Two bigger cars crashing together is less safe than 2 small cars - more energy.
I’m sure I read that larger vehicles are more likely to have single car crashes, roll overs and slide and spin into tree/ post type crashes. Also they cause more damage to smaller cars due to increased mass and ride up over them causing further injury and death.
I think that report summed up they are safer in 2% of UK crashes.
So we will end up in an arms race unless limits are set. Given the need to be sustainable I’m surprised there is much resistance.
How much of the first two points were driven by environmental concerns or through an attempt to balance the latter?
Haha, none at all and I wouldn't claim that they were - it's purely co-incidental that my house isn't big and I have one child. I don't even feel the need to justify having a big car - although there could be an argument that my family has a smaller overall carbon footprint than many others that may have a small car? On the flip side, I couldn't give two hoots how big someone's pad is, or if they have 6 kids - freedom of choice.
Nobody has claimed to be paragons of virtue have they, I think I said my car is too big and inefficient. But I think some of us have simply accepted the need for changes and are happy to engage in discussion about what could be done, and what the practical implications might be, including some inevitable inequalities…
Railing against anyone who simply discusses changing from the current Status-Quo, labelling them as “Woke” (as if that’s an insult) and unrealistic isn’t really constructive is it? I assume you do this because you have a big throbber for cars?
But some people seem quite offended by the mere idea of fewer cars on the roads or making it more costly to run one.
I'm not sure about your first comment - some come across on here as though they are. Anyway, my intervention into this thread came about from the suggestion of banning SUV's and the suggestion of telling people what they could and couldn't drive.
I don't recall calling anyone woke, but happy to stand corrected. Yeah, I love cars - that said, I'd possibly have an Audi RS-GT e-tron. If I had a spare £90k
Fewer cars on the road doesn't offend me, the roads are overcrowded. Educating people is fine and encouraging them to use cars less, great - not being told you can't have a SUV just because you don't necessarily need one though.
Making it more costly to run isn't going to massively effect Tracey doing the school run in her range Rover though, is it? 1) she probably only does 100 miles a week 2) she can probably well afford it
Ignoring the comments about just passing it on to your customers - it massively affects people who need to do miles for business. Most people don't do big miles and consume lots of fuel for fun. The UK fuel duty is already huge anyway if you hadn't noticed
It's OK chaps after months possibly years of haranguing by you lot, I've sold my SUV this week and bought an estate car again 😉
Premier Icon
irc
Free MemberNo, they’re not.
They are. Crash safety ratings are relative to size. A 5 star small car is not as safe as a 5 star big car.
That’s not at all what that article states, nor is it in any way the truth. The “article” states that in a collision between a small car and a large car, that a small car comes off worst. What it does is reinforce the original point that some cars are just too big and too dangerous to everyone else to be allowed on the road. Crash tests are done against the same objects at the same speeds for all cars. A5* rating is a 5* rating. It doesn’t in any way relate to vehicle size except that (and as stated above) a larger vehicle has more energy and thus must absorb more damage for a given speed. Thus in a collision between vehicles of differing size and not an immutable object, they do perform better.
But if they didn’t exist at all, we’d all be safer and better off.
Ignoring the comments about just passing it on to your customers – it massively affects people who need to do miles for business. Most people don’t do big miles and consume lots of fuel for fun.
It wasn't my comment (in the same way it was bazzer labelling people as "woke" a page back) but the point stands, if it's a legitimate business cost, it will be passed on to customers and bourn where those business miles are justified, I don't see how that's a contentious statement that is how the world already works. Plus are you totally sure some of those "business miles" aren't done at least partly for fun?
Personally I'd be fine with a fewer sales reps on the motorways, but I accept heating technicians and joiners probably can't do their jobs so well via zoom...
The UK fuel duty is already huge anyway if you hadn’t noticed
You mean that "Fuel duty escalator" that's not moved for about a decade? Inflation is what drives fuel prices currently, along with everything else...
Honestly I'd be OK with being priced out of doing so many personal and commuting miles by car, so long as the revenue was put towards improving public transport and subsidising renewables... Like that would happen.
