You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
just one that’s not particularly suited to the ground clearance needed around here</blockquote
The funny thing is - I'm not even sure your trolling any more I think you actually believe that.
I don’t really care how people see me personally. I never saw cars as status symbols, or as a reflection of someone’s wealth
But you do, you accuse them of being jealous when that's the last thing they feel and make these feelings public on a bicycle forum where SUVs will objectively be seen as more life threatening than regular vehicles because they are, the insurance premiums and accident stats tell you that..
SUVs have their place, there are loads of 4x4 pickups in the local ski resort because the gravel tracks around the place have been built to suit them. The gradients are what a 4x4 will climb, the surfaces are gravel and ruts are only filled in when the 4x4s have trouble in them. I've never seen one of those 4x4s in town, they get parked up and the workers drive home in cars more suited to use on tarmac. Same with the Pisten Bullies, they get used on the pistes then parked up at the end of the shift and the drivers get in their 205/Clio/Scenic on Winters to poddle home.
I don’t really care how people see me personally.
And yet you felt the need to repeatedly spew out the rubbish that everyone is jealous of someone who has a suv because it is allegedly a premium vehicle.
The rest of your "arguments" are equally incoherent and it seems like there is some serious projecting going on.
IF you’re rationally objecting to SUVs in urban environments – what are these people supposed to do when they leave the urban environment, pack their kids and (maybe!) bikes/kayaks/sporting equipment
The tool of choice amongst the paddlers I know is an estate (if they have a family and lots to carry or go seakayaking. otherwise its whatever so long as it has a securely fitting roofrack). Its an arse lobbing a boat on anything taller even if you have some of those cool thule lift assists.
Bikes you have a bit more flexibility with a rear mount but even so an estate would generally win.
Y’see, I used to live in your utopian space
I don't even know what this means. I don't live in Utopia, if I did I wouldn't have to keep reminding people (or
myself) to make better choices.
Over the years I’ve hugely reluctantly come to the horrible realisation that it’s 100% up to Governments to legislate if anything meaningful is going to happen.
I agree. That doesn't remove the moral obligation that we all have though.
Nope. This anti-SUV thing is really about one thing: Jealousy.
How can it be jealousy when most of us on here could easily afford an SUV?
Chevychase you are talking bobbins and trying to justify your choice. Admit it - you like SUVs and don't give a crap. If that makes you feel bad, then you either make a better choice next time or just stop caring. And you clearly care now, because if you didn't you wouldn't be trying to defend yourself.
what are these people supposed to do when they leave the urban environment, pack their kids and (maybe!) bikes/kayaks/sporting equipment
All my holidays are like this, I don't get stuck. Contrary to what advertising material would have you believe, you don't need high ground clearance and 4WD to engage in outdoor pursuits. In fact, leaving the car behind is largely the point in most cases.
No. You don’t have to be jealous of the car to make an imaginary determination about the type of person who drives those cars.
I don't need to use my imagination, I live near a school: the SUV drivers are the ones flying the speed bumps, ignoring the Stop signs and parking on the pavement in front of the fire brigade access forcing kids on their way to school to walk in the road.
Of people with “more money than they need”. SUVs have an image of being owned by Chelsea mums, the Cheshire Set, the middle-class who “don’t bloody need that sort of car”.
Nah, really... Nah...
I know loads of people with more money than they need. They waste it on all sorts of cool stuff (I've a mate..prob one of the richest under 40s in the country, who's just ordered the new leccy porche for £100+k yet admits he doesn't like driving, and orders 3 coffees from Uber cos he can't be bothered to make himself one and 3 is the minimum order..) and I literally couldn't care less..nay... I'm kinda impressed...
Because that action doesn't harm those around him.. It's posh... And lazy... But not harming others.
Heck... I've just stuck pointless white rims on my Nissan Leaf cos they look cool...! And my OH and mates think it's daft, but cool....
So, it's REALLY not about jealousy, or concern over another's wealth. It's about the fact they are exercising a freedom that's NOT illegal, but feels mostly immoral..
DrP
Not at all – just one that’s not particularly suited to the ground clearance needed around here. It’s suited to long motorway miles. It’s low-profile tyres don’t deform like the tyres on the SUV. I *could* have got it up the lane, but why bother when I’ve got a better tool for the job?
