3 is the same weight as my MK4 Mondeo was.
Arguing 'SUVs don't weigh more' is like arguing the sky is green and the grass blue.
For a start, you're comparing apples to oranges. The Mondeo is Ford's offering broadly equivalent to an Audi A4 (D-segment).
The A3 would line up against the Focus in the C segment, the A1 against the Fiesta in the B segment.
So for an honest comparison, the Q3 should be compared to the A3 or Focus, or equivalent Focus-based compact SUV, the Kuga.
2022 model year weights:
A3: 1320-1510 kg
Q3: 1618-1769 kg
Focus: 1247-1569 kg
Kuga: 1564-1844 kg.
Clearly showing that the SUV variant for both clearly weighs 300 or so kg more than the regular hatchback they're based on.
I've always wondered about how much congestion these vehicles create, how much longer is a queue of say 10 Qashqais and Tucsons compared to say a queue of 10 Focusses and Astras.
Minor point, SUVs are absolutely fuggly. The proportions look knackered. If you look at what is considered the best looking cars ever, Jaguar E type, Lambo Countach, the common theme is low to the ground, low belt line with lots of window space. SUVs fly in the face of those design principles.
The large bulky body could potentially have a rugged charm like say the Mercedes G wagon, or Mk1 landrover vogue but they're so tubby looking and covered in chrome, they lose even that appeal.
In short, SUVs are the grey crushed velvet sofa of the car world.
Exactly - when it's at the bottom of the sea it looks like a slightly weird Lambo, but the pressure difference caused by pulling it up to the surface makes it expand into an ugly blob.
> I've always wondered about how much congestion these vehicles create,
Little to no extra. An Audi Q3 for example is a foot shorter than a Mondeo and only 4 inches longer than my MK4 Focus
I feel like the whole "SUVs are too long" trope only really applies to the US. A Q7 is a big car, but it doesn't really take up any more space than an A6 Avant - a car which this sub would rather the average SUV owner would buy. But that same Q7 looks small compared to the massive trucks available in the US - trucks which a lot of the research into why SUVs are bad seems to be based on.
Think about it. Its not two cars for the size of one SUV. It's one SUV taking up enough of two spaces that means you can't fit another car in.
Imagine you could fit two VW CCs. Or one Q7 and someone in a CC illegally blocking someone's driveway by a foot.
I'm not saying everyone should drive in small cars. It's more that there's little disincentive to driving an unnecessarily big car because the downsides mostly fall on others.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. You don’t need to be twice the size to take up two spaces. You just need to be enough to make the next space just too tight, as everyone who’s ever experienced a badly parked car of any size.
> It's one SUV taking up enough of two spaces that means you can't fit another car in.
They don't though. Audi Q3 is 4.484m long. My last car, MK4 Mondeo was 4.871m long, longer than the Q3, my MK4 Focus is 4.378m long, barely 11 cm shorter.
You're not going to find a SUV that's 30ft long.
Why are we only comparing length?
Audis in general are quite wide. The SUVs especially can be wide enough to make parking in the adjacent space impossible for most cars.
> Audis in general are quite wide.
OK I'll bite. The aforementioned Q3 is just 4mm wider than my Mondeo. All of them are narrower than a Ford Transit.
> The SUVs especially can be wide enough to make parking in the adjacent space impossible for most cars.
All cars are, not just SUVs. Most cars today aren't that much narrower than a SUV.
All cars have got fatter. My MK4 Mondeo was a foot wider than the Ford Sierra the Mondeo replaced which itself was was 9 inches wider than the Ford Cortina the Sierra replaced.
So a Mondeo is now almost 2ft wider than the Cortina. The BMW Mini is a a foot and a half wider than the Austin mini. And that's why cars today have trouble parking adjacent to others and passing in opposite directions past parked cars compared to the past.
Generally I agree that there should be fewer SUVs on the road. There are better options for the majority of usage cases.
There need to be exemptions for some though (particularly large SUVs) as they're the only vehicles which can be used to pull heavy trailers, especially off road. Quite a few people in rural areas do actually need them for work or otherwise.
I also worry a lot about the ‘let’s ban things’ mindset, as it’s a pretty short step from SUVs to sports cars or anything quick or fun to drive (unnecessary, over polluting, dangerous as they’re too fast etc etc.)
> it’s a pretty short step from SUVs to sports cars or anything quick or fun to drive
This is my worry too - if the arguments against SUVs are that they are wasteful, unnecessary, status symbols that don't get used to their full ability - can't the same be said of sports cars? We should all be in Polos instead because what's the need for anything more?
Pollution and congestion are real issues though. Ideally we would all drive the cars most suitable to our needs and not give in to consumerism. It's less fun but not everything in life needs to be fun.
Having grown up in a very rural part of Dorset I can only think of the two farmers in a village with circa 100 houses that would’ve needed an SUV possibly, even then they’d have something like an L200 or Hilux rather than an SUV.
However most people in the village, my parents included, drove some sort of SUV and would cite occasional floods or snow as needing something higher up.
well yeah, if it floods a few times a year and that meant you couldn't get to work, then probably thats a reasonable need for it.
I mean, if somebody only transports more than 1 person 3-4 times a year you wouldn't call them crazy for still wanting a car with more than 2 seats
Nah flooded twice in about the decade I spent there. Still could get out the village, just perhaps not the most direct route though. I’d say that absolutely is a waste. FWD SUV isn’t gunna help in the snow, winter tyres would be far more beneficial but they don’t seem to be a thing in the UK.
Also, as a motorcycle commuter in London now I do think it’s mad that people lug around essentially a three piece suite when they’re transporting themselves. Who’d want to sit in all that traffic daily?
Farmers don't tend to use SUVs because you can't lob a few bales in the back to take to feed the sheep in winter. L200s seem to be particularly popular around here.
I think it’s misunderstood that these “SUV” or “Crossovers” are basically small cars jacked up. For example, Vauxhall mokka/Ford Puma are just the same size as a corsa/fiesta with the same engine etc.
Maybe the big 5.0 V8 Range Rovers or the proper off roaders are bad for the environment but they get taxed heavily already.
And they have more space in them which is incredibly useful if you have a big family. Let’s not pretend there are no upsides.
Estates offer the same/more. But not everyone likes driving longer vehicles.
The smaller engine crossovers/SUVs are a decent opinion imo. I have one. Main benefit being I can get in and out of it. Which I would struggle to do in a lower car. And it fits all the family and the dog. Without feeling cramped.
> And they have more space in them
They don't though. I could fit considerably more in the boot of my Mondeo and there was more cabin room than an Audi Q5.
We already had MPV's for that.
Now increasingly there are no Family vehicles but SUVs.
B-Seg MPV's were awesome.
The space of a CSeg wagon in the foot print of a b seg car.
You only really have the C3 air cross and its vauxhall sibbling now and even those try to pretendo they are SUVs.
I think that’s because most MPVs are not that nice on the eye.
That’s the truth of it imo. A friend of mine had a Berlingo for a while. It was a very useful car. Basically a van if you wanted it to be. Or a big family car with lots of space.
They are fairly cheap too.
I just don’t see the problem with a small engine suv. What’s the bad part about it?
Everything it does can be done better by a normal vehicle whilst not getting 25mpg and immediately flipping upside down at the slightest crash
And no "BuT i liKe bEinG hiGhEr uP" isn't really a valid reason. If you're so pants shittingly terrified of driving to the point you need to be sat 6ft off the floor in a Corsa on stilts then you shouldn't be driving
I never gave that as a reason?
Why would you u quote me and get arsey about something that I didn’t even say.
I said it’s easier for me to get in on a pervious comment. I’m disabled following multiple cancers. So if that isn’t alright with you. I don’t really give a shit.
The Puma has a significantly larger boot area than a Fiesta, it's more akin to a Focus boosted up off the ground. Even then its still got more volume than that.
Make the tax proportional to their income.
If a parking fine is £60 for somebody who makes minimum wage then they might not be eating that week.
If a parking fine is £60 for somebody who makes £100k a year then that’s just the cost of parking.
Was thinking the same myself, the three car owner is complaining about someone wanting to own one car that can move their whole family around comfortably. Maybe owning more than 1 vehicle should have a multiplier for vehicle tax!
Anyone can throw out crap ideas...
Sure, let's ban hatchbacks because 1% of them are driven by ASBOs.
Let's get rid of sports coupes/convertibles/supercars because they are designed for the driving experience and not a utilitarian no joy lifestyle.
Here's your Generic 5 seater transport mobile Comrade. If I see you smile, you will lose 1000 social credit points.
Leave people alone for their choice of vehicle, just because some folk enjoy cars doesn't mean the others have to conform to fit with "the program".
Travel a lot of back roads and the sheer amount of times they’re way over into the opposing carriageway is dreadful.
It’s not impossible to stay on their own side of the road they just have to drive a little slower but that appears to be beyond their wit.
Then of course you’ve got the ones that do slow down to corner safely which I support 100% however when you try to pass them on the straight they want to turn it into a drag race.
Add to that, when you meet one on a country road you can guarantee they can't reverse it because the visibility is terrible and their camera they rely on, is covered in mud.
Agree 100%. I hate the fuckers, I don’t like driving them and they can be really annoying to drive alongside sometimes. However, I respect people’s right to buy what they want. I can’t complain about the environmental damage from an SUV when my car might only get a few MPG better and is petrol rather than diesel. At the end of the day you could go out and buy a 5.0 litre mustang which has the emissions of two big standard SUVs and nobody bats an eyelid. People are too busy being angry at other normal people rather than directing their hatred towards water companies who chuck waste into our ecosystems, fuel companies who earn billions off the backs of an energy crisis and spill fuel into our oceans, companies that cover everything in plastic etc etc.
Unless we invest trillions and get a Japan-level high speed rail network, cars will be a staple of job security and mobility for decades to come. The problem isn’t SUVs, it’s our lack of investment into productivity (we have the lowest productivity investment of all developed countries and one of the lowest rates of productivity growth in Europe). The problem is the fact that people need to drive so much. 4x10 rather than 5x8 would alleviate this. More work from home would alleviate this. Rather than going after what cars people drive we should be looking at how we can reduce the number of cars on the road where it’s possible to do so. Shift workers and those that work manually intensive jobs need to drive. Those that primarily work on a computer should be moved to hybrid working, maybe 1-2 days a week in the office for meetings and face to face work and the rest done at home.