In reference to the original question though, yeah I agree we should not ban particular vehicles, we should just make the choice simpler by making costs truly correlate to impacts...
Chip shortages and short term car price hikes aside I think a looming downturn, flattened wage growth Vs more cost of living inflation and home energy hikes plus the 2030 end to ICE sales are going to combine and prompt people to reappraise their vehicle choices based on plain old financial prudence.
Anyone still considering a new V8 when we hit 2025 should probably be considered a lunatic or too rich for their own good...
Well I haven't bothered to red the whole thread. I assume the usual petrolheads making excuses for why they need a huge car?
If car drivers paid the true costs of their car ownership we would see many more small and economical vehicles.
Take parking? On street parking is public land monopolized by a few. That land is worth good money in towns and cities. Lets see the car drivers paying properly for parking
Lets see them pay properly for all the pollution caused
lest see them pay for all the illhealth and death caused
Damage to roads is as the square of the weight so lets seem them taxed on size and weight
An all those complaining that they have to drive all these miles - thats a business cost - pass it on.. yes it will make you more expensive - thats better than being subsidized by my taxes to pollute without penalty. Make the polluter pay
At the moment we run a huge subsidy from the public coffers to fund private motoring. Costs to the country from motoring - the cost raised from motoring taxes show that there remain huge costs paid for from general taxation
Crazy that as we teeter on the edge of a cost of living crisis, you want to push the price of basic goods up by increasing transport costs.
Plus are you totally sure some of those “business miles” aren’t done at least partly for fun?
I try not to worry about fuel costs for my fun miles, it's futile @ 11mpg
Here's, 16 cylinders, 8.4 litres of displacement and 900bhp of fun..... 🙂
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49123443658_0121a81dd1_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49123443658_0121a81dd1_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/QaNin3 ]2019-11-25_08-28-04[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
Thus in a collision between vehicles of differing size and not an immutable object, they do perform better.
You made my point for me more clearly than I did. Thanks. Many, if not most crashes involve vehicle v vehicle impacts not imutable objects. Where bigger cars are safer.
So much so that NCAP are tweaking their rating system.
"The changes have come about because of concerns that SUVs and larger, heavier cars cause small cars and their occupants to “fare less well” in real-world collisions."
"Historically SUVs and other big cars have offered very good protection to their occupants. However, the smaller vehicles they sometimes crash into can fare less well.!
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/352321/euro-ncap-crash-tests-undergo-biggest-change-decade
On street parking is public land monopolized by a few.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. Our street was built at the same time as the houses so the cost of providing the street parking was paid by the owners. The owners use the street they paid for (and the adjacent car parks) for parking. I fail to see the problem.
Many, if not most crashes involve vehicle v vehicle impacts not imutable objects. Where bigger cars are safer.
Which isnt really a plus since it is externalising costs onto others and also risks a red queen race scenario where to feel safe we will end up with everyone in US sized suvs.
Perhaps owners of smaller cars should be given the option of a remote weapons station to even the odds.
freedom of choice.
Your freedom of choice has limits, that's what you don't appear to realise. Necessarily so, because we live in a society.
Yeah, I love cars – that said, I’d possibly have an Audi RS-GT e-tron. If I had a spare £90k
I love cars too. But I would never drive a huge polluting thing. I'm feeling very guilty about the Merc which is a 2.1L and only does at most 50mpg. I'd dearly love a 3.0 V6 one, I daydream about what it would be like to drive, and going by Autotrader prices I could sell mine and get one for basically no cost, but I won't because it's even worse on fuel.
I love cars too. But I would never drive a huge polluting thing
The e-tron is an EV
My current Audi above doesn't do many miles at all and if I wasn't driving it, someone else would. Now that's a strawman argument 🤣
The Disco, if I try....
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51859482038_f4a83e6162_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51859482038_f4a83e6162_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://www.flickr.com/gp/85252658@N05/nM7f7b ]2022-02-03_09-10-02[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr
Not too bad for a 2.5t 300bhp 3litre brick
That said, in not trying to justify anything. I don't drive particularly environmentally friendly vehicles, it's a choice I've made - for now. No doubt that may change in the future
The e-tron is an EV
Maybe an eV but its still too big & unnecessary, which has environmental costs.