Hang on, you've got a V60?
They're designed for Swedish roads, covered in snow, thousands of km of dirt tracks (grusväg)...
And mine just traversed ~30 cm of snow on a steep dirt track with the greatest of ease. In fact, 3 of my last 6 cars have been V60s (a C30 and two V40s have also got up and down snowy dirt tracks with no complaints)
They're probably better suited to that sort of thing than a CRV.
Admit it – you like SUVs and don’t give a crap. If that makes you feel bad, then you either make a better choice next time or just stop caring. And you clearly care now, because if you didn’t you wouldn’t be trying to defend yourself.
I'm not defending myself. I don't feel the least bit threatened. I'm just trying to make sense of the hate - because there's not a lot of data on this. Lots of cars are bigger, the DfT doesn't track a lot of stats, it's all hearsay. I simply don't see a lot of good reasons for the outsize dislike of SUVs - especially from a community that doesn't blink at the fact that half the people seemingly tool about in T5 transporters.
I don't even particularly like SUVs - despite owning one. Which I use to tool about bikes and kayaks and all my equipment (and find it better than the volvo to do that and a more pleasant experience (although I admit the volvo is hella comfortable)). I don't like cars in general to be perfectly honest.
In fact, the next car is likely to be a pick-up - why? Because it'll fill my SUV role (bikes / kayaks / equipment) and I'll be able to transport the smaller animals in the back if I need to take them to the abbatoir, I'll be able to use the chainsaw to chop up the storm-felled trees and throw them into the back without worrying about wrecking anything, I'll be able to do the other farm-type jobs I have to do around here now, and, not un-importantly, there's tax breaks involved.
So no. My posts are saying "justify the hate" - because I've not seen a lot of good reasons and even less backed up by solid evidence.
If it's not jealousy I'm not going to get hung up on that. It's certainly a bandwagon that's been jumped on though. Maybe other people can tell me why...
I simply don’t see a lot of good reasons for the dislike of outsize SUVs –
FTFY.
So no. My posts are saying “justify the hate” – because I’ve not seen a lot of good reasons and even less backed up by solid evidence.
You're clearly not looking because the first Google result points to the Guardian and this:
SUVs are a paradox: while many people buy them to feel safer, they are statistically less safe than regular cars, both for those inside and those outside the vehicle. A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving. Originally modelled from trucks, they are often exempt from the kinds of safety standards applied to passenger vehicles, including bonnet height. In Europe legislation is being brought in to end such “outdated and unjustified” exemptions.
I’m just trying to make sense of the hate
It's not complicated.
SUVs in most cases don't offer any benefit, and cost fuel. So we're all paying for a little bit of vanity. That's far from the only instance, and nowhere near the worst instance, but it'd be one of the easiest to fix. It's not like driving a normal car is any hardship whatsoever, for the majority. SUVs have a place, just not on everyone's drive.
And that moment of 'oh, it'll be alright, it's only a bit' is pervasive, people don't just do it once they do it all the time. And that really demonstrates the attitude that you can really do what you want, and that the consequences don't matter because you can just not think about it. I'm not excluding myself here, the reason I understand this issue is because I do it too.
@molgrips - looking at the data, we should be way more pissed off at "unnecessary" vans than SUVs - which aren't even separated out in the DfT data:
One thing we can all agree on tho - motorised vehicles are bad for deaths all round and we can and should be segregating and spending more on safe infrastructure. In that report the reduction of cycle deaths in London to single figures is a huge thing for example...
looking at the data, we should be way more pissed off at “unnecessary” vans than SUVs
Yeah. I was on the Ultimate MTB transport thread advocating normal cars over vans. They are a fair bit worse for fuel economy than a small SUV, and often they're an additional vehicle with all the associated manufacturing embedded environmental damage.
SUVs in most cases don’t offer any benefit, and cost fuel.
Given the average speed they are used at <30mph the "cost fuel" is totally lost inside the "how people drive" or "choice of tyres"
Yeah. I was on the Ultimate MTB transport thread advocating normal cars over vans. They are a fair bit worse for fuel economy than a small SUV, and often they’re an additional vehicle with all the associated manufacturing embedded environmental damage.