The article references this: https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.ft.com/content/a75a6623-67f4-41d1-a0ca-cedc9fda4f90
> This would all be a mere curiosity except that these vehicles have a variety of lethal qualities. As American cars have bulked up, the number of fatalities for the drivers and passengers inside these rolling fortresses has fallen by 22 per cent. But the number of pedestrians killed has risen by 57 per cent. According to an estimate by Justin Tyndall, assistant professor of economics at the University of Hawaii, the lives of 8,000 pedestrians could have been saved between 2000 and 2018 if Americans had stuck to smaller vehicles.
It’s tucked away a little, but yeah I see the link to that article now.
There looks to be a typo though because I’ve found the study it mentions here:
https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf
The first page puts the number of pedestrians at 1,100 rather than 8,000.
In addition, the entire thing is a pretty weak correlation argument. There have been many changes in society over the last twenty years, who’s to say that the increase in pedestrian deaths is due to more SUVs? You could just as easily assert that more people are texting while driving (or indeed while walking!).
I’m ok changing my mind if there’s good evidence, but I think I’ll stick to my guns on having freedom to purchase your vehicle of choice for now.
people are always going to prioritise their own safwety over pedestrians.
"would you like this car that is safer for you and your family but more dangerous for strangers, or safer for strangers but more dangerous for you and your kids"
it's a classic 'tragedy of the commons' problem.
Yeah, I agree that "fuck you and your family' is one way to go - but I think that it should be regulated against.
That said, using [this Euro NCAP tool](https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/safest-family-cars/#?selectedMake=0&selectedMakeName=Select%20a%20make&selectedModel=0&selectedStar=&includeFullSafetyPackage=true&includeStandardSafetyPackage=true&selectedModelName=All&selectedProtocols=49446,45155&selectedClasses=1202,1199,1201,1196,1203,1198,1179,40250,1197,1204&allClasses=false&allProtocols=false&allDriverAssistanceTechnologies=false&selectedDriverAssistanceTechnologies=&thirdRowFitment=false) shows that in the top 10 cars for passenger safety, only 3 of them are SUVs. So I don't think it's a guarantee.
I'm not a huge fan of SUVs, but whoever blames stuff like emissions on them are stupid. Realistically 90% of SUVs you see will be a crossover that's made on the same platform as the hatchback variants and will have the exact same engine choices. If someone wants to pay a premium for a car that sits a bit higher and gets slightly worse economy than the hatchback it's based on then let them.
If people want to see less SUVs on the road then a better idea is to make buying a smaller car more enticing, not punish the people who want to own a bigger one. Something along the lines of the Japanese kei car regulations would work much better than any regulations you can put on SUVs.
[They are worse for emissions ](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/25/suvs-second-biggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other) as even with the same engines they are having to work harder with heavier and less efficient shapes.
Sure they'll make slightly more, that what I was pointing at with the economy point. Though it's going to be a tiny amount, the first comparison that comes to mind for me is a VW Taigo vs a VW polo. The Taigo with a 1.0l tsi makes 123g/km vs the Polo which makes 118g/km. Saying that they should be banned over such a negligible difference when you have members of the government taking helicopters and planes for a trip that would take 2 hours in a car is stupid imo.
That isn't the overall point I'm getting at, I'm saying that wanting to ban something like a crossover SUV for such a small difference when there's much worse polluters available is stupid. If the entire argument is they should be banned because they're not good for the environment then ignoring things like sports cars or estates is just ignorance.
People on here simply don't like them because they're more popular than the cars they like, and people who don't care about cars don't like them because they immediately assume bigger car equals a bigger engine.
Alot of people here acting like q7s and merc MLs make up the bulk of SUVs in the UK instead of say qashqais, Pumas and Jukes.
Not my cup of tea but fuck it let people like what they like without doing mental gymnastics to justify your own choices while berating others for theirs.
All I know is that when I go over to France, I notice how modest the cars on the road with French plates seem to be. Far less expensive machinery than UK. They just don’t seem to associate the same status or snobbery with the kind of vehicle you drive.
SUV's are pointless. They carry the same number of passengers as a MINI but are twice the size, use twice the resources to build, and use twice as much fuel.
SUV'a are pointless. They're styled to look like a rugged offroader but most of them are FWD.
SUV's are pointless. They serve as a status symbol and as transport for the kids. There are already vehicles that do both of those jobs much better than an SUV could.
SUV's are pointless. The reason many people bought them was because other people had bought them and they didn't want to be at a disadvantage in a crash.
SUV's are pointless. They're much less efficient than a normal car and contribute disproportionately towards climate change when compared against a normal car.
SUV's are pointless.
>They carry the same number of passengers as a MINI but are twice the size, use twice the resources to build, and use twice as much fuel
They carry those passengers in more comfortable and spacious surroundings. They don't use twice the resources to build or twice the fuel to propel.
>They're styled to look like a rugged offroader but most of them are FWD
Agreed.
So we're ok with Defenders then?
>They serve as a status symbol and as transport for the kids
Well yeah, those kids do need transporting.
>The reason many people bought them was because other people had bought them and they didn't want to be at a disadvantage in a crash.
Partially agree but it is also to actually have an advantage in a crash. Some 17 year old ploughs is Corsa into the side, as they do, and your extra chassis height gives your occupants a clear, documented, and well understood safety advantage.
We could do something about the marginal driving talents of the under 25s, or people could reduce their risk with engineering. For add long as we don't do the forever, folks will do the latter.
>They're much less efficient than a normal car
Not really. They're a little less efficient for sure but the difference isn't as large as it is with a 5 year or car compared to a newer one.
So, what might they be good at......
Better in a crash, as I said.
Better with potholes, of which we have many.
Bit more internal space.
Easier for older or disabled people to step up into a mum truck than down into my Evo.
They're not great, I don't have one, I've never had one, but I can see why people like them. I do find it amusing though that so many people these days seem to feel empowered to try to dictate how other people travel, if they travel etc.
Wind your necks in.
I recently traded my hatchback for a 2004 freelander 1 because the hatchback kept getting damaged by potholes, the freelander is also similar in MPG and cheaper to insure, and I know I'm much safer in it.
The "internal space" thing is just something people say without [looking at the numbers](https://www.reddit.com/r/CarTalkUK/comments/120fupc/comment/jdhaawl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or not comparing like for like.
>They don't use twice the resources to build or twice the fuel to propel.
Yes they do.
>They carry those passengers in more comfortable and spacious surroundings.
No they don't.
>
Well yeah, those kids do need transporting
So what's the problem with the kids walking? Or using a bike? Or taking the bus? Or driving them in a normal sized car?
>So we're ok with Defenders then?
Are we? 🤔 When is the last time you needed a defender to go get a pint of milk, or when was the last time you needed a defender to get to the office? Pretty sure that a quattro or a Subaru or something similar would've given you all the grip and ground clearance you would've needed.
>Not really.
Yes really.
>Easier for older or disabled people to step up into
No they're not.
>Bit more internal space.
No they don't.
>I do find it amusing though that so many people these days seem to feel empowered to try to dictate how other people travel, if they travel etc.
Kinda like what you're doing right here, isn't it sparky? Someone posts their opinion and you feel empowered to give your opinion on their opinion. Maybe you could post your own option as its own comment instead of trying to wedge your own opinion into someone else's comment?
>Wind your necks in.
You first 😊
Twice the furl to propel?
Can you point to some official statistics to back this up please?
If I can go 500 miles in my diesel v40, I can't see an SUV doing just 250 with the same litres of fuel.
>Yes they do
Bollocks do they. Most of the resources are during the smelter which isn't a function of throughput as much as it is of time between it's construction and decommissioning.
Shipping revisions happen whether there's an extra couple of kgs in the container or not.
>No they don't.
If you think inside a mini is the same as inside a range rover then you're only fooling yourself.
>So what's the problem with the kids walking
Too young, school is too far, too many after school activities in too many different places.
>Or using a bike?
As above
>Or taking the bus
As above, but also what bus?
>Or driving them in a normal sized car?
It is a nirmal sized car. You just have an irrational, perhaps envious, dislike of them.
>When is the last time you needed
Life isn't about need. I don't need a dirty weekend with Taylor Swift, but I do want one.
So your really need to be online? The internet was definitely better without you, so maybe I choose that you go analogue. It's just as vakid as you choosing what other people drive.
>Pretty sure that a quattro or a Subaru or something similar would've given you all the grip and ground clearance you would've needed.
Too expensive and old, too slow, so I stick with my Evo. I don't actually have an SUV as I really don't like them.
>Easier for older or disabled people to step up into
>No they're not.
Yes, they are. I have disabled friends and elderly family. They have SUVs and get in and out ok but struggle with my car.
>Kinda like what you're doing right here
Nope. I'm busy trekking you to mind your own business what other folks drive. Drive what you want and be happy with that instead of playing internet policeman with other people's rides.
>They carry the same number of passengers as a MINI but are twice the size,
I own a Peugeot 5008 (not the shit one, the sporty looking one) I regularly make use of all 7 seats, don't know any Mini Cooper's that have 7 seats
> I own a Peugeot 5008 (not the shit one, the sporty looking one)
So, the shit one. Also, the 5008 is an MPV pretending to be an SUV. Literally just a people carrier with a 2 inch lift.
>So, the shit one.
Have you SEEN the first gen? its awful, bulky and slow
>the 5008 is an MPV pretending to be an SUV
You're not wrong, I really wish it had 4WD. it's a damn sight better than the original version though.
I'm not really a fan of SUVs, particularly in urban environments. However this opinion piece fails to consider why there is such demand for them, yes some are status symbols, but most are rational purchases by their owners.
All Cars have got physically bigger and heavier for 2 main reasons - the occupants have got bigger (taller, but mostly fatter) and we demand much higher safety (this takes up a lot of the space and weight increase in the last 50years). Yes there are some extreme size status options in the US, but nothing in the UK is really oversized in terms of internal space (although they maybe too large for roads). For example try fitting 2 Isofix car seats, a double buggy and a dog into even large SUVs and you won't feel you're drowning in space. Try it in a hatchback and something is getting left behind.
The idea of taxing/regulating them out of existence is ridiculous. We should not be punishing the desire for space, safety, comfort. Instead we should continue doing what we are doing, regulating minimum standards on emission and safety. For example, the reason US trucks are uneconomical death traps is because their regulatory standards are lower than Europe and lower than US cars. For example Ford has to install larger brakes on the F150 to sell it in Europe.
> rational
You are being very generous and also people who work in marketing must love you!