Maybe an eV but its still too big & unnecessary, which has environmental costs.
That maybe so to a certain degree, but they are now making cars that could tempt your typical corporate director out of his huge fuel burner and you're still not happy.
The problem with very large SUVs, EVs and very large luxury cars is that the general public actual pay to subsidise their use. Despite the fact that they do substantially more damage, use more resources to build and consume more energy in use, the cost of car tax, fuel duty, VAT is essentially the same. We tax high rate earners more, as it's seen as a fair response to increased wealth, should we not also tax high rate users more? Some of that is covered in fuel duty, but it still doesn't cover size/weight/resource...perhaps it should?
The cost of my car tax (2004 BMW 330i Touring) is over £350 and I only do 1500 miles per year. I spend more on tax than I do on fuel. My car isn't particularly big, heavy or thirsty.
What it does is reinforce the original point that some cars are just too big and too dangerous to everyone else to be allowed on the road.
Be interested in your views of vans, buses and lorries on the roads...
And for me, bigger car = Passat sized, that’s a reasonable big size. I don’t think many people need more than a Passat or Mondeo estate, and there’s not a lot of fuel economy penalty on those.
Man picks what he drives and decides its the answer...
Be interested in your views of vans, buses and lorries on the roads…
...well for starters, they tend to be driven by professional drivers with a special license and specific safety training relative to the dangers of a massive vehicle, and are doing a task that necessitates their size. Meanwhile any old lowly skilled myopic limited attention spanned average uk crap driver can jump in a 2.5 tonne needless vanity death box and punt it down the road at breakneck speed...doesn't make much sense.
@molgrips - IIRC, there's a correlation between SUVs and rollover events. That's probably down to the physics of having a high centre of gravity.
On the topic of car size, many of the lanes near me were formally fine for traffic going in both directions, now can barely sit two SUVs side by side to allow oncoming traffic to pass. It's getting ridiculous with modern SUVs approaching WW2 tank size.
For example, walking down my road this morning at school run time, a car almost hit my arm with its wing mirror because the road is barely wide enough.
Despite the fact that they do substantially more damage, use more resources to build and consume more energy in use, the cost of car tax, fuel duty, VAT is essentially the same. We tax high rate earners more, as it’s seen as a fair response to increased wealth, should we not also tax high rate users more? Some of that is covered in fuel duty, but it still doesn’t cover size/weight/resource…perhaps it should?
We VED on emissions which roughly corresponds to a mishmash of engine size and power. Its not perfect but it does seem to roughly correlate with show-off cars paying more. e.g an economical low tuned cruiser pays less than a turboed up high revving hot hatch.
There is a bonus VED on new/nearly new cars over a certain value, which covers the "tax the rich more".
VAT on a new purchase is proportional to value
Fuel duty covers the equation of miles driven * efficiency fairly freely. Efficiency is going to be at least vaguely proportional to size and weight.
It may be interesting to note that the zEV sales percentage mandate from 2024 is likely to mean that manufacturers begin to drop small cars from their UK lineup.
At least then tafkastr wouldn't have to spend their time justifying decisions they clearly feel very self conscious about to the internet
We VED on emissions which roughly corresponds to a mishmash of engine size and power. Its not perfect but it does seem to roughly correlate with show-off cars paying more. e.g an economical low tuned cruiser pays less than a turboed up high revving hot hatch.
There is a bonus VED on new/nearly new cars over a certain value, which covers the “tax the rich more”.
VAT on a new purchase is proportional to value
Fuel duty covers the equation of miles driven * efficiency fairly freely. Efficiency is going to be at least vaguely proportional to size and weight.
A Range Rover SVR puts out (a claimed) 333g/km of C02 and pays £600 VED. A BMW 540i (181g/kg) with similar performance and more carrying capability pays £500 VED despite producing almost half as much CO2. The SVR weighs almost 500kg (half a tonne, or 7 full sized adults!) more. £100!