I can't fit 4-6 bikes in a "normal car" along with everyone's kit and tools .. and out of the 3 longer journeys I've made this year that would have meant taking far more cars. (e.g. 6 of us to BPW with van + Sharan)
and cost fuel.
Have you really considered what your decision to own a caravan and then buy something to tow it costs and compared that to someone owning a SUV they drive at an average of 25mph???
A stupid status symbol
This is an absurd thing to say. An Audi RSQ7? Yes - probably bought as a status symbol. Kia Sportage? Really, no. Bentley Bentayga? Yup. The 12 year old Quashqui I am about to get? In every single way absolutely not a status symbol.
Slightly off-topic but what would be suitable bike to go on a Ferrari Purosangue bike rack... Youtube seems to be full of drive videos from recent press event at Italy. 725hp from 6.5 liter V12, 393g emissions - now they are quite rare but might be sensible target for some additional taxation.
When is an "SUV" an SUV? Does the issue need to be with SUV?
Seem to be loads of just regular car with slightly increase in ride height and corresponding higher volume tyres and a bit of body styling, do these count?
I feel this needs a much more appropriate definition such as total volume of vehicle greater than XX mm^3 and/or mass greater than YY kg and/or consumption less than ZZ mpg.
Actually, no. I don’t have the patience or the time.
They have that effect. Welcome to the club.
Mostly just another inflated status symbol for the lizard-brained individual who needs to get looked at/feel big in order to feel better about themselves. They should spend it on therapy instead and save the rest of us the risk/climate breakdown/reduction of urban space, etc. The modern luxury SUV represents everything that is selfish and dumb about 21st century consumerism.
Mostly just another inflated status symbol for the lizard-brained individual who needs to get looked at/feel big in order to feel better about themselves. They should spend it on therapy instead and save the rest of us the risk/climate breakdown/reduction of urban space, etc. The modern luxury SUV represents everything that is selfish and dumb about 21st century consumerism.
Why? Why? Why? (See my earlier post - four hours ago).
Look at this and tell me nothing here is about jealousy.
Mostly just another inflated status symbol for the lizard-brained individual who needs to get looked at/feel big in order to feel better about themselves.
SUV owners just wanted an SUV. There are plenty of normal cars that are johnson-swinging head-turners and I can't see SUV's being in that bracket tbh.
The UK's obsession with cars, vanity and status needs to die. It's refreshing in France where everyone bashes into each other and nobody cares. I parked too close (like half a centimeter) from a guy's "something" the other day and he went apoplectic at me whilst his wife looked on very judgy. He had plenty of space to back out behind him but it was tight for spaces where I was so I fit in just nice.
It's just a ****ing car...
Hang on. I get pissed off if someone damages my car regardless of how cheap or old it is, for a few reasons:
1. If it has resale value, that harms it.
2. Damaged bodywork rusts and means my car will die sooner.
3. It looks bad from a purely aesthetic point of view.
They are indeed just cars, but some of them are nice, but all of them are expensive (to begin with) and need looking after so they don't get scrapped before they need to. What people need to do is value them more, so they get repaired, maintained well, and kept on the road.
The term 'uneconomical repair' is based on the idea that a repair costing more than the car is not worth doing. But this is not right, in my view. If a car is repairable and will be in a good state afterwards, then it's definitely worth it. The cost of repairs is the cost of running a car.
Yeah @molgrips - I don't really care how it looks. I also run my cars into the ground - nothing's been sold before 250k miles and normally to the scrappy because it really is beyond economical repair.
This guy went nuts because I parked close - and that's not exactly rare here. Frankly, keep it running - but we need to ditch the asthetics and status issues.
It's all bit like this nice couch:
🙂
I can’t fit 4-6 bikes in a “normal car” along with everyone’s kit and tools .. and out of the 3 longer journeys I’ve made this year that would have meant taking far more cars. (e.g. 6 of us to BPW with van + Sharan)
i've had 5 people and 5 bikes inside a mondeo estate before. 6+6 should easily be able to go in/on a sharan with no need for a van
SUV Bangernomics - how many baby robins does it kill?
