How big is too big...
Discussion
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
I find it funny PHers, in general, have such a hatred toward SUVs because of their size and how they are stupid and only used by women on the school run. Everyone should be driving a Caterham for the school run seems to be the general consensus and nobody should be allowed to spend their own money on what they want, they should be told what to buy by some random internet person because they don't like others having bigger cars than them.
This would make people cry then! 2 more out of shot for spare parts as well.
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
I find it funny PHers. Everyone should be driving a Caterham for the school run seems to be the general consensus
No, people are saying scrap the school run.Yet PHers seems to be the gathering point of all the parents whose children go to school in a different local authority to where they live.
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
pigeyman said:
Anything bigger than a Vogue on UK roads is taking the piss a bit I think. Especially since they typically only get driven by bints on the school run who don't seem to care about anything/one other than their incredibly special child and have next to no spatial awareness. I remember when it flooded quite badly in Reading last year and traffic was just a wash with X5's/ML's/R.R Sports mounted on the curb to 'avoid' getting....wet? I dunno.
My saloon car is longer than a RR Vogue. I don't take it on a school run, should I pay obscene tax? I do already, but that's because it's pretty old with a 4.6L petrol V8, not because of its dimensions.I maybe wrong, but I remember a segment by James May in Japan saying that in Tokyo cars are taxed by there width and length which is why Kei cars and vans were developed.
I wonder how much tax could be scavenged by our authorities if they implemented this in the UK, this would be how I would answer the question of how big is too big. (Using Tokyo's tax system as a bench mark).
Iv also heard it said that if her thigh's are thicker than yours, she's too big, not sure about that one.
I wonder how much tax could be scavenged by our authorities if they implemented this in the UK, this would be how I would answer the question of how big is too big. (Using Tokyo's tax system as a bench mark).
Iv also heard it said that if her thigh's are thicker than yours, she's too big, not sure about that one.
JmatthewB said:
No, people are saying scrap the school run.
Yet PHers seems to be the gathering point of all the parents whose children go to school in a different local authority to where they live.
I've noticed that.Yet PHers seems to be the gathering point of all the parents whose children go to school in a different local authority to where they live.
People who are frightened to drive on the roads unless they are in a big vehicle too.
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
This is a shock, but people use cars for other things too. Like, driving to work. Going to do various things, maybe take the kids away on holiday. Maybe they should get a Lotus Elise to take the wife, kids, dogs and luggage on holiday or even for a day trip out?
Or are you suggesting they should buy a big car for that stuff and a smaller car for other things? Because clearly that's more environmentally friendly and then requires somewhere to park two cars.
I think they really just want women back in their place and not allowed to be out in society let alone daring to drive a car more expensive than their station. Or are you suggesting they should buy a big car for that stuff and a smaller car for other things? Because clearly that's more environmentally friendly and then requires somewhere to park two cars.
DonkeyApple said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
This is a shock, but people use cars for other things too. Like, driving to work. Going to do various things, maybe take the kids away on holiday. Maybe they should get a Lotus Elise to take the wife, kids, dogs and luggage on holiday or even for a day trip out?
Or are you suggesting they should buy a big car for that stuff and a smaller car for other things? Because clearly that's more environmentally friendly and then requires somewhere to park two cars.
I think they really just want women back in their place and not allowed to be out in society let alone daring to drive a car more expensive than their station. Or are you suggesting they should buy a big car for that stuff and a smaller car for other things? Because clearly that's more environmentally friendly and then requires somewhere to park two cars.
Arguably people should be free to buy a vehicle they want, I think maybe the issue lies with the manufactures?
The thing is people need different cars for different reasons, we were on holiday in Wales recently, was the OH's GLE the optimum vehicle to take, no with the size of some of the roads I drove it down, yes with swallowing the family 'stuff' and making the miles melt away, we stick bikes on the back of it, it does the runs to the tip, it transports all sorts of bulky items and yes it also does the school run, however the school run also gets done on bikes and on foot when we can, I'm lucky enough to have a selection of other cars to use when the mood and weather suits, I came to work today in a small 1980's hatchback rather than the daily.
It comes down to balance, 'offsetting' is the trendy term I believe, we do some things that consume a lot of recourses and others that minimise that use, should anyone feel bad for that ?
It comes down to balance, 'offsetting' is the trendy term I believe, we do some things that consume a lot of recourses and others that minimise that use, should anyone feel bad for that ?
slowcars1 said:
There is nothing wrong with hating SUVs for their size. Its not the length thats the issue, its the width and the height together. No one is claiming that a medium sized family should have to drive around in a city car, they are simply objecting to overly tall vehicles on the roads.
For example: “In the Michigan crashes, SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, 3 out of 10 crashes with SUVs (30 percent) resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with 5 out of 22 for cars (23 percent). At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian (100 percent), compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars (54 percent). Below 20 miles per hour there was little difference between the outcomes, with pedestrians struck by either vehicle type tending to sustain minor injuries.” [1]
[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggest...
There is a clear reason why this is likely to be the case. Cars regulations are designed so that pedestrians when hit land on the bonnet of the car - it may break their legs, but is less likely to kill them. SUVs (defined by their approach angle) are exempt from this regulation and therefore can have higher bonnet lines. This makes them more likely to knock a pedestrian down and then drive over them.For example: “In the Michigan crashes, SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, 3 out of 10 crashes with SUVs (30 percent) resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with 5 out of 22 for cars (23 percent). At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian (100 percent), compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars (54 percent). Below 20 miles per hour there was little difference between the outcomes, with pedestrians struck by either vehicle type tending to sustain minor injuries.” [1]
[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggest...