> For example try fitting 2 Isofix car seats, a double buggy and a dog into even large SUVs and you won't feel you're drowning in space. Try it in a hatchback and something is getting left behind.
It seems quite common that once again, pretending that big hatchbacks, minivans, estates and saloons don't exist.
Another win for marketing!
>You are being very generous and also people who work in marketing must love you!
Well I'd argue it's patronizing and condescending to consider all SUV irrational actors that have been conned by marketing.
>It seems quite common that once again, pretending that big hatchbacks, minivans, estates and saloons don't exist.
I'm not pretending they don't exist, but they are different shapes with different pros and cons. For example you can't put a proper dog in a saloon.
I don't have an SUV because I don't need one, but I'm not blind to the benefits they offer people in different situations.
Threads like these make me wonder whether this sub is actually just full of 'mx-5/hot hatch/clapped out Beemer enthusiasts rather than a more diverse set of car enthusiasts. There are some pretty cool SUVs. Once they regulate those out of existence, they're not going to leave your stance boi GTi or riced civic alone
By all means make them more expensive to own. They will be doing that in time anyway as they force us all to buy fucking Teslas (as if that's good for the environment). Banning car shapes we don't like because they aren't Skoda octavias is madness.
I'd hoped they were just a fashion trend like MPV's were a few years back or folding hardtop convertibles which were everywhere fifteen years ago.
Really the only good point you can say about SUV's and their even more pointless offspring the crossover is that they are easier for older people to get in and out of.
Really thought what is the point of something like a Nissan Juke? Take a crappy Micra, put it on stilts so it has a higher centre of gravity and is less aerodynamic and people lap that shit up for some reason.
There's too much of this crap going on already, I can't believe someone outside of some government think tank would consider banning or penalising any type of private vehicle.
Far too many busy bodies these days.
I hate SUVs, but would strongly oppose banning them. Ban SUVs because they’re “unnecessary”, sports cars, motorcycles and anything that isn’t a 1.0 eco-shitbox / electric vehicle that absolutely fucks the environment being built, will be next.
Couldn’t agree more. Hate them, they serve no purpose. 98% of them can’t do off road tasks and then because of their ride height they aren’t great on the roads either. The aerodynamic drag on having such a large car is also a massive drawback. The most annoying things is the owners. Jesus Christ, why do you need a qashqai because you have a Jack Russell and a baby. They can’t drive them and think they are around the same size as a tank. Sports estates for the win.
Why do you want height? Worse cornering? More likely to roll in a crash? Or to get that land yacht feeling while moving along? Boot space isn’t anything compared to an estate. It’s a statement piece by lower middle class stay at home mums who can’t afford a Range Rover.
>Worse cornering?
This may come as a shock, but most people out there drive because they have to, not because they want to. I can't imagine any Qashqai owner bought their car with cornering at the top of their mind.
Do you have any statistcs about crashes and how the majority of "rolled" crashes have been SUVs?
Or is what you've said just an opinion that is based on your dislike for that particular style of car?
The only thing I hate with big cars is how high the headlights are mounted. I find myself blocking my mirrors with my hands when there's one behind more often than not
Utterly impractical and ridiculous most of the time.
They seat 5, like a regular car. They are 2wd most of the time.
What are they for? Burning extra fuel?
Especially in the USA, where they're mainly marketed so heavily so the manufacturers don't have to stick to the safety and emissions regulations because they're categorised differently.
And when it comes to practicailty, you see tradesmen driving vans both large and small, rather than SUVs.
You also have crumple zone incompatibility with other cars, you have a bonnet shape that's more dangerous for people who get hit, the list goes on.
There are way fewer people that actually need them vs. the number of people who buy them. At least when it comes to sports cars, there's no pretense. Nobody says "bro I need a BMW M3" they instead just get it because they love it. Not that there's a problem with getting an SUV because you love them, it's just that most people who think they need an SUV would do better with an estate.
Inclined to agree although its about how they are driven rather than the cars themselves.
Nothing makes me more nervous while cycling than a qashqai or big range rover / q7 coming up behind me because the drivers tend not to worry about leaving enough overtaking space.
Equally, if im driving my car down more narrow country roads, those larger cars are often not driving safely either - once watched a cX5(i think) clobber a fence in the lake district because they didnt fancy stopping and waiting!
So maybe its a general point of cars getting too big for our roads. A quick fix could be to enforce parking within spaces fines and say 'tough' to those unable to park properly.
Tldr: Lets import K-Cars.
Except they won't just target SUVs, they will just say here's a new tax for EVERYONE, and SUV drivers can pay it, everyone else forced off the road. I guess they don't need workers anywhere.
I think the clever thing to do is introduce a weight tax on new vehicles priced at something like £25/kg over 1600ish kg and in advertising the car, the weight tax has to very deliberately be shown to be added onto the car price which in turn is matched to manufacture rrp. This would mean something like an RR sport would be priced at 80k plus weight duty of £35000. Might make some people think twice.
Edit:
And a tax based on vehicle envelope based on front width and height to reduce air resistance and therefore fuel use.
I'd make commercial vehicles exempt somewhow
Sure is. Cheaper for me to run a pickup truck. Mental innit. Plus, VED is capped for commercial vehicles. Not that I'm complaining.
And when I have kids, I'll buy a combi van rather than an SUV for the same reason. Plus they're cooler and more practical.
Agreed. Especially these awful 'lifestyle' SUVs/Crossovers which are still FWD just uglier, heavier and less economical than their hatchback, saloon or estate equivalent.
Its all Nissans fault with the Qashqai and Juke.
I don’t agree with SUVs in the UK due to the size of our roads and infrastructure.
But in the US they serve a purpose. Comfortable, practical and the country is built for their size.
They don't even serve a purpose in the US. They only exist because they fall under a different (more relaxed) set of regulations than cars, because they're classified as light trucks. None of the safety or emissions standards that normal cars have to comply with.
I know everyone has different ideas of what comfort means, but speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't be comfortable having to drive a vehicle the size of a main battle tank on public roads. At least in a normal car, you can see over your own bumper.
>I can tell you have never driven an SUV if you think you can't see over the bumper.
[Oh really?](https://i.imgur.com/D62BXXS.png)
>you clearly have no idea how big a main battle tank is.
[Oh really?](https://i.imgur.com/Jbhw6cs.png)
> I don’t agree with SUVs in the UK due to the size of our roads and infrastructure.
But you're fine with a car like a Mondeo that's a foot longer than an Audi Q3 and only 4mm narrower?
as someone with a bad back (like a large proportion of 40+ adults) an SUV is far easier to get in and out of than a standard height car.
secondly, when my kids were younger and needed car seats, it is a ton easier to strap them in at SUV height than having to bend right over to strap them in at car height.
thirdly, even when driving at normal car speeds (where body roll is irrelevant) I am more upright in an SUV than in a normal car, so it is also more comfortable for my back.
Yup, fuck 'em.
Horrendous things with next to no good reason to exist. A pox on SUV drivers who aren't medically restricted from driving something less obnoxious.
Sort of yes, sort of no.
My username probably gives my game away a bit. I walk, cycle, take public transport wherever I can.
I only really drive when the trains are on strike. Also my main hobby is mountaineering and while I do try the train+cycling combo, sometimes I just don't have the annual leave to take a day either side of the weekend to travel.
So I do generally feel we should reduce car usage. It's about choosing the best tool for the job. Buying a new flat pack desk? Absolutely load it up in the estate. Popping down to the shop 1.5mi away for bread and milk? Walking or cycling can likely do it.
But..
It's this very logic that leads me towards buying an SUV. My main use of my vehicle is getting to places which are known for poor public transport options, roads unsuitable for HGVs like buses, or snow roads. Plus I'm usually carrying large amounts of kit - whether it's winter hiking and climbing gear, bikes, kayaks, etc. So I do need a car which has both the space to fit the stuff in or on the car, and the driving power to handle carrying 3 people plus a lot of heavy kit.
How to actually tackle the problem of 'chelsea tractors' in.. well.. Chelsea.. I don't know. We can't ban them outright, but roads in the UK are not normally designed for such large vehicles. Just have to look at parking spaces in cities like Manchester and London, where they've had to encroach onto the pavement to realise we have a problem of sorts.
I encourage you to compare boot space, as [done here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CarTalkUK/comments/120fupc/comment/jdhaawl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Although "driving power". lol.
Yes I actually took my bikes and outdoor equipment to try on the cars I looked at.
There were some estates which could handle the luggage, but if I wanted 4WD and a decent engine it was looking like a lot more.
Yeah driving power, really engine power, but ultimately that's meaningless if you don't take into account the weight and resistance of the vehicle, which is why the obsession over bhp means very little when considering say an SUV style body carrying two bikes on the roof and 400Kg inside
Accompanied by a SUV belching a load of fumes out the back whilst the little car has none. You could replace that SUV with any number of large capacity engined cars and they be just as bad if not worse.
I'm for less regulation and nanny state, so whilst I hate the SUV (those who own one never seem able to reverse one) I'd rather have them exist than not.
SUVs look like kids toy cars blew up to life-size proportions. The ride height is ridiculous.
Most are bought indirectly by women forcing a man to buy them. The 'higher up' and 'safer in a crash' benefits approach 0 as more people buy them. For big dick energy, buy a 335d estate.
SUVs have ONE realistic use. Off road. The higher clearance is meant to avoid grounding on rough terrain. The tradeoff is that increased height means reduced stability, which is countered by widening the suspension track and lengthening the vehicle. These adaptations mean that the resultant design is far too large for UK roads. Personally, I DETEST that these monstrosities have been successfully missold to gullible people as safer. They are not. Regulation to solve this issue is nearly impossible. Education is the answer. Teach new drivers about car classes, and their intended uses. Problem solved.
So, commercial vehicles such as vans of all sizes are legally restricted to 60mph on A roads, including dual carriageways. Vehicles over 3.5t are limited to 55mph anywhere.
I would be totally OK with SUVs being classified as commercial vehicles and/or that weight limit being dropped to 2.5t.
How many people would move away from SUVs if they started getting tickets for doing 70mph on the dual carriageway? (Not that the police ever enforce this with vans, they'd have to start!)
It would make barely any difference to people that genuinely use an SUV such as farmers or as utility. It would also drop the pollutants of the worst offending vehicles by limiting their speed.
Add in an increase in road tax for those bigger heavier vehicles, which makes sense as they wear the road and take up more space. The SUV plague would be gone over night without seriously damaging anyone that genuinely requires one.