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/following-on-from-my-400-bangernomics-500-volvo/
i’ve had 5 people and 5 bikes inside a mondeo estate before. 6+6 should easily be able to go in/on a sharan with no need for a van
Volkswagen Sharan 2015 MPV Petrol Manual 150 hp 150 g/km
Ford Kuga 2014 SUV Petrol Manual 150 hp 143 g/km
Ford Mondeo 2016 Hatchback Petrol Manual 160 hp 134 g/km
So for similar engine specs mondeo does have the better emissions figures of the three, but the sharan the worst, so everyone swap from hating suv's and start blaming mpv's instead.
chevychase
It’s refreshing in France where everyone bashes into each other and nobody cares.
It's the single most expensive item I own aside from my house, so why should I not care if somebody damages it?
It's also not true that nobody in France cares about damage to their or other peoples cars.
So for similar engine specs mondeo does have the better emissions figures of the three, but the sharan the worst, so everyone swap from hating suv’s and start blaming mpv’s instead.
I think you're missing my point - I was suggesting a van wasn't needed on top of a people carrier to get 6 people to a riding spot.
It’s the single most expensive item I own aside from my house, so why should I not care if somebody damages it?
I don't think the value even comes into it – I have a 16 year old Mazda - it's knackered and is on its last legs, but I still get pissed off when it gets dinged - it is *my* car and someone else doesn't get to choose to damage it and drive away assuming it doesn't matter.
Chariot of choice as a status symbol is a white Skoda SUV. One of my main motivations for choosing it rather the otherwise excellent Octavia Estate is to trigger as much reverse snobbery as possible from people I don't know 😉
[url= https://i.ibb.co/BnSVwV1/20181111-133704.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/BnSVwV1/20181111-133704.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
In reality, only the proverbial curtain twitching neighbours who have convinced themselves I choose a car to impress them and I am selfishly destroying the planet have an issue with it. Thankfully I don't know anyone like that and my neighbours couldn't give a shit as they don't judge other people based on what car they drive.
Btw, I had chosen it as I couldn't fit 2 bikes standing in the Octavia whereas it's a doddle in the Karoq using the dropper to secure the bike. This is in no way a criticism of the estate, I really like estates. They're just nowhere near as good at being family cars for my needs. They're longer so harder to park and have a bigger footprint, I really enjoy the slightly higher driving position, the balloon tyres, better ground clearance and longer suspension travel gives me access to places where the Octavia couldn't get without bashing the undertray or get stuck. It's no off road weapon on road tyres of course, just better for MTB needs.
WLTP for the Karoq 48.6mpg vs 52.8mpg for the Octavia. As I said, less than 10%, not exactly earth destroying particularly given my overall low carbon footprint.
{{{{{wrong link posted above}}}}} should have been my status symbol baby robin killing penis extension aspirational £500 ****panzer XC90
Chariot of choice as a status symbol is a white Skoda SUV. One of my main motivations for choosing it rather the otherwise excellent Octavia Estate is to trigger as much reverse snobbery as possible from people I don’t know 😉
It's a Skoda mate...
This is almost as good as the great Camping Mule/Slippers debate of 2018 on Middleclassbuyingdecsionsworld.
Such gems as:
What's wrong with keeping my carpets clean
Slippers aren't just for old people
Images of famous mountaineers wearing them on expeditions to the attic room.
I can't remember who won! I believe the camping mule team, sponsored by The North Face, went on to create the Don't ****ing Judge Me political party. They produced the definitive white paper Redefining Perceptions and Reframing the Narrative. Their activism efforts moved on to the important debate about the perception of shawl wearers in the modern world.
nickfrog - you have chosen your car for your needs. But, if everyone chooses that type of car over a family saloon, or small estate, then we are doomed.
The planet cannot go on giving human beings, bigger and bigger vehicles, fridges, telly's etc.
And yet the cars, fridges and TVs of yore were not only smaller but also less efficient than the modern equivalents.
nickfrog – you have chosen your car for your needs. But, if everyone chooses that type of car over a family saloon, or small estate, then we are doomed.
The planet cannot go on giving human beings, bigger and bigger vehicles, fridges, telly’s etc.
It replaced a bigger estate ;-). It weighs 1,269kgs DIN vs 1,450kgs for the A4 Avant. Even the saloon A4 is heavier.
You don't even know me so no idea about my footprint, kids, mileage, size of fridge or TV etc etc
For all we know your CO2 footprint is higher than mine and the planet cannot go on giving human beings the chance to have a greater footprint than mine with their family saloon.