As I said earlier, a slight monthly increase in fuel cost isn't noticed by the people that buy these things, but at annual TAX should be so extortionate that they really have to think twice about buying one.
A recent Transport Select Committee report came to the conclusion that the coming switch to EV's will result in a £35 Billion reduction in revenue's taken from fuel duty and current VED's. It's such a major contributor to the tax take that its highly likely an overhaul of the system is on its way sooner rather then later. Pay-per-mile road pricing seems the most likely and it could well be 'sizeist' ... "The committee called for the system to be “dynamic” meaning that charges could vary depending on the time of day, the area in which people are driving and the type of vehicle being driven with the aim of modifying the future behaviour of drivers."
…well for starters, they tend to be driven by professional drivers with a special license and specific safety training relative to the dangers of a massive vehicle, and are doing a task that necessitates their size. Meanwhile any old lowly skilled myopic limited attention spanned average uk crap driver can jump in a 2.5 tonne needless vanity death box and punt it down the road at breakneck speed…doesn’t make much sense.
Professional Drivers? FFS what planet are you on, HGV's maybe but anything below that and it's your average Joe Public. And folk such as I can drive pretty much anything up to 7.5 tonne on a car licence.
That depends what year you passed the test though doesn't it...might be wrong but doesn't over 3.5 tonne require additional training post '97 test date. The heaviest EV SUV's are nudging 3 tonnes now so its not such an otherworldly point.
This makes interesting reading:Article
Always amazes me how good society is at at completely overlooking the detrimental effects mass car ownership bring as a whole due to our fixation on these fast and shiny boxes.
There are already various car classes in use round the world some of which we can pinch. The Japanese K car ( surely mentioned somewhere on this thread) is a good one. We also need a "light car" class thats below that. There is a UK sub 500kg category hidden away somewhere. I think that also has / Needs a power limit and probably electric only.
K cars for most folk who live in a town / city with the light car for urban only / second car useage. Business exceptions perhaps. Bigger cars if you want or live and work outside our conurbations Use the classes both for access into cities and for taxation.
Smaller lighter cars use less energy both in consumption and in manufacture. They also kill less pedestrians and cyclists take up less space in our crowded cities and wear the roads less.
lways amazes me how good society is at at completely overlooking the detrimental effects mass car ownership
Because they are outweighed by the mass benefits. Personal mobility and ability to carry large amounts of stuff.
As for the air quality argument....
"the UK is not what we would usually think of as a ‘crisis’. It can still be good to seek improvements in air quality, but only provided these are based on a careful analysis of the costs per life-year saved."
https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/does-air-pollution-kill-40000-people-each-year-uk/
At least then tafkastr wouldn’t have to spend their time justifying decisions they clearly feel very self conscious about to the internet
Self conscious? Errrr, yeah - no!
Just back from a ride and a Golf mk7 drove past followed about 30 secs later by a newish X5. The noise difference was barely believable. Noise pollution should be added to the list of reasons to ban large vehicles.
I was also passed by a Tesla and a 2018 Leon. It was surprising how quiet the diesel engine is when cruising. They were similar in noise levels and it was mostly tyres with a bit of wind whoosh.
Because they are outweighed by the mass benefits. Personal mobility and ability to carry large amounts of stuff.
Are they?
A large portion of the population do not drive, including everybody under the age of 17.
We have an entire generation of children who spend most of their time indoors, and a large factor in that is that it's too dangerous to go out, and public spaces have been given up to cars.
These issues also extend to those who do drive, who no longer interact with people in their communities, or get any physical exercise in their day to day life, which leads all kinds of physical and mental health problems.
And as a consequence of over-reliance on cars, we've created an infrastructure that absolutely depends on them. Which leaves the vast majority of people with little choice.
Cars are great. In moderation.
We passed moderation a long, long time ago.
I’m not disagreeing that a larger vehicle could cause more damage to a smaller car, but in my experience I am less likely to have that accident in the first place. When I am driving my van I can see so much more around me. Coming up to a junction , I can see further up the road and am pulling out in to , therefore less chance of pulling out in front of someone. I have to drive at lower speeds so single and dual carriageways , so that makes things safer for a start. Plus it’s a big vehicle , so other Road users should be able to see it easier.