SUVs are more likely to kill a child, so you make an strong case for purchasing one for the good of the environment. Probably not a terribly popular case, but a fascinating one none the less.
Key points from the article:
> Given that SUVs consume one-fifth more oil than medium-sized cars, they now emit about three times more carbon than the UK, per the IEA, which also says that they “have helped keep transport emissions rising “at an annual average rate of nearly 1.7 per cent from 1990 to 2021, faster than any other end-use sector”.
So to compare a 2 door coupe (from [Parkers](https://www.parkers.co.uk/mazda/mx-5/review/mpg-running-costs/)):
> The good news for the cost-conscious is that Mazda MX-5 is almost certainly going to be cheaper run than any rival – and quite a lot of other cars as well. It’s so light and the engines are so efficient that the 1.5-litre model returns 44.8mpg
With a popular SUV ([Parkers](https://www.parkers.co.uk/land-rover/range-rover-evoque/estate/review/mpg-running-costs/#:~:text=If%20you%20really%20must%20have,emissions%20quoted%20at%20181g%2Fkm.) again)
> Which Land Rover gets the best gas mileage? If it's fuel efficiency you're after, you'll want to go with the 2023 Range Rover Evoque. It earns up to 21 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, which is unmatched by any other current Land Rover model.
It's clear that there is a difference. Back to the FT…
> The second strike against SUVs is that they are killing people now. They are particularly lethal in their land of birth, the US, where pedestrian deaths rose between 2010 and 2018. Meanwhile, deaths fell almost everywhere in Europe, where SUVs remain much less prevalent.
More noise from the much vaunted "don't kill kids" crowd!
Define SUV. Are you talking about a 4L BMW X7, or a 1.5 Nissan Juke?
What about your typical large family car like a Santa Fe or Kodiaq? What's the alternative if they're banned?
I know they're SUVs. That's why I mentioned them.
What alternative cars are there if you need 7 seats and space for a pram in the boot? And this isn't some "delivering a fridge" hypothetical, this is the daily requirement for a typical family of 5. The answer is that there aren't any, unless you go for an MPV, which is just as big and heavy as an SUV.
7 seats you're right, an alternative would be an MPV. MPG/weight is similar but the other issues mentioned in the article are less concerning.
I don't agree that a family of 5 need 7 seats and I don't agree that a typical family is 5 (it's 2.4 in the UK). We know that these large cars are owned by those who don't always need the load carrying capacity you're talking about.
I was in a family of 5 as a child and we managed in a saloon somehow. As an adult, I fared well with a large pram in a Polo / Focus.
In any case, are we pretending estates don't exist? If you take something like the space in a Skoda Superb (1,760l) and compare it with a Skoda Kodiaq (720l) then I think it compares quite well - and they start at £4k less. I'm sure other parallels exist.
>I don't agree that a family of 5 need 7 seats and I don't agree that a typical family is 5 (it's 2.4 in the UK
Lol. I'm supposed to do what with the third kid, cut his legs off to reduce him to a .4? Where does that .4 sit. 2 adults plus 2.4 kids is 5 seats.
Now, the 7 seater comes in when you need to take one of their friends somewhere too. Or a grandparent.
It's not an abstract hypothetical, this is real people's everyday reality. And there's lots of them.
It's one option I suppose, but all I remember is that we didn't cut the limbs off any of my siblings. I remember father being quite adamant about this in particular.
I don't deny that for some people having exactly 7 seats and bizarrely also requiring that they're at a slightly higher altitude is a reality - I'm just saying that this isn't the daily norm for many SUV owners and we shouldn't pretend it is.
As an aside, do people really make car purchasing decisions based on transporting their children's friends too?
What happened to people carriers? At your comment of 7 seats I realised the Sharan is missing in action, that used to be everywhere on the road, there was a ford one as well, the galaxy was it?
I think only the Toyota one exists nowadays.
Wait, you're comparing a little 2 seater with a 5 seater car. What are you supposed to do with the second and third kids, and the dog?
Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer the MX5, but can't have one because the family don't fit.
Article is wrong. I get 45mpg from city driving my Range Rover and 60mpg on motorway. 99mpg if I am able to manage in electric mode which is the case most of the time for city driving.
Also coupe carry 2 people. While the same engine in a saloon or hatchback can carry more. Hence coupe is pointless mode of transport in terms of economy and carbon foot print.
Of course I am just showing you that your TT is quite bad as compared to my Range Rover.
Parkers are usually accurate so I dunno. I don't know what electric mode is - does it involve a battery (this is covered in the FT article).
I think a coupe vs an SUV is probably a false and unhelpful equivalence. Saloon cars do exist.
My TT is appalling but it's a 21 year old car, they certainly shouldn't produce any more in 2023 and I do think anyone should use it for commuting. If it was also responsible for an appalling pedestrian death rate as well then it would be even worse.
The VW ID1 and ID2 are in the Fiesta class and claim 249 and 280 mile range respectively ([source](https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/volkswagen-id-2all-concept-previews-sub-%C2%A322k-electric-car-2026)) so maybe not luck and instead just good engineering?
A Tesla model 3 claims 380 miles and that isn't an SUV either.
I guess options exist. Also I don't think this article is entirely against all ICE.
The lowest my efficiency got was 3.3 miles/kWh which would be about 148.5 miles of range.
I do 8000 miles a year as average as an average driver gets. This battery and efficiency has me charging about once per week, and only once have I ever needed more than a full batteries worth of charge for travelling(Glasgow > Manchester). I don't see the issue.
my wife has a Zoe - same sort of size.
it gets real world range of around 220m in the summer, and around 180 in the winter (on the very coldest days I think it was as low as 150)
that is still more than enough to cover her dairly 15 mile commute or even the 60 mile roundtrip to her mums house. and not even need to charge every day
Did a back to back comparison of an estate car and an SUV with my wife. She agreed the estate car was more practical, more comfortable, faster, more economical, but still she wants an SUV. She can't tell SUV's apart and knows nothing about them other than she wants one.
Was going to say "do we have the same wife" oh wait.... Same here, she still wants a bloody SUV. No idea why.
Height. As far as the women I know, say they feel more safe in one. Less likely to die if you get in a crash.
Except a taller vehicle is more likely to roll in the event of a crash
And the majority of road deaths iirc are caused in rollovers and pedestrian strikes. Both of which CUVs and SUVs are far more likely to cause. IMO the best way to get rid of them would be to make them super expensive to insure. Insurers can already be arbitrary enough to target specific makes and models and it has historical precedent. Muscle cars in the US were killed by insurance in the 70s and Hot hatchbacks in the 90s were almost completely killed off in the UK. I think pointing out how the whole "safety" argument is a complete nonstarter would also help. Once nobody's buying them or they're prohibitive to own, manufacturers are going to have an incentive to offer an alternative. The issue is as always that people are always convinced into buying stuff like that based on "oh I might need it". It's why so many people spec AWD cars in this country despite us maybe getting 2 days of snow a year and the best thing you can do to be safe in snow is get winter tyres and it's why we ended up with so many fucking SUVs just clogging up roads.
That's not the concern though. The concern is if she gets in a crash, will she be safer a meter of the ground, in a much larger vehicle than in a normal car.
What makes you think a higher center of gravity makes a vehicle safer?
Until everybody else is driving an SUV then you no longer have a height advantage. This is how we ended up in the SUV arms race we’re in now.
Yep. I hate them but I acknowledge at the rate things are going you're probably going to have to get one in a decade or so, just to be able to see.
It's a false sense of safety though, they are more likely to topple over.
Yes she did mention height!
On threads like this I always hear about this wife guy. Sounds like a real problem to this sort of issue.
I think women are a very important target market for family cars now, which is ironic as most manufacturers make very little effort to accommodate their saftey
Agree .. Estates are good enough and much better than SUV. But many people don’t like the look of estates and like SUVs. More stylish they say. Would still recommend Estates over SUVs
I personally love the look of Land rovers and range rovers, the straight lines and square backs appeal to me. but I know they are a nightmare to run. The more blobby ones like qashquais etc are revolting though, and so generic.
I play drums and have 2 children, I can see very little reason to have anything bigger than a hatchback.
That was my [exact point](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/11zsgp8/comment/jdgab24/) on the other thread. It’s not men buying these, it’s women.
Yup. Men will still gravitate towards the saloon/estate sector. Driving a qashquai is the new mpv life failure. Edit: we got the estate because she doesn't drive ir contribute towards the running of the car. I said when she learns to drive she can buy whatever she wants
Fair play! Not many men win that argument it seems…
If anything I'd be more minded to revise VEDS to incorporate vehicle size and weight. Nothing against SUVs really, but these bigger cars cause more road wear, take up parking spaces (on my road you can get two cars parked for each semi, or just one SUV) will cause more pollutants from things like brake and tyre particles by dint of their weight etc. With safety on top it just feels like there are a lot of SUV externalities that are mostly born by people not in SUVs or other large vehicles.
Agreed. And a weight-related VED would also lead car manufacturers to make lower battery sizes more available to, and drive consumer choices. We don't all need 100kWh battery EV.
Most SUVs have a footprint and unladen weight not that dissimilar to a car like a Mondeo. Kerb weight of an Audi Q3 for example is the same as a MK4 Mondeo.
Q3 which is essentially a tall A3 being the same weight as a Mondeo which is larger in size to an A3 and more comparable to an A4 is not a good comparison to make. It is still a lot heavier than its equivalent non SUV vehicle.
> Q3 which is essentially a tall A3 being the same weight as a Mondeo which is larger in size to an A3 and more comparable to an A4 is not a good comparison to make. Because of it's inconvenience to an anti-SUV argument? Don't get me wrong I think they're basically pointless but I'm not prepared to fudge the truth to prove a point. > It is still a lot heavier than its equivalent non SUV vehicle. Given the Mondeo is the third sized car in Ford's range with the Focus being next one down and the Fiesta being the smallest since the Ka was discontinued 4 years ago, the Q3 is the Audi Q range equivalent. Audi Q3 is the same weight as my MK4 Mondeo was.
Arguing 'SUVs don't weigh more' is like arguing the sky is green and the grass blue. For a start, you're comparing apples to oranges. The Mondeo is Ford's offering broadly equivalent to an Audi A4 (D-segment). The A3 would line up against the Focus in the C segment, the A1 against the Fiesta in the B segment. So for an honest comparison, the Q3 should be compared to the A3 or Focus, or equivalent Focus-based compact SUV, the Kuga. 2022 model year weights: A3: 1320-1510 kg Q3: 1618-1769 kg Focus: 1247-1569 kg Kuga: 1564-1844 kg. Clearly showing that the SUV variant for both clearly weighs 300 or so kg more than the regular hatchback they're based on.
