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.
So which is it, “the environmental impact of personal transport” or “SUV’s vs normal cars”?
The latter. Thread topic is clearly there in the title.
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.
No, not othering anyone - this is completely true, but also very obvious. I think you misunderstand my motivation here, I'm not 'othering' anyone. Most of us are motorists, few of us drive the most efficient car possible. I'm just saying that SUVs are less efficient than normal cars and so usually represent one more poor choice among many that we all make, including me.
Don't try and brush it away by whatabouting and complaining about being condescended to. Fact are that SUVs are a less efficient car design. That's it. Very obviously not the only factor in motoring emissions or in your lifetime carbon footprint. But there really aren't many good reasons to buy one - so don't.
FFS who kicked this shit off again
Emm I was a co-conspiriter this morning. Was feeling way too chilled.
Next time I'll just kick a wasps nest.
FFS who kicked this shit off again
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
Thread should have ended at this beaut…
But they do like to keep on pissing in the wind 😉
This reminds me of the Jim Jefferies bit on guns.. 1m40s in.. just replace “guns” with “SUVs”. **** off I like SUVs 🤣
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
No, not really. My carbon footprint isn't that low. Just saying, SUVs aren't a good choice. You make it, you come to terms with it rather than whingeing at people who point it out.
Just saying, SUVs aren’t a good choice. You make it, you come to terms with it rather than whingeing at people who point it out.
Personally I am more concerned by the increased risk to other road users rather than pure carbon footprint.
Its the bleating about how they have better visibility and feel safer whilst reducing it for everyone else which is irritating. The entire holier than thou attitude of why dont you protect yourself in the same way.
Although that said the "ohhh my car is more efficient" holier than thou attitude whilst ignoring it could be rather more efficient without the aerodynamic penalties does grate.
Although that said the “ohhh my car is more efficient” holier than thou attitude
Not sure if that's aimed at me but my car isn't that efficient*, there are probably plenty of SUVs that'll match it.
The large size argument, yeah that's fair although there are still plenty of small SUV shapes that aren't big at all.
What irritates me is when companies have all this energy saving tech, then they design a car around them; but then they go 'ok let's make it taller and less efficient, so that people like thenloks a bit more.' What a waste. Of course there are many such wastages, but this one seems so banal.
* The one I own, that is. The leased one probably is one of the lowest emissions cars out there but it's going back soon!
I've stayed out of this one for a long while ... but I can't resist any longer. As someone who is very tall with a really bad back, I actually need an elevated (above the floor of the car) seating position with loads of head room.
Other than a van (my favourite car of all time was my Renault Kangoo van), which my better half refuses to allow for passenger practicality, there aren't many cars out there with lots of headroom that aren't SUVs.
I'd prefer to not have one, but as there isn't much choice, I do find mine better than many cars in terms aquaplaning (I do end up driving in some pretty woeful conditions), in the snow, and going up rough tracks (for canoeing and biking access).
If that makes me a horrible person, crack on and wade in. If not, try to be a little but less judgy if you've not walked in someone else's shoes for a while.
That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for having one. It’s not a want. It’s a need and one that can’t easily be fulfilled by a normal sized car. You’re an abnormally sized person, so it all kinda fits.
As someone who is very tall with a really bad back, I actually need an elevated (above the floor of the car) seating position
If you need it then there's no problem. No-one's complaining about you.
I don't think the majority of SUV drivers have bad backs or other issues though. Do you?
For most people - SUV = selfish, un needed consumption. Someone else’s problem, right?
People are like this.
Unfortunately most of us tend towards this.
Witness the row of cars sat idling outside my kids primary school.
Witness me in my EV being very carefree with miles covered when using works 4p/kw.hr power but really thoughtful when using public chargers.
People = all of us.
In a collision with an suv, presumably being high up and having plenty of mass yourself by being in another heavy suv means better chances of survival.
Given the number of suvs on the road the chances of being hit by one must be high.
If you can’t beat them join them…
does 2" of extra height make that much difference in an accident?
most of them do seem to have more than that added on to the bonnet area, for what appears to be aesthetic reasons, but that would seem to negatively impact pedestrian safety?
If you can’t beat them join them…
With more and more potholes (caused puncture in January) and more flooding (couldn't get to work in January without 10 mile detour) by the year I am still looking at Defenders (even worse than SUVs) so I may be joining them. I also notice that people in much bigger cars seem to expect me to get out the way/give way to them on narrow roads which is pretty much bullying driving - no doubt seeing an old Defender coming the other way would remove this...
