How big is too big...

[bcr5784]

skyrover said:

A 1960's Mk1 Ford Transit was 77.3 in wide

Mid size vans of that era were all about 6' 6" (78") which I think was the limit below 3.5T

[skyrover]

bcr5784 said:

skyrover said:

How long ago was that? The UK has had a width limit over 98 Inches since at least the 1980's

That was for HGVs not ordinary cars and vans. For a very long time many American RVs were illegal because they were over 7' 6". Not sure when the rules changed - but it was certainly beyond the 80s. It was a consideration for me until at least 2000.

Edited by bcr5784 on Friday 25th June 21:35

Some American vehicles are still illegal as they have an overall limit of 102 inches compared with our limit of 100.4 inches.

My friend found this out when trying to register his Greyhound Bus here in the UK which is built right up to the 102 inch limit.

[Skodapondy]

I'm not a fan of SUV's they seem excessively large to me these days. If your a country dweller and need to get a number of sprogs to school, then fair enough. However in urban areas if your driving the sprogs to school then its a bit lazy as surely you'd live in a catchment area for the nearest school, or during the school application process were some games played to get the rugrats into the "right" school so driving is the only option?

[Hackney]

georgeyboy12345 said:

I honestly think that if you have two kids or less, then you don't need anything bigger than a Golf

I test drove an F30 BMW 3 series the other day and I found it was needlessly large

We have two kids and a Focus estate.
I think a factor for some is that a typical ‘5 seat’ hatchback is very much a four seat car.
I’ve contemplated a (seven seat) SUV for those times when we need to take five somewhere. The alternative is two cars. Even when it’s just us four I can’t fit the kids bikes in the boot and take the kids, so it’s two cars to go to the disused railway track instead.

[mikebradford]

Started out with a mini pre kids.
That became too small so went upto a mk2 focus.

Since then never needed a car larger than our golf.
Kids are older now and both 6ft plus.
One is in the Royal Navy so never at home.

I've avoided the desire for a large 4x4 and like the convenience a golf size car gives.
Big enough for comfort, small enough to park.

[Blakewater]

DonkeyApple said:

JmatthewB said:

Easy to get in and out of is such depressing thing to have on your list of requirements of a car.

Or rather it is liberating if one is elderly and it extends your personal mobility or makes it more comfortable.

12m people over the age of 65. So about a quarter of the adult population. And as wealth comes with age and young adults are the least likely to own a car then as a percentage of drivers in the UK the percentage could even be higher than that.

Longevity means not only double the number in that bracket than 50 years ago but that more are living with mobility issues.

When viewed with logical eyes it's a cause of celebration and a long way from being remotely depressing.

What exact harm does a crossover, a jacked up hatchback do? What's the big issue with practicality? Surely more practical is better? A Boxster takes up the same road space as a typical crossover or mid sized SUV yet it can't transport a family, has extremely limited practically and tends to result in another car being needed. But people don't seem to have an issue with a Boxster taking up X amount of space yet a different shaped car, a more practical car that takes up no more space is somehow a problem.

The SUV hating brigade who say they pollute and cause congestion are partly responsible for their popularity as their hatred of cars in general has led to a war on speed and people enjoying driving. Now people drive more for practical reasons than for fun, they choose practical cars over fun cars. Speed and agile cornering are less of a concern than something comfortable over potholed roads and something that is easy to get themselves, their children and their shopping into and out of.