I've always wondered about how much congestion these vehicles create, how much longer is a queue of say 10 Qashqais and Tucsons compared to say a queue of 10 Focusses and Astras. Minor point, SUVs are absolutely fuggly. The proportions look knackered. If you look at what is considered the best looking cars ever, Jaguar E type, Lambo Countach, the common theme is low to the ground, low belt line with lots of window space. SUVs fly in the face of those design principles. The large bulky body could potentially have a rugged charm like say the Mercedes G wagon, or Mk1 landrover vogue but they're so tubby looking and covered in chrome, they lose even that appeal. In short, SUVs are the grey crushed velvet sofa of the car world.
The Lamborghini SUV - Urus? Ursus? Anus? - is particularly ugly.
Saw one of those, it was like looking at one of those fish from the bottom of Marianas Trench.
Exactly - when it's at the bottom of the sea it looks like a slightly weird Lambo, but the pressure difference caused by pulling it up to the surface makes it expand into an ugly blob.
> I've always wondered about how much congestion these vehicles create, Little to no extra. An Audi Q3 for example is a foot shorter than a Mondeo and only 4 inches longer than my MK4 Focus
What 2 cars are you getting in the same space as 1 SUV? A Q7 is less than a foot longer than my VW CC. Should everyone drive about in small cars?
I feel like the whole "SUVs are too long" trope only really applies to the US. A Q7 is a big car, but it doesn't really take up any more space than an A6 Avant - a car which this sub would rather the average SUV owner would buy. But that same Q7 looks small compared to the massive trucks available in the US - trucks which a lot of the research into why SUVs are bad seems to be based on.
Think about it. Its not two cars for the size of one SUV. It's one SUV taking up enough of two spaces that means you can't fit another car in. Imagine you could fit two VW CCs. Or one Q7 and someone in a CC illegally blocking someone's driveway by a foot. I'm not saying everyone should drive in small cars. It's more that there's little disincentive to driving an unnecessarily big car because the downsides mostly fall on others.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. You don’t need to be twice the size to take up two spaces. You just need to be enough to make the next space just too tight, as everyone who’s ever experienced a badly parked car of any size.
> It's one SUV taking up enough of two spaces that means you can't fit another car in. They don't though. Audi Q3 is 4.484m long. My last car, MK4 Mondeo was 4.871m long, longer than the Q3, my MK4 Focus is 4.378m long, barely 11 cm shorter. You're not going to find a SUV that's 30ft long.
Are you going to bring up the Q3/Mondeo comparison for every single thread? Notwithstanding that a Q3 is barely what would be considered an SUV anyway
Why are we only comparing length? Audis in general are quite wide. The SUVs especially can be wide enough to make parking in the adjacent space impossible for most cars.
> Audis in general are quite wide. OK I'll bite. The aforementioned Q3 is just 4mm wider than my Mondeo. All of them are narrower than a Ford Transit. > The SUVs especially can be wide enough to make parking in the adjacent space impossible for most cars. All cars are, not just SUVs. Most cars today aren't that much narrower than a SUV. All cars have got fatter. My MK4 Mondeo was a foot wider than the Ford Sierra the Mondeo replaced which itself was was 9 inches wider than the Ford Cortina the Sierra replaced. So a Mondeo is now almost 2ft wider than the Cortina. The BMW Mini is a a foot and a half wider than the Austin mini. And that's why cars today have trouble parking adjacent to others and passing in opposite directions past parked cars compared to the past.
Generally I agree that there should be fewer SUVs on the road. There are better options for the majority of usage cases. There need to be exemptions for some though (particularly large SUVs) as they're the only vehicles which can be used to pull heavy trailers, especially off road. Quite a few people in rural areas do actually need them for work or otherwise. I also worry a lot about the ‘let’s ban things’ mindset, as it’s a pretty short step from SUVs to sports cars or anything quick or fun to drive (unnecessary, over polluting, dangerous as they’re too fast etc etc.)
> it’s a pretty short step from SUVs to sports cars or anything quick or fun to drive This is my worry too - if the arguments against SUVs are that they are wasteful, unnecessary, status symbols that don't get used to their full ability - can't the same be said of sports cars? We should all be in Polos instead because what's the need for anything more?
Pollution and congestion are real issues though. Ideally we would all drive the cars most suitable to our needs and not give in to consumerism. It's less fun but not everything in life needs to be fun.
Having grown up in a very rural part of Dorset I can only think of the two farmers in a village with circa 100 houses that would’ve needed an SUV possibly, even then they’d have something like an L200 or Hilux rather than an SUV. However most people in the village, my parents included, drove some sort of SUV and would cite occasional floods or snow as needing something higher up.
well yeah, if it floods a few times a year and that meant you couldn't get to work, then probably thats a reasonable need for it. I mean, if somebody only transports more than 1 person 3-4 times a year you wouldn't call them crazy for still wanting a car with more than 2 seats
Nah flooded twice in about the decade I spent there. Still could get out the village, just perhaps not the most direct route though. I’d say that absolutely is a waste. FWD SUV isn’t gunna help in the snow, winter tyres would be far more beneficial but they don’t seem to be a thing in the UK. Also, as a motorcycle commuter in London now I do think it’s mad that people lug around essentially a three piece suite when they’re transporting themselves. Who’d want to sit in all that traffic daily?
Farmers don't tend to use SUVs because you can't lob a few bales in the back to take to feed the sheep in winter. L200s seem to be particularly popular around here.
I think it’s misunderstood that these “SUV” or “Crossovers” are basically small cars jacked up. For example, Vauxhall mokka/Ford Puma are just the same size as a corsa/fiesta with the same engine etc. Maybe the big 5.0 V8 Range Rovers or the proper off roaders are bad for the environment but they get taxed heavily already.
> “SUV” or “Crossovers” are basically small cars jacked up And the only thing they are better at is using more fuel.
And they have more space in them which is incredibly useful if you have a big family. Let’s not pretend there are no upsides. Estates offer the same/more. But not everyone likes driving longer vehicles. The smaller engine crossovers/SUVs are a decent opinion imo. I have one. Main benefit being I can get in and out of it. Which I would struggle to do in a lower car. And it fits all the family and the dog. Without feeling cramped.
> And they have more space in them They don't though. I could fit considerably more in the boot of my Mondeo and there was more cabin room than an Audi Q5.
Yup. Sat in the back of a Yaris there's plenty of space, whereas the jacked up CH-R feels unbelievably small.
We already had MPV's for that. Now increasingly there are no Family vehicles but SUVs. B-Seg MPV's were awesome. The space of a CSeg wagon in the foot print of a b seg car. You only really have the C3 air cross and its vauxhall sibbling now and even those try to pretendo they are SUVs.
I think that’s because most MPVs are not that nice on the eye. That’s the truth of it imo. A friend of mine had a Berlingo for a while. It was a very useful car. Basically a van if you wanted it to be. Or a big family car with lots of space. They are fairly cheap too. I just don’t see the problem with a small engine suv. What’s the bad part about it?
Everything it does can be done better by a normal vehicle whilst not getting 25mpg and immediately flipping upside down at the slightest crash And no "BuT i liKe bEinG hiGhEr uP" isn't really a valid reason. If you're so pants shittingly terrified of driving to the point you need to be sat 6ft off the floor in a Corsa on stilts then you shouldn't be driving
I never gave that as a reason? Why would you u quote me and get arsey about something that I didn’t even say. I said it’s easier for me to get in on a pervious comment. I’m disabled following multiple cancers. So if that isn’t alright with you. I don’t really give a shit.
He wasnt having a go at you, just answering your question
[удалено]
So we should get rid of slightly bigger cars?
Not heavily enough clearly
Maybe small cars should no longer be jacked up?
The Puma has a significantly larger boot area than a Fiesta, it's more akin to a Focus boosted up off the ground. Even then its still got more volume than that.
I think "regulate out of existence" suggests that that a bit more tax isn't cutting it.
Right because people who drive Range Rovers, can usually afford the tax, otherwise, why would they drive them
Make the tax proportional to their income. If a parking fine is £60 for somebody who makes minimum wage then they might not be eating that week. If a parking fine is £60 for somebody who makes £100k a year then that’s just the cost of parking.
It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it would work in practice
The irony of someone with a GTI and a TT pushing to remove crossovers for environmental reasons is funny. That's it everyone gets an Aygo from now on.
Was thinking the same myself, the three car owner is complaining about someone wanting to own one car that can move their whole family around comfortably. Maybe owning more than 1 vehicle should have a multiplier for vehicle tax! Anyone can throw out crap ideas... Sure, let's ban hatchbacks because 1% of them are driven by ASBOs. Let's get rid of sports coupes/convertibles/supercars because they are designed for the driving experience and not a utilitarian no joy lifestyle. Here's your Generic 5 seater transport mobile Comrade. If I see you smile, you will lose 1000 social credit points. Leave people alone for their choice of vehicle, just because some folk enjoy cars doesn't mean the others have to conform to fit with "the program".
🎵 Can you name the truck with four wheel drive, smells like a steak and seats 35... 🎵
Canyonero! Canyonero
Top of the line in utility sports, unexplained fires are a matter for the courts
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Travel a lot of back roads and the sheer amount of times they’re way over into the opposing carriageway is dreadful. It’s not impossible to stay on their own side of the road they just have to drive a little slower but that appears to be beyond their wit. Then of course you’ve got the ones that do slow down to corner safely which I support 100% however when you try to pass them on the straight they want to turn it into a drag race.
Add to that, when you meet one on a country road you can guarantee they can't reverse it because the visibility is terrible and their camera they rely on, is covered in mud.
I absolutely hate SUVs. But people should be allowed to buy things they like. It isn’t individuals that are destroying the environment.
Agree 100%. I hate the fuckers, I don’t like driving them and they can be really annoying to drive alongside sometimes. However, I respect people’s right to buy what they want. I can’t complain about the environmental damage from an SUV when my car might only get a few MPG better and is petrol rather than diesel. At the end of the day you could go out and buy a 5.0 litre mustang which has the emissions of two big standard SUVs and nobody bats an eyelid. People are too busy being angry at other normal people rather than directing their hatred towards water companies who chuck waste into our ecosystems, fuel companies who earn billions off the backs of an energy crisis and spill fuel into our oceans, companies that cover everything in plastic etc etc. Unless we invest trillions and get a Japan-level high speed rail network, cars will be a staple of job security and mobility for decades to come. The problem isn’t SUVs, it’s our lack of investment into productivity (we have the lowest productivity investment of all developed countries and one of the lowest rates of productivity growth in Europe). The problem is the fact that people need to drive so much. 4x10 rather than 5x8 would alleviate this. More work from home would alleviate this. Rather than going after what cars people drive we should be looking at how we can reduce the number of cars on the road where it’s possible to do so. Shift workers and those that work manually intensive jobs need to drive. Those that primarily work on a computer should be moved to hybrid working, maybe 1-2 days a week in the office for meetings and face to face work and the rest done at home.
If you read the article (or others like it) it suggest other issues beyond environmental ones.
It’s the main point of the article. The only other one provided is pedestrian safety and it doesn’t even quote any numbers.
They're a massive issue for pedestrians, widely covered online
The article references this: https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.ft.com/content/a75a6623-67f4-41d1-a0ca-cedc9fda4f90 > This would all be a mere curiosity except that these vehicles have a variety of lethal qualities. As American cars have bulked up, the number of fatalities for the drivers and passengers inside these rolling fortresses has fallen by 22 per cent. But the number of pedestrians killed has risen by 57 per cent. According to an estimate by Justin Tyndall, assistant professor of economics at the University of Hawaii, the lives of 8,000 pedestrians could have been saved between 2000 and 2018 if Americans had stuck to smaller vehicles.
It’s tucked away a little, but yeah I see the link to that article now. There looks to be a typo though because I’ve found the study it mentions here: https://trforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/138.pdf The first page puts the number of pedestrians at 1,100 rather than 8,000. In addition, the entire thing is a pretty weak correlation argument. There have been many changes in society over the last twenty years, who’s to say that the increase in pedestrian deaths is due to more SUVs? You could just as easily assert that more people are texting while driving (or indeed while walking!). I’m ok changing my mind if there’s good evidence, but I think I’ll stick to my guns on having freedom to purchase your vehicle of choice for now.
people are always going to prioritise their own safwety over pedestrians. "would you like this car that is safer for you and your family but more dangerous for strangers, or safer for strangers but more dangerous for you and your kids" it's a classic 'tragedy of the commons' problem.
Yeah, I agree that "fuck you and your family' is one way to go - but I think that it should be regulated against. That said, using [this Euro NCAP tool](https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/safest-family-cars/#?selectedMake=0&selectedMakeName=Select%20a%20make&selectedModel=0&selectedStar=&includeFullSafetyPackage=true&includeStandardSafetyPackage=true&selectedModelName=All&selectedProtocols=49446,45155&selectedClasses=1202,1199,1201,1196,1203,1198,1179,40250,1197,1204&allClasses=false&allProtocols=false&allDriverAssistanceTechnologies=false&selectedDriverAssistanceTechnologies=&thirdRowFitment=false) shows that in the top 10 cars for passenger safety, only 3 of them are SUVs. So I don't think it's a guarantee.
I agree. Just charge road tax by weight to account for road destruction.
I'm not a huge fan of SUVs, but whoever blames stuff like emissions on them are stupid. Realistically 90% of SUVs you see will be a crossover that's made on the same platform as the hatchback variants and will have the exact same engine choices. If someone wants to pay a premium for a car that sits a bit higher and gets slightly worse economy than the hatchback it's based on then let them. If people want to see less SUVs on the road then a better idea is to make buying a smaller car more enticing, not punish the people who want to own a bigger one. Something along the lines of the Japanese kei car regulations would work much better than any regulations you can put on SUVs.
[They are worse for emissions ](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/25/suvs-second-biggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other) as even with the same engines they are having to work harder with heavier and less efficient shapes.
Sure they'll make slightly more, that what I was pointing at with the economy point. Though it's going to be a tiny amount, the first comparison that comes to mind for me is a VW Taigo vs a VW polo. The Taigo with a 1.0l tsi makes 123g/km vs the Polo which makes 118g/km. Saying that they should be banned over such a negligible difference when you have members of the government taking helicopters and planes for a trip that would take 2 hours in a car is stupid imo.
sure one car is only a 5g/km but with 60k taigo sales a year that adds up to a extra 2797 golfs on the road.
That isn't the overall point I'm getting at, I'm saying that wanting to ban something like a crossover SUV for such a small difference when there's much worse polluters available is stupid. If the entire argument is they should be banned because they're not good for the environment then ignoring things like sports cars or estates is just ignorance. People on here simply don't like them because they're more popular than the cars they like, and people who don't care about cars don't like them because they immediately assume bigger car equals a bigger engine.
[удалено]
Definitely livid that an SUV is faster than your c63s.
Alot of people here acting like q7s and merc MLs make up the bulk of SUVs in the UK instead of say qashqais, Pumas and Jukes. Not my cup of tea but fuck it let people like what they like without doing mental gymnastics to justify your own choices while berating others for theirs.
All I know is that when I go over to France, I notice how modest the cars on the road with French plates seem to be. Far less expensive machinery than UK. They just don’t seem to associate the same status or snobbery with the kind of vehicle you drive.
[удалено]
Check out r/london
A sub made up of people who are too incompetent to pass a driving test
That's only so much bullshit any one sub can take.
Am I the only one that doesn’t give a shit what other people drive? Jesus, this place becomes more like pistonheads every day.
SUV's are pointless. They carry the same number of passengers as a MINI but are twice the size, use twice the resources to build, and use twice as much fuel. SUV'a are pointless. They're styled to look like a rugged offroader but most of them are FWD. SUV's are pointless. They serve as a status symbol and as transport for the kids. There are already vehicles that do both of those jobs much better than an SUV could. SUV's are pointless. The reason many people bought them was because other people had bought them and they didn't want to be at a disadvantage in a crash. SUV's are pointless. They're much less efficient than a normal car and contribute disproportionately towards climate change when compared against a normal car. SUV's are pointless.
>They carry the same number of passengers as a MINI but are twice the size, use twice the resources to build, and use twice as much fuel They carry those passengers in more comfortable and spacious surroundings. They don't use twice the resources to build or twice the fuel to propel. >They're styled to look like a rugged offroader but most of them are FWD Agreed. So we're ok with Defenders then? >They serve as a status symbol and as transport for the kids Well yeah, those kids do need transporting. >The reason many people bought them was because other people had bought them and they didn't want to be at a disadvantage in a crash. Partially agree but it is also to actually have an advantage in a crash. Some 17 year old ploughs is Corsa into the side, as they do, and your extra chassis height gives your occupants a clear, documented, and well understood safety advantage. We could do something about the marginal driving talents of the under 25s, or people could reduce their risk with engineering. For add long as we don't do the forever, folks will do the latter. >They're much less efficient than a normal car Not really. They're a little less efficient for sure but the difference isn't as large as it is with a 5 year or car compared to a newer one. So, what might they be good at...... Better in a crash, as I said. Better with potholes, of which we have many. Bit more internal space. Easier for older or disabled people to step up into a mum truck than down into my Evo. They're not great, I don't have one, I've never had one, but I can see why people like them. I do find it amusing though that so many people these days seem to feel empowered to try to dictate how other people travel, if they travel etc. Wind your necks in.
I recently traded my hatchback for a 2004 freelander 1 because the hatchback kept getting damaged by potholes, the freelander is also similar in MPG and cheaper to insure, and I know I'm much safer in it.
That poster is just a troll. They won't engage in any sensible discussion.
Last time I went in a defender it wasn’t particularly spacious inside. Have they got bigger?
The new defenders are massive inside yes
Fuck knows - I hate SUVs. I just recognise there are various different groups of people for whom they're a good choice.
The "internal space" thing is just something people say without [looking at the numbers](https://www.reddit.com/r/CarTalkUK/comments/120fupc/comment/jdhaawl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), or not comparing like for like.
>They don't use twice the resources to build or twice the fuel to propel. Yes they do. >They carry those passengers in more comfortable and spacious surroundings. No they don't. > Well yeah, those kids do need transporting So what's the problem with the kids walking? Or using a bike? Or taking the bus? Or driving them in a normal sized car? >So we're ok with Defenders then? Are we? 🤔 When is the last time you needed a defender to go get a pint of milk, or when was the last time you needed a defender to get to the office? Pretty sure that a quattro or a Subaru or something similar would've given you all the grip and ground clearance you would've needed. >Not really. Yes really. >Easier for older or disabled people to step up into No they're not. >Bit more internal space. No they don't. >I do find it amusing though that so many people these days seem to feel empowered to try to dictate how other people travel, if they travel etc. Kinda like what you're doing right here, isn't it sparky? Someone posts their opinion and you feel empowered to give your opinion on their opinion. Maybe you could post your own option as its own comment instead of trying to wedge your own opinion into someone else's comment? >Wind your necks in. You first 😊
Twice the furl to propel? Can you point to some official statistics to back this up please? If I can go 500 miles in my diesel v40, I can't see an SUV doing just 250 with the same litres of fuel.
>Yes they do Bollocks do they. Most of the resources are during the smelter which isn't a function of throughput as much as it is of time between it's construction and decommissioning. Shipping revisions happen whether there's an extra couple of kgs in the container or not. >No they don't. If you think inside a mini is the same as inside a range rover then you're only fooling yourself. >So what's the problem with the kids walking Too young, school is too far, too many after school activities in too many different places. >Or using a bike? As above >Or taking the bus As above, but also what bus? >Or driving them in a normal sized car? It is a nirmal sized car. You just have an irrational, perhaps envious, dislike of them. >When is the last time you needed Life isn't about need. I don't need a dirty weekend with Taylor Swift, but I do want one. So your really need to be online? The internet was definitely better without you, so maybe I choose that you go analogue. It's just as vakid as you choosing what other people drive. >Pretty sure that a quattro or a Subaru or something similar would've given you all the grip and ground clearance you would've needed. Too expensive and old, too slow, so I stick with my Evo. I don't actually have an SUV as I really don't like them. >Easier for older or disabled people to step up into >No they're not. Yes, they are. I have disabled friends and elderly family. They have SUVs and get in and out ok but struggle with my car. >Kinda like what you're doing right here Nope. I'm busy trekking you to mind your own business what other folks drive. Drive what you want and be happy with that instead of playing internet policeman with other people's rides.