I appreciate SUVs are an easy target though. As amply demonstrated by this thread it is essentially about misplaced perception, sweeping statements and virtue signalling.
it is essentially about misplaced perception, sweeping statements and virtue signalling.
AKA classic STW thread 😀
And yet the cars, fridges and TVs of yore were not only smaller but also less efficient than the modern equivalents.
Which skips over the minor detail that if we had kept the smaller sizes the efficiency gains would be greater.
I heard you can only listen to music from the Eurovision Song Contest in SUVs, is that right?
But if all the cars were smaller then how would you transport your precious bikes to where you're going to ride them?
start blaming mpv’s instead
A Sharan is the way it is because it carries a lot of people. If you have say 4 kids such a car is the most efficient way to transport them all. So it's a functional car. Mock SUVs aren't. They have the technology to produce nice efficient vehicles, but people aren't buying them because they don't look cool enough.
They aren't importing the latest Prius here in the UK, because we won't buy them. But we will buy CH-Rs.
For all we know your CO2 footprint is higher than mine
This isn't a personal argument. No-one's trying to be better than anyone else, so you can stand down. All I'm saying is that SUVs are generally a poor choice because they are often sacrificing efficiency for vanity. You might have a gammy leg, or whatever but I don't care about anyone here personally. I'm saying that in general, we all need to make good choices with regards consumption. Anti SUV sentiment is often on environmental grounds because people don't consider vanity a good justification for consuming more resources. SUVs are far from the only example of this, obviously, and they are also not the only place where people make excuses for their consumption.
I'm not excluding myself for any of this or directing it at any posters on here.
Me and my mates still transport 4 bikes on the roof of our cars - like normal ones, saloons. Four fellas, gear etc in boot, in comfort and no ladders needed.
I do have what's called a SUV in the house, but it's not as long or as heavy as my saloon, and the Mrs prefers it. It's also good for tip runs (where a traditional saloon is not). It's the 'big' ones that are not necessary.
My SIL calls their new Yaris X a SUV. It's ****in not, it's an ugly small thing on stilts, and smaller than their Prius.
Which skips over the minor detail that if we had kept the smaller sizes the efficiency gains would be greater.
Says the person who is wantonly wasting energy to argue the point on a web forum using their electronic device. Where do we stop?
Where do we stop?
About the time we sign off from work and go home?
#hereforthelolzoncoffeebreak
Even the FT says we should ban SUV's, planes, then cows. In that order. Am up for it.
https://www.ft.com/content/7612e3c0-0e10-4cfb-895d-40b2e5d083b9
I have noticed the other day just how much better an SUV is over our potholed and speed humped roads round here. Especially during the school run in a 20 zone.
Cows are useless for the school run anyway
Want to elaborate on the reference?
This thread is a perfect example of the STW high horse brigade out in force. Pathetic people trying to make themselves seem holier than everyone else.
SUVs are a choice people make for their own reasons, just like house sizes, plastic grass, far Eastern made clothing, 5.0 litre sports cars, wood burners, eating meat, smoking, buying plastic tat online, using Amazon, holidaying abroad.
Everyone has a reason or a justification for what they have or want, stop pointing fingers at random things and saying someone elses choice is worse than something you are doing yourself.
Even the FT says we should ban SUV’s, planes, then cows. In that order. Am up for it.
The 'financial' times said that.
I guess it's okay for capital to lecture everyone's consumer choices then?
I mean, the movement of capital and subsequent rape of the world might be higher up their list if they wanted to get really dirty.
No. SUVs are emblematic of the problem with all the other things you describe, the difference is that they have very few redeeming qualities nor does the vast majority of use necessitate them.
Climate change is at a state where all of these things that waste need to be called out.
People need to stop self-justifying their wasteful choices. Period.
I worked hard so I deserve this.
I don’t have kids so I can waste this,
I cycle everywhere so…
…and on and on.
NO waste should be justifiable. People have been shown to be very poor at self policing this so it’ll have to be cemented with law. Let’s face it NONE of us are really doing our best, are we?
Everyone has a reason or a justification for what they have or want, stop pointing fingers at random things and saying someone elses choice is worse than something you are doing yourself.
Ah, yes, that's right, only God can judge us or some pish like that.
Alternatively, don't let perfect get in the way of better. We can all do better, it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite to acknowledge that.
No. SUVs are emblematic of the problem with all the other things you describe, the difference is that they have very few redeeming qualities nor does the vast majority of use necessitate them.
I totally disagree. My SUV is far more economical than my neighbours' estate. It is lighter, takes less road space yet its boot is the same size, albeit a different shape that works better for me. He is the one wasting ressources unnecessarily.
Strange that people don't have any issues with wasteful estates. Or sports cars. Perhaps the anti SUV thing is an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.
I am assuming that your carbon footprint is as low as could be. No meat, no children, state of the art house insulation, no long haul flying, etc etc.
I find the SUV hate interesting here, when there is a thread discussing boy racer cars for middle aged men (Audi TTs etc..) it is enthusiastically received.
My experience is that most people who own SUVs drive them in town or when in the country drive to protect the lease return value.
The ones buying the old sports cars drive like complete idiots, typically on small roads. Then mock people who buy gravel bike for (off) Road riding as the roads are too dangerous.
Has anyone posted the notjustbikes video?
I totally disagree. My SUV is far more economical than my neighbours’ estate.
Cool story Bro. My 36" TV is more economical than my old 12" one.
Look, I can make out of context comparisons between two different things as well!
It is lighter, takes less road space yet its boot is the same size, albeit a different shape that works better for me. He is the one wasting ressources unnecessarily.
I assume that it's also more economical than whatever regular car it shares a chassis with? Or are we still comparing ducks with quarks?
Strange that people don’t have any issues with wasteful estates. Or sports cars. Perhaps the anti SUV thing is an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.
Ah, recycling that old argument. Still as true as it always was. You forgot to add vans to that list as well.
Has anyone posted the notjustbikes video?
Yes.
I assume that it’s also more economical than whatever regular car it shares a chassis with? Or are we still comparing ducks with quarks?
Nope, comparing like for like the SUV form factor based on same chassis/engine/box does typically use 10% more as amply demonstrated in this very thread. That might be a big issue for you, and I understand, but it is not for me. 50mpg vs 55mpg doesn't shock me. Particularly in regards to overall personal carbon footprint.
Just also focus on estates like the RS6 if you want to make a genuine environmental argument please.
Was going to buy an SUV but got an estate 'cos of this thread...
Mind you its a 340hp diesel estate, currently averaging 45mpg.
Not contributed to this thread last time it spent time on page one but to ask a question.
SUV.....is it a relatively new term?
Would a 'people carrier', a term we used to use a lot, like a citron picasso be counted as a SUV now? Is a nissan qashqai?
It just seems a very broad church from a Range Rover or Shogun to a Nisan Juke.
50mpg vs 55mpg doesn’t shock me. Particularly in regards to overall personal carbon footprint.
Just also focus on estates like the RS6 if you want to make a genuine environmental argument please.
Oh so basically you don't like the argument so I should go and pick on someone else? Close enough?
So I need to get rid of my 2009 honda CRV because it's an SUV and buy a new car which would take a shit ton of pollution to just simply build because you are saying it's wasteful to run it? 🤣
Oh so basically you don’t like the argument so I should go and pick on someone else? Close enough
Nah he is just pointing out how idiotic your argument is.
Given that one of the principal particpants in this thread drives an SUV (Kia-Ev5) banning cars on bodyshape will always be difficult. You should also ban VOlvos andAudi's as even tho' they look like estates they aren't as the boot space is useless.
Instead why not cap cars at 200Hp and 70mph? All the benefits and easy defined
Strange that people don’t have any issues with wasteful estates. Or sports cars. Perhaps the anti SUV thing is an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.
if you’d bothered to read the whole thread, I said CARS should be taxed on weight. Not shape.
Nope, comparing like for like the SUV form factor based on same chassis/engine/box does typically use 10% more as amply demonstrated in this very thread. That might be a big issue for you, and I understand, but it is not for me. 50mpg vs 55mpg doesn’t shock me. Particularly in regards to overall personal carbon footprint.
This is again wrong. Manufacturers emissions figures claim similar, but it’s simply not true. Pretty much every SUV is 200-250kg heavier than the car that it’s based on. A3>Q3, 1>X1. Etc.
The only SUV shaped vehicles that have almost comparable performance to their car equivalent are Crossovers, not SUVs and even those are usually 100-150kg heavier as they’re rarely taken with the very smallest engine. Qashqui are a good example of this.
Juke, Qashqui, etc are crossovers. SUVs are Q3, X5, XC90, etc.
Instead why not cap cars at 200Hp and 70mph? All the benefits and easy defined
Why not just allow each household a fuel allowance for driving, say 50 litres of petrol or 35 litres of diesel a month, and let them make their choices of car driven, speed, how far they can drive etc on that.
2009 honda CRV because it’s an SUV and buy a new car which would take a shit ton of pollution to just simply build because you are saying it’s wasteful to run it? 🤣
As with all things. It depends.
If you’re doing 10000 miles a year and replace it with something that produces more than 50% fewer emissions, then in 40/50k miles, it will have paid for its manufacturing cost in emissions saved within 8 years and thereafter is making a positive contribution…or at least a less negative one.
I have a 20y old petrol estate. I only do 2000 miles per year. Nothing I could replace my car with would be with the environmental cost of producing it. I’ll keep it running for as long as I can and make sure it’s as healthy as it can be.
So I need to get rid of my 2009 honda CRV because it’s an SUV and buy a new car which would take a shit ton of pollution to just simply build because you are saying it’s wasteful to run it?
No, you need to not buy one next time.
if you’d bothered to read the whole thread, I said CARS should be taxed on weight. Not shape.
No, shape is very important.
Instead why not cap cars at 200Hp and 70mph? All the benefits and easy defined
Indeed, why not?
My SUV is far more economical than my neighbours’ estate.
Once again. However economical your SUV is, it would be more economical still if its roof and bonnet were lower i.e. it weren't an SUV.
Nah he is just pointing out how idiotic your argument is.
And round we go again.
Science vs opinion round whatever...
No, shape is very important.
Weight is very important, speed is very important, distance is very important, engine size is very important, the list of very important things could get quite long. But you are just ignoring all the other things to focus on shape, cos science lol.
Can someone explain houses to me, I live in an apartment which is clearly adequate, houses look to be a massive waste of resources and environmentally damaging, so would I be justified in being condescending about the environmental damage done by people who live in houses.
The two main factors that determine the drag of a car are weight for lower speeds, and aerodynamic efficiency (frontal area x drag coefficient) for higher speeds.
So taxing based predominantly on these two factors because they are easily measured (unlike other factors such as engine efficiency/emissions - see diesel gate) makes sense. But the car manufacturers will resist that because it doesn’t work in their favour by creating loopholes that can be exploited
Weight is very important, speed is very important, distance is very important, engine size is very important, the list of very important things could get quite long. But you are just ignoring all the other things to focus on shape, cos science lol.
Who says I'm ignoring them?
This is about SUVs versus normal cars. The differences there being weight and aerodynamics. Whatever car you have, you need to drive it less and more efficiently, but that applies regardless of what you drive. You need to do all those things AND not drive a car that's needlessly tall.
You seem to be suggesting it's ok to drive faster if you have a more economical car? Or maybe if you drive fewer miles you are ok to drive a less economical one?
cos science lol.
That just tells me everything I need to know about you. Not worth wasting any more time on at any rate.
The reasons have been put forward, if the best retorts are BUT ESTATES! and SCIENCE LOL then no wonder the world's ****ed.
Can someone explain houses to me, I live in an apartment which is clearly adequate, houses look to be a massive waste of resources and environmentally damaging, so would I be justified in being condescending about the environmental damage done by people who live in houses.
This started out by pointing out that you need to make efficient choices, that means choosing an efficient car which is not usually an SUV. And that most SUV drivers seem to be making poor choices based on vanity. That's not condescension, that's just the way things appear to be.
Then people started doing mental gymnastics and whataboutery to try and justify their choices. If you're going to do that, then yeah you might get condescended at. Sorry.
Who says I’m ignoring them?
This is about SUVs versus normal cars.
So which is it, "the environmental impact of personal transport" or "SUV's vs normal cars"?
Or maybe if you drive fewer miles you are ok to drive a less economical one?
I am saying that for most people choosing to set life up to drive less miles will make a greater change than choice of car, but that will make it harder for you to "other" them.