These issues also extend to those who do drive, who no longer interact with people in their communities, or get any physical exercise in their day to day life, which leads all kinds of physical and mental health problems.
Using that logic dishwashers and washing machines should be banned.
As for the under 17s and other non drivers. Family cars. You don't need to be able to drive to benefit from cars.
Too dangerous to go out? Can't say I have noticed. My children managed to walk themselves to and from school from Primary 2 onwards without getting mown down by passing cars.
and a large factor in that is that it’s too dangerous to go out
Where's this? Some inner city shitholes, yes maybe aren't the safest place to wander around, but not the vast majority of the country.
As for the under 17s and other non drivers. Family cars. You don’t need to be able to drive to benefit from cars.
You don't. But as a trade-off they do lose all independence.
Where’s this? Some inner city shitholes, yes maybe aren’t the safest place to wander around, but not the vast majority of the country.
I have a young child myself, who I would love to see playing out on his own, making friends, just as we did when we were kids. But there's absolutely no way. There's traffic doing 30mph down a narrow residential street. And there's no other kids to play with because all their parents are worried about the same thing. The contrast was evident during lockdown when kids came out who I didn't even know lived in the street. And this is in a rural town, not some inner city shithole. I don't personally know anybody, from all different areas, who let their young children out alone. They simply don't feel it's safe. It's something we've normalised. And as a consequence it influences driver behaviour, who feel parents are being irresponsible letting their children out around the traffic.
Butcher +1.
It never ceases to amaze me the speed at which some people drive down our cul de sac, including one family who have young kids of their own who take the racing line down the street and brake hard onto their driveway
"No one should have to forgo everything, that’s not right, but being unwilling to sacrifice anything especially at the expense of others is criminal and should be treated as such."
Contradictory. Yes I know that you mean that we should give up some things but not everything but it's all too personal.
I feel really strongly that people should't be buggering up the environment by driving out to the countryside to ride their ebike when they have perfectly good roads at home where an analogue bike would be kinder to the country side. Now, am I selfish or are they?
Lets take most of the road transport off the roads. Starting with most of the commercial stuff that could go by rail. So what if we can't get it over night. Next week will be fine. The infra structure is there. Look at the netwrok pre Beeching. Stuff the fact that the rail way beds may not have the extra mm needed for modern standards, that's largely irrelevant. The roads would then be safer for all those cyclists who could then avoid driving to the country side.
Don't like my views? Touch, the kind and loving " we all have a right to a say" world we live in allows me to express my opinion.
If Covid had been Ebola we would have seen an end to many of our problems any way.
Sits back and waits for the howls of outrage. 🙂
Oh yeah.
Ban dishwashers.
I feel really strongly that people should’t be buggering up the environment by driving out to the countryside to ride their ebike when they have perfectly good roads at home where an analogue bike would be kinder to the country side. Now, am I selfish or are they?
I don't know about selfish, or just the typical STW moral high ground.
I've heard it all now, how dare you drive to the countryside trails when you have perfectly good roads on your doorstep. Have a word 🤣
Do you line on my cul-de-sac ? It's two drivers on my cul-de-sac that drive too fast, a mum and daughter. Daughter's moved out, so the corner curring on a blind bend and the speed is only a couple of times a week. Mum is a fosterer, so there are about 8 kids, including their own, at the house presently. She's in and out constantly in the car, but whizzing up and down. That said, their lot rarely play out front, unless the weather is really good. Neighbour at the other end has his kids out playing on the road regular, be it the bikes, balance bikes or RC cars.
She’s in and out constantly in the car, but whizzing up and down
Why not have a word?
Sometimes people are blind to their own actions.
She'll possibly tell you to **** off, but worth a try?
That’s the issue though isn’t it - I would happily try and approach it in a non confrontational way, but sadly my expectation is that I’d get a mouthful of abuse in return, and create animosity that I’d rather not have in my street. I think that’s more a reflection on society than people who drive too fast though