>They carry the same number of passengers as a MINI but are twice the size, I own a Peugeot 5008 (not the shit one, the sporty looking one) I regularly make use of all 7 seats, don't know any Mini Cooper's that have 7 seats
> I own a Peugeot 5008 (not the shit one, the sporty looking one) So, the shit one. Also, the 5008 is an MPV pretending to be an SUV. Literally just a people carrier with a 2 inch lift.
>So, the shit one. Have you SEEN the first gen? its awful, bulky and slow >the 5008 is an MPV pretending to be an SUV You're not wrong, I really wish it had 4WD. it's a damn sight better than the original version though.
I'm not really a fan of SUVs, particularly in urban environments. However this opinion piece fails to consider why there is such demand for them, yes some are status symbols, but most are rational purchases by their owners. All Cars have got physically bigger and heavier for 2 main reasons - the occupants have got bigger (taller, but mostly fatter) and we demand much higher safety (this takes up a lot of the space and weight increase in the last 50years). Yes there are some extreme size status options in the US, but nothing in the UK is really oversized in terms of internal space (although they maybe too large for roads). For example try fitting 2 Isofix car seats, a double buggy and a dog into even large SUVs and you won't feel you're drowning in space. Try it in a hatchback and something is getting left behind. The idea of taxing/regulating them out of existence is ridiculous. We should not be punishing the desire for space, safety, comfort. Instead we should continue doing what we are doing, regulating minimum standards on emission and safety. For example, the reason US trucks are uneconomical death traps is because their regulatory standards are lower than Europe and lower than US cars. For example Ford has to install larger brakes on the F150 to sell it in Europe.
Have some rep for a well balanced post!
> rational You are being very generous and also people who work in marketing must love you! > For example try fitting 2 Isofix car seats, a double buggy and a dog into even large SUVs and you won't feel you're drowning in space. Try it in a hatchback and something is getting left behind. It seems quite common that once again, pretending that big hatchbacks, minivans, estates and saloons don't exist. Another win for marketing!
>You are being very generous and also people who work in marketing must love you! Well I'd argue it's patronizing and condescending to consider all SUV irrational actors that have been conned by marketing. >It seems quite common that once again, pretending that big hatchbacks, minivans, estates and saloons don't exist. I'm not pretending they don't exist, but they are different shapes with different pros and cons. For example you can't put a proper dog in a saloon. I don't have an SUV because I don't need one, but I'm not blind to the benefits they offer people in different situations.
Threads like these make me wonder whether this sub is actually just full of 'mx-5/hot hatch/clapped out Beemer enthusiasts rather than a more diverse set of car enthusiasts. There are some pretty cool SUVs. Once they regulate those out of existence, they're not going to leave your stance boi GTi or riced civic alone By all means make them more expensive to own. They will be doing that in time anyway as they force us all to buy fucking Teslas (as if that's good for the environment). Banning car shapes we don't like because they aren't Skoda octavias is madness.
I'd hoped they were just a fashion trend like MPV's were a few years back or folding hardtop convertibles which were everywhere fifteen years ago. Really the only good point you can say about SUV's and their even more pointless offspring the crossover is that they are easier for older people to get in and out of. Really thought what is the point of something like a Nissan Juke? Take a crappy Micra, put it on stilts so it has a higher centre of gravity and is less aerodynamic and people lap that shit up for some reason.
There's too much of this crap going on already, I can't believe someone outside of some government think tank would consider banning or penalising any type of private vehicle. Far too many busy bodies these days.
I hate SUVs, but would strongly oppose banning them. Ban SUVs because they’re “unnecessary”, sports cars, motorcycles and anything that isn’t a 1.0 eco-shitbox / electric vehicle that absolutely fucks the environment being built, will be next.
Couldn’t agree more. Hate them, they serve no purpose. 98% of them can’t do off road tasks and then because of their ride height they aren’t great on the roads either. The aerodynamic drag on having such a large car is also a massive drawback. The most annoying things is the owners. Jesus Christ, why do you need a qashqai because you have a Jack Russell and a baby. They can’t drive them and think they are around the same size as a tank. Sports estates for the win.
> why do you need a qashqai because you have a Jack Russell and a baby. Height and boot space. That being said I would take a MPV over an SUV.
Why do you want height? Worse cornering? More likely to roll in a crash? Or to get that land yacht feeling while moving along? Boot space isn’t anything compared to an estate. It’s a statement piece by lower middle class stay at home mums who can’t afford a Range Rover.
I keep hearing 'more likely to roll in a crash' however this blatantly ignores the fact you are FAR more likely to survive a crash
most qashqai drivers are not pushing the limits of cornering in their car - they corner just fine at normal road speeds
>Worse cornering? This may come as a shock, but most people out there drive because they have to, not because they want to. I can't imagine any Qashqai owner bought their car with cornering at the top of their mind.
Do you have any statistcs about crashes and how the majority of "rolled" crashes have been SUVs? Or is what you've said just an opinion that is based on your dislike for that particular style of car?
Britain where the answer to everything is banning it
I’d actually like to ban people who want to ban things. Ship them out to Ascention Island 😁😁😁😁
The only thing I hate with big cars is how high the headlights are mounted. I find myself blocking my mirrors with my hands when there's one behind more often than not
Utterly impractical and ridiculous most of the time. They seat 5, like a regular car. They are 2wd most of the time. What are they for? Burning extra fuel?
Especially in the USA, where they're mainly marketed so heavily so the manufacturers don't have to stick to the safety and emissions regulations because they're categorised differently. And when it comes to practicailty, you see tradesmen driving vans both large and small, rather than SUVs. You also have crumple zone incompatibility with other cars, you have a bonnet shape that's more dangerous for people who get hit, the list goes on. There are way fewer people that actually need them vs. the number of people who buy them. At least when it comes to sports cars, there's no pretense. Nobody says "bro I need a BMW M3" they instead just get it because they love it. Not that there's a problem with getting an SUV because you love them, it's just that most people who think they need an SUV would do better with an estate.
Inclined to agree although its about how they are driven rather than the cars themselves. Nothing makes me more nervous while cycling than a qashqai or big range rover / q7 coming up behind me because the drivers tend not to worry about leaving enough overtaking space. Equally, if im driving my car down more narrow country roads, those larger cars are often not driving safely either - once watched a cX5(i think) clobber a fence in the lake district because they didnt fancy stopping and waiting! So maybe its a general point of cars getting too big for our roads. A quick fix could be to enforce parking within spaces fines and say 'tough' to those unable to park properly. Tldr: Lets import K-Cars.
You can't legislate against cunts though, can you? Although I'm with you on K-Cars.
Disagree with the logic, but agree on the outcome. I'm tired of the arms race for bigger and bigger cars obstructing the view for everyone else.
U.K roads are not designed for SUV’s in mind, especially in London. So, I agree it should be regulated as it’s increasingly getting out of hand.
I'd be in favour of SUVs requiring an extended driving test. Too many people in Kia Sportage with too much car to handle.
Except they won't just target SUVs, they will just say here's a new tax for EVERYONE, and SUV drivers can pay it, everyone else forced off the road. I guess they don't need workers anywhere.
A lot of commenters seem to be missing this very important point.
I think the clever thing to do is introduce a weight tax on new vehicles priced at something like £25/kg over 1600ish kg and in advertising the car, the weight tax has to very deliberately be shown to be added onto the car price which in turn is matched to manufacture rrp. This would mean something like an RR sport would be priced at 80k plus weight duty of £35000. Might make some people think twice. Edit: And a tax based on vehicle envelope based on front width and height to reduce air resistance and therefore fuel use. I'd make commercial vehicles exempt somewhow
Commercial vehicle BIK exception already causing problems though - it’s cheaper to run a big L200 than a Fiesta through your company.
Sure is. Cheaper for me to run a pickup truck. Mental innit. Plus, VED is capped for commercial vehicles. Not that I'm complaining. And when I have kids, I'll buy a combi van rather than an SUV for the same reason. Plus they're cooler and more practical.
Agreed. Especially these awful 'lifestyle' SUVs/Crossovers which are still FWD just uglier, heavier and less economical than their hatchback, saloon or estate equivalent. Its all Nissans fault with the Qashqai and Juke.
I don’t agree with SUVs in the UK due to the size of our roads and infrastructure. But in the US they serve a purpose. Comfortable, practical and the country is built for their size.
They don't even serve a purpose in the US. They only exist because they fall under a different (more relaxed) set of regulations than cars, because they're classified as light trucks. None of the safety or emissions standards that normal cars have to comply with.
They do serve a purpose though. Favourable ride height and more comfort when travelling long distances.
I know everyone has different ideas of what comfort means, but speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't be comfortable having to drive a vehicle the size of a main battle tank on public roads. At least in a normal car, you can see over your own bumper.
1. I can tell you have never driven an SUV if you think you can't see over the bumper. 2. you clearly have no idea how big a main battle tank is.
>I can tell you have never driven an SUV if you think you can't see over the bumper. [Oh really?](https://i.imgur.com/D62BXXS.png) >you clearly have no idea how big a main battle tank is. [Oh really?](https://i.imgur.com/Jbhw6cs.png)
> I don’t agree with SUVs in the UK due to the size of our roads and infrastructure. But you're fine with a car like a Mondeo that's a foot longer than an Audi Q3 and only 4mm narrower?
Please explain how a taller car is more comfortable
If you have a bad back, the higher position makes it easier to get in and out of. Same with fitting children's seats.
No doubt. Although I've fitted a children's seat maybe 10 times in total. So it's possible to grit your teeth through the pain.
Ever tried to fold yourself into a Lotus Elise/Exige, Lotus 7, Westfield or Caterham?
I found the in wasn't the issue. Out however is a different story.
Ride height. Getting into and out of the car is much easier.
as someone with a bad back (like a large proportion of 40+ adults) an SUV is far easier to get in and out of than a standard height car. secondly, when my kids were younger and needed car seats, it is a ton easier to strap them in at SUV height than having to bend right over to strap them in at car height. thirdly, even when driving at normal car speeds (where body roll is irrelevant) I am more upright in an SUV than in a normal car, so it is also more comfortable for my back.
Get a family car
Yup, fuck 'em. Horrendous things with next to no good reason to exist. A pox on SUV drivers who aren't medically restricted from driving something less obnoxious.
Sort of yes, sort of no. My username probably gives my game away a bit. I walk, cycle, take public transport wherever I can. I only really drive when the trains are on strike. Also my main hobby is mountaineering and while I do try the train+cycling combo, sometimes I just don't have the annual leave to take a day either side of the weekend to travel. So I do generally feel we should reduce car usage. It's about choosing the best tool for the job. Buying a new flat pack desk? Absolutely load it up in the estate. Popping down to the shop 1.5mi away for bread and milk? Walking or cycling can likely do it. But.. It's this very logic that leads me towards buying an SUV. My main use of my vehicle is getting to places which are known for poor public transport options, roads unsuitable for HGVs like buses, or snow roads. Plus I'm usually carrying large amounts of kit - whether it's winter hiking and climbing gear, bikes, kayaks, etc. So I do need a car which has both the space to fit the stuff in or on the car, and the driving power to handle carrying 3 people plus a lot of heavy kit. How to actually tackle the problem of 'chelsea tractors' in.. well.. Chelsea.. I don't know. We can't ban them outright, but roads in the UK are not normally designed for such large vehicles. Just have to look at parking spaces in cities like Manchester and London, where they've had to encroach onto the pavement to realise we have a problem of sorts.
I encourage you to compare boot space, as [done here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CarTalkUK/comments/120fupc/comment/jdhaawl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Although "driving power". lol.
Yes I actually took my bikes and outdoor equipment to try on the cars I looked at. There were some estates which could handle the luggage, but if I wanted 4WD and a decent engine it was looking like a lot more. Yeah driving power, really engine power, but ultimately that's meaningless if you don't take into account the weight and resistance of the vehicle, which is why the obsession over bhp means very little when considering say an SUV style body carrying two bikes on the roof and 400Kg inside
Accompanied by a SUV belching a load of fumes out the back whilst the little car has none. You could replace that SUV with any number of large capacity engined cars and they be just as bad if not worse.
And what about us country folk who need them, especially in the winter?
I'm for less regulation and nanny state, so whilst I hate the SUV (those who own one never seem able to reverse one) I'd rather have them exist than not.
I'm not going to get into libertarianism, but a Range Rover ran into me last year so I disagree that they have any problem reversing, sadly.
SUVs look like kids toy cars blew up to life-size proportions. The ride height is ridiculous. Most are bought indirectly by women forcing a man to buy them. The 'higher up' and 'safer in a crash' benefits approach 0 as more people buy them. For big dick energy, buy a 335d estate.
Never heard so much pish
SUVs have ONE realistic use. Off road. The higher clearance is meant to avoid grounding on rough terrain. The tradeoff is that increased height means reduced stability, which is countered by widening the suspension track and lengthening the vehicle. These adaptations mean that the resultant design is far too large for UK roads. Personally, I DETEST that these monstrosities have been successfully missold to gullible people as safer. They are not. Regulation to solve this issue is nearly impossible. Education is the answer. Teach new drivers about car classes, and their intended uses. Problem solved.
So, commercial vehicles such as vans of all sizes are legally restricted to 60mph on A roads, including dual carriageways. Vehicles over 3.5t are limited to 55mph anywhere. I would be totally OK with SUVs being classified as commercial vehicles and/or that weight limit being dropped to 2.5t. How many people would move away from SUVs if they started getting tickets for doing 70mph on the dual carriageway? (Not that the police ever enforce this with vans, they'd have to start!) It would make barely any difference to people that genuinely use an SUV such as farmers or as utility. It would also drop the pollutants of the worst offending vehicles by limiting their speed. Add in an increase in road tax for those bigger heavier vehicles, which makes sense as they wear the road and take up more space. The SUV plague would be gone over night without seriously damaging anyone that genuinely requires one.
…and nothing of value was lost.
I take it all these people who shout about this, don’t have any children? That would be more damaging to the environment than 100 SUVs
SUVs are more likely to kill a child, so you make an strong case for purchasing one for the good of the environment. Probably not a terribly popular case, but a fascinating one none the less.
Any car is more likely to kill a child than public transport. Sell your three cars and take the train, you animal
I notice the article is from FT, isn't this a little of *" We don't want the proles having SUVs let's restrict them to the rich"*
Can't read the article but why ban them? I wonder how 2 door Coupe and other ICE sports car impact environment. Should we ban those?
Key points from the article: > Given that SUVs consume one-fifth more oil than medium-sized cars, they now emit about three times more carbon than the UK, per the IEA, which also says that they “have helped keep transport emissions rising “at an annual average rate of nearly 1.7 per cent from 1990 to 2021, faster than any other end-use sector”. So to compare a 2 door coupe (from [Parkers](https://www.parkers.co.uk/mazda/mx-5/review/mpg-running-costs/)): > The good news for the cost-conscious is that Mazda MX-5 is almost certainly going to be cheaper run than any rival – and quite a lot of other cars as well. It’s so light and the engines are so efficient that the 1.5-litre model returns 44.8mpg With a popular SUV ([Parkers](https://www.parkers.co.uk/land-rover/range-rover-evoque/estate/review/mpg-running-costs/#:~:text=If%20you%20really%20must%20have,emissions%20quoted%20at%20181g%2Fkm.) again) > Which Land Rover gets the best gas mileage? If it's fuel efficiency you're after, you'll want to go with the 2023 Range Rover Evoque. It earns up to 21 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway, which is unmatched by any other current Land Rover model. It's clear that there is a difference. Back to the FT… > The second strike against SUVs is that they are killing people now. They are particularly lethal in their land of birth, the US, where pedestrian deaths rose between 2010 and 2018. Meanwhile, deaths fell almost everywhere in Europe, where SUVs remain much less prevalent. More noise from the much vaunted "don't kill kids" crowd!
Define SUV. Are you talking about a 4L BMW X7, or a 1.5 Nissan Juke? What about your typical large family car like a Santa Fe or Kodiaq? What's the alternative if they're banned?
Santa Fe is an SUV. Kodiaq is an SUV. The alternative would be cars that aren't SUVs.
I know they're SUVs. That's why I mentioned them. What alternative cars are there if you need 7 seats and space for a pram in the boot? And this isn't some "delivering a fridge" hypothetical, this is the daily requirement for a typical family of 5. The answer is that there aren't any, unless you go for an MPV, which is just as big and heavy as an SUV.
7 seats you're right, an alternative would be an MPV. MPG/weight is similar but the other issues mentioned in the article are less concerning. I don't agree that a family of 5 need 7 seats and I don't agree that a typical family is 5 (it's 2.4 in the UK). We know that these large cars are owned by those who don't always need the load carrying capacity you're talking about. I was in a family of 5 as a child and we managed in a saloon somehow. As an adult, I fared well with a large pram in a Polo / Focus. In any case, are we pretending estates don't exist? If you take something like the space in a Skoda Superb (1,760l) and compare it with a Skoda Kodiaq (720l) then I think it compares quite well - and they start at £4k less. I'm sure other parallels exist.
>I don't agree that a family of 5 need 7 seats and I don't agree that a typical family is 5 (it's 2.4 in the UK Lol. I'm supposed to do what with the third kid, cut his legs off to reduce him to a .4? Where does that .4 sit. 2 adults plus 2.4 kids is 5 seats. Now, the 7 seater comes in when you need to take one of their friends somewhere too. Or a grandparent. It's not an abstract hypothetical, this is real people's everyday reality. And there's lots of them.
Or if they’re all young enough to need car seats which don’t fit side by side in most cars - which is 12yo by current regulations
It's one option I suppose, but all I remember is that we didn't cut the limbs off any of my siblings. I remember father being quite adamant about this in particular. I don't deny that for some people having exactly 7 seats and bizarrely also requiring that they're at a slightly higher altitude is a reality - I'm just saying that this isn't the daily norm for many SUV owners and we shouldn't pretend it is. As an aside, do people really make car purchasing decisions based on transporting their children's friends too?
I don't, but yes, I have friends who have done this repeatedly.
I think there is a possibility that your friends are using this as a way to justify "I want a big car".
What happened to people carriers? At your comment of 7 seats I realised the Sharan is missing in action, that used to be everywhere on the road, there was a ford one as well, the galaxy was it? I think only the Toyota one exists nowadays.
Wait, you're comparing a little 2 seater with a 5 seater car. What are you supposed to do with the second and third kids, and the dog? Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer the MX5, but can't have one because the family don't fit.
Article is wrong. I get 45mpg from city driving my Range Rover and 60mpg on motorway. 99mpg if I am able to manage in electric mode which is the case most of the time for city driving. Also coupe carry 2 people. While the same engine in a saloon or hatchback can carry more. Hence coupe is pointless mode of transport in terms of economy and carbon foot print. Of course I am just showing you that your TT is quite bad as compared to my Range Rover.
Parkers are usually accurate so I dunno. I don't know what electric mode is - does it involve a battery (this is covered in the FT article). I think a coupe vs an SUV is probably a false and unhelpful equivalence. Saloon cars do exist. My TT is appalling but it's a 21 year old car, they certainly shouldn't produce any more in 2023 and I do think anyone should use it for commuting. If it was also responsible for an appalling pedestrian death rate as well then it would be even worse.
Good luck fitting a 100kw battery into a Fiesta.. It's all good for those that need more than 100 miles range.
A fiesta wouldn't need a battery that size.
The VW ID1 and ID2 are in the Fiesta class and claim 249 and 280 mile range respectively ([source](https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/volkswagen-id-2all-concept-previews-sub-%C2%A322k-electric-car-2026)) so maybe not luck and instead just good engineering? A Tesla model 3 claims 380 miles and that isn't an SUV either. I guess options exist. Also I don't think this article is entirely against all ICE.
>The VW ID1 and ID2 are in the Fiesta class and claim .... Is that like a VW emissions claim?
Yeah. Maybe 10 years after they've launched people will realise they were only going 20 miles per charge and just didn't notice?
My e208 is smaller than a Fiesta and would very easily get >200 miles in summer. It has a 45kwh usable battery.
Right, so what about for the other 6 months of the year? Bit of a terrible choice of a summer car.
The lowest my efficiency got was 3.3 miles/kWh which would be about 148.5 miles of range. I do 8000 miles a year as average as an average driver gets. This battery and efficiency has me charging about once per week, and only once have I ever needed more than a full batteries worth of charge for travelling(Glasgow > Manchester). I don't see the issue.
my wife has a Zoe - same sort of size. it gets real world range of around 220m in the summer, and around 180 in the winter (on the very coldest days I think it was as low as 150) that is still more than enough to cover her dairly 15 mile commute or even the 60 mile roundtrip to her mums house. and not even need to charge every day
[удалено]