WestyCarl said:
mk1coopers said:
The thing is people need different cars for different
That may be the case but most people buy cars emotionally or for image if they are honest.I would guess that over 50% could downsize, switch to 2WD, etc without any signifncant impact on their lives.
Your second point - again, this is quite likely true, but why should they downgrade? I have a 5+ metre long saloon car and very rarely do I carry passengers. It's a wonderful place to be compared to a crappy hatchback.
In my opinion people should be able to spend their own money on whatever they want, and people shouldn't get annoyed about it
It is what it is, unless you live in a socialist state.Low Pro said:
How is that even conducive to this discussion? People should be free to make decisions of gender roles as they see fit without being ridiculed.
Arguably people should be free to buy a vehicle they want, I think maybe the issue lies with the manufactures?
Indeed. It's the manufacturers selling cars to women that's the problem. Arguably people should be free to buy a vehicle they want, I think maybe the issue lies with the manufactures?
Let's face the truth, there are blokes on PH who simply can't cope with seeing women driving better cars than them. It's the man's job to drive the big family car.
Meanwhile, most normal PHers have leapt at the huge benefit of being able to dump the family wagon into the other half so we can drive something more fun.
Most people are aware that it isn't 1970 any longer and that it's OK for women and Bon whites to have choice.
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
Your first point - perhaps this is true, perhaps it is not. But who cares if that is the case? I'm not saying you think it is a problem or "wrong" to do so. I'm surprised some people seem to think it is a problem. It's funny, buying a 5 or even 7 seater large SUV which can carry your family is seen as selfish, yet buying a 2 seater sports car for weekend jaunts to carry nobody but yourself is seen as fine. Again, not a personal dig at you, just an observation from people on here at times (not just this thread).
Your second point - again, this is quite likely true, but why should they downgrade? I have a 5+ metre long saloon car and very rarely do I carry passengers. It's a wonderful place to be compared to a crappy hatchback.
In my opinion people should be able to spend their own money on whatever they want, and people shouldn't get annoyed about it It is what it is, unless you live in a socialist state.
I've never said otherwise, I agree people should be free to buy what they want (my wife has a "school run" 4WD Evoque for 1 child, we live 2.5miles away)Your second point - again, this is quite likely true, but why should they downgrade? I have a 5+ metre long saloon car and very rarely do I carry passengers. It's a wonderful place to be compared to a crappy hatchback.
In my opinion people should be able to spend their own money on whatever they want, and people shouldn't get annoyed about it
It is what it is, unless you live in a socialist state.It does make me smile though when people try to justify it rather than. "I've got an BMW GLE 4WD XL because I like it"
slowcars1 said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
I find it funny PHers, in general, have such a hatred toward SUVs because of their size and how they are stupid and only used by women on the school run. Everyone should be driving a Caterham for the school run seems to be the general consensus and nobody should be allowed to spend their own money on what they want, they should be told what to buy by some random internet person because they don't like others having bigger cars than them.
There is nothing wrong with hating SUVs for their size. Its not the length thats the issue, its the width and the height together. No one is claiming that a medium sized family should have to drive around in a city car, they are simply objecting to overly tall vehicles on the roads.For example: “In the Michigan crashes, SUVs caused more serious injuries than cars when impacts occurred at greater than 19 miles per hour. At speeds of 20-39 mph, 3 out of 10 crashes with SUVs (30 percent) resulted in a pedestrian fatality, compared with 5 out of 22 for cars (23 percent). At 40 mph and higher, all three crashes with SUVs killed the pedestrian (100 percent), compared with 7 out of 13 crashes involving cars (54 percent). Below 20 miles per hour there was little difference between the outcomes, with pedestrians struck by either vehicle type tending to sustain minor injuries.” [1]
[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggest...
Without getting onto the environmental points (Undoing any gains in efficiency by increasing size), they're more dangerous to other road users.
More mass = more energy; Much larger blind spots - Backovers and frontovers are hugely common in the US, hence the common introduction of reversing cameras to save people from crushing their own children.
The controversial audi advert that was pulled demonstrates this quite well:-
If a child is nealy concealed by the bumper height of an RS4, what chance is there with a Q7?
There's plenty of other comparisons:
That blind spot test is fairly meaningless, because you always look further ahead when driving, not being able to see 10ft in front of you isn't an issue in my opinion. If driving at 30mph you're looking well ahead, and so the 10ft that's right in front of you was visible just a few tenths of a second beforehand
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
That blind spot test is fairly meaningless, because you always look further ahead when driving
You've obviously not been out on the roads much lately. If it can't be seen above/around the phone screen as it is balanced on the wheel, it might as well be invisible.Haltamer said:
This:- Look at Europe (Where fortunately SUVs don't seem to have proliferated to quite the same extent as yet) - Plenty more estate and saloon cars which fill the same job without being giant tanks.
A significant reason is the initial tax on high emission vehicles which is much higher in some countries. There were some proposals to do something similar in the uk and a tax on weight. People could still buy what they liked - but there would more bias to more environmentally friendly vehicles.
bcr5784 said:
A significant reason is the initial tax on high emission vehicles which is much higher in some countries. There were some proposals to do something similar in the uk and a tax on weight.
People could still buy what they liked - but there would more bias to more environmentally friendly vehicles.
Taxes on weight for non EVs would make a lot of sense but it would need to be quite punitive. People could still buy what they liked - but there would more bias to more environmentally friendly vehicles.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff