Why do people hate on SUV drivers?

colm_mcm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

At least one UK motor insurer gives discounts to cyclists, given the evidence showing that they are safer drivers.

I hope the SUV driver's WhatsApp message was worth it.

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/1381982779802484736?s=19

What does that story have to do with anything?

AndrewJRenko

colm_mcm wrote: »

What does that story have to do with anything?

It helps to answer the question in the thread title.

heroics

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It helps to answer the question in the thread title.

Does it not just show a judge dislikes SUVs?

heroics

heroics wrote: »

Does it not just show a judge dislikes SUVs?

Apparently more so than people being distracted by using their phones while driving.

NSAman

So basically we all hate SUV drivers, Audi drivers, BMW drivers...and don’t even mention the Prius drivers!

So should we all purchase Lambo’s?

micah537

NSAman wrote: »

So basically we all hate SUV drivers, Audi drivers, BMW drivers...and don’t even mention the Prius drivers!

So should we all purchase Lambo’s?

Oh god no. We have to hate anyone who spends more money on something than a normal person can afford.

You have to cycle to work or if you really need a car it must be a Dacia or 1.2 Octavia. Even EV vehicles are bad I think.

liamog

micah537 wrote: »

Oh god no. We have to hate anyone who spends more money on something than a normal person can afford.

You have to cycle to work or if you really need a car it must be a Dacia or 1.2 Octavia. Even EV vehicles are bad I think.

You are also allowed to hate cyclists, except for the ones who bought the bike in Halfords.

liamog

liamog wrote: »

You are also allowed to hate cyclists, except for the ones who bought the bike in Halfords.

Don’t forget, you have to be male, tall, and have a functional reason for driving an SUV, otherwise you should drive a Skoda.

AndrewJRenko

heroics wrote: »

Does it not just show a judge dislikes SUVs?

No, it specifically highlights the dangers arising to other road users from SUVs, particularly when the driver is a feckin idiot.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it specifically highlights the dangers arising to other road users from SUVs, particularly when the driver is a feckin idiot.

A fiesta can deliver a “knockout blow” to a motorcyclist, cyclist or pedestrian, if the driver is distracted by using their phone. Do we hate fiesta drivers for that reason?

AndrewJRenko

Dav010 wrote: »

A fiesta can deliver a “knockout blow” to a motorcyclist, cyclist or pedestrian, if the driver is distracted by using their phone. Do we hate fiesta drivers for that reason?

They can indeed. But they can't deliver a knock out blow to another Fiesta when taking off from the lights.

That's the difference.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They can indeed. But they can't deliver a knock out blow to another Fiesta when taking off from the lights.

That's the difference.

An SUV probably can’t deliver it to another SUV either, but a fiesta can to something smaller. Both the judge, and yourself are missing the obvious cause of the accident, it wasn’t that the driver was driving an SUV, it was caused by her being distracted on her phone. She’s an idiot for not paying attention, it’s idiotic to think it was caused just because she was in an SUV.

Anjobe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They can indeed. But they can't deliver a knock out blow to another Fiesta when taking off from the lights.

That's the difference.

Where does this "knockout blow" stuff come from - a self appointed expert in collision dynamics?

I was once rear ended by an 18-tonne lorry at lights while driving an old Renault 5. Apart from a bit of stiffness the next day I was completely fine, and the car wasn't too badly damaged either. It was certainly no knockout blow. Easily the worst rear-end collision I have experienced was being hit by a Citroen Xsara.

colm_mcm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it specifically highlights the dangers arising to other road users from SUVs, particularly when the driver is a feckin idiot.

It applies to any car.
The idea that the fact it was an SUV that destroyed the fiesta is entirely down to the meanderings of the judge, and not based on any examination of the car.

This was purely the drivers fault, the fact that she was driving an SUV is irrelevant. It’s as ridiculous as posting a drink driving case where the driver had an SUV.

AndrewJRenko

colm_mcm wrote: »

It applies to any car.
The idea that the fact it was an SUV that destroyed the fiesta is entirely down to the meanderings of the judge, and not based on any examination of the car.

This was purely the drivers fault, the fact that she was driving an SUV is irrelevant. It’s as ridiculous as posting a drink driving case where the driver had an SUV.

Momentum = speed x weight

Anjobe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Momentum = speed x weight

Your physics teacher would be crying right now!

colm_mcm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Momentum = speed x weight

Granted, but a Jaguar F-Pace weighs 1880kg. It’s not like that’s massively more than a large saloon like an Audi A6 weighs.

My reading of it is that this was a very low speed impact with minimal damage to the Fiesta. The victim was only after a payout for a rear impact the year before. Not saying the second incident didn’t happen, but the fact that she accepted a quarter of what she looked for initially would suggest that there was an element of exaggeration in this case.
The opinion of a judge based on the tiny little Fiesta and the big bad SUV doesn’t ring true for me. Modern cars like a Fiesta are incredibly safe nowadays. Obviously mass and velocity are huge factors, but the judges opinion on this is conjecture.

AndrewJRenko

Anjobe wrote: »

Your physics teacher would be crying right now!

He's long dead, but I'd imagine he'd be fairly pleased at the audience friendly language, and wouldn't be too concerned that my formula might be inaccurate for SUV crashes on the moon.

Anjobe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He's long dead, but I'd imagine he'd be fairly pleased at the audience friendly language, and wouldn't be too concerned that my formula might be inaccurate for SUV crashes on the moon.

Weight is not "audience friendly" language for mass, they are fundamentally different quantities. In expressing momentum as you did you have made another common but quite fundamental error and together they render your expression completely meaningless in any context, I don't think any self-respecting science educator would be happy with that.

blackvalley

Pythagorean wrote: »

If you've ever been on a twisty narrow road with a load of blind bends, and met one of these monsters barrelling round a blind bend at speed, nearly wiping you out in the process, I think you could be forgiven for hating the driver.

NEARLY WIPING YOU OUT !!!!!!!.
Sounds like a very serious accident. Hope your injuries weren’t too bad and that you are back on the road. Where did this major incident occur ?.

OR . Did you merely have to pull in to the left as a wide vehicle approached .

AndrewJRenko

Anjobe wrote: »

Weight is not "audience friendly" language for mass, they are fundamentally different quantities.

They're the same thing on this planet, right?

colm_mcm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They're the same thing on this planet, right?

In the context of this thread, a lot of posters are on planets other than Earth.

Anjobe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They're the same thing on this planet, right?

Nope, but it's not the most egregious error you have made, especially with regard to the application of momentum to collisions.

alias no.9

Since we're butchering leaving cert physics, in a stop start scenario, the kinetic energy is entirely dependent on the power delivered by the engine, for a given power delivery, a lighter car would have been travelling at a higher speed with the same momentum.
It is not in any way equivalent to the comparison of two cars of different mass travelling at a given speed.

AndrewJRenko

Anjobe wrote: »

Nope, but it's not the most egregious error you have made, especially with regard to the application of momentum to collisions.

Feel free to point out specific errors relating to this specific context if you like.

beauf

I think we all know that a SUV hits a much smaller car its a very one sided impact.

Maybe they should make smaller cars, with little ramps front and rear to take advantage of the SUV instability.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

I think we all know that a SUV hits a much smaller car its a very one sided impact.

If you get the angle right you can make it a two sided impact, you just have to get enough spin into the car you hit.

Anjobe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Feel free to point out specific errors relating to this specific context if you like.

We're going a bit off topic now so I'll leave you to work it out for yourself, but your error is not specific to any specific context, it is a quite general concept that many people have difficulty with.

kirving

Anjobe wrote: »

Weight is not "audience friendly" language for mass, they are fundamentally different quantities.....

Nobody in the real world actually talks about velocity, mass, or luminance. They talk about what speed they drive, how much they weigh, and the brightness of their phone screen.

Getting into a formal discussion on physics gets absolutely nowhere as there are too many variable for an accurate discussion. In general though, for a given collision a larger car will cause more damage, not just due to weight, but also because it can tend to hit vulnerable areas of the smaller car.

Even Mercedes have recognised this as an issue, and their new S-Class can actually raise up before a collision in an attempt to better protect occupants.

Anjobe

kirving wrote: »

Getting into a formal discussion on physics gets absolutely nowhere as there are too many variable for an accurate discussion

This is not actually true - it is perfectly possible to model collisions between cars using physics, but not if you dumb it down to the point of meaninglessness and ignoring the vector quantities does just that.

What I do agree with though, is that introducing momentum into the discussion was just a silly attempt to justify a post containing an ill-informed opinion that happened to reinforce the posters own.

JimmyVik

forestgirl wrote: »

It can be annoying in a car park when an suv parks beside you its difficult to see when trying to reverse out of a parking spot if you are in a car.
Maybe it's because they think they are more superior in their piles of junk, I have driven basically everything so I have my own opinion but I'd just like others perspective

Most haters are just jealous tbf.
And that goes for everything, not just SUVs.

liamog

In all seriousness of that judges comments, the victim of the mobile phone using driver was awarded €15,000 which included €1,500 of material damages and expenses.
I would not use the phrase "knock out blow" to describe €1,500 worth of damage to a car.

liamog

liamog wrote: »

In all seriousness of that judges comments, the victim of the mobile phone using driver was awarded €15,000 which included €1,500 of material damages and expenses.
I would not use the phrase "knock out blow" to describe €1,500 worth of damage to a car.

There is also a good chance the €15000 would have been awarded irrespective of the type of car being driven by the person who rear-ended the Fiesta.

liamog

Dav010 wrote: »

There is also a good chance the €15000 would have been awarded irrespective of the type of car being driven by the person who rear-ended the Fiesta.

The rest of the money is non-material damages, with the way crumple zones are designed it's not difficult to do €1,500 of damage when rear ending someone.

Given the driver appears to have drove into the back of the first car as the lights turn green, I'd guess they just accelerated without looking to see if the first car had moved off. Normally you tend to see these kind of incidents at roundabouts, the type of cars involved probably made little to know difference at all. Engine power rather than momentum did the damage.

betarayjay

as a current SUV driver all i can say is i'm glad i made the switch but tbh as a driver in general ders plenty that bothers me 1. been people that drive into parking space and end up taking 2 spaces, 2. you park in an empty car park like completely empty and some fool goes and parks right beside u not even a space between us i do be like seriously all this open space and you park right beside me......

maddness

30 pages of this...

JimmyVik

betarayjay wrote: »

as a current SUV driver all i can say is i'm glad i made the switch but tbh as a driver in general ders plenty that bothers me 1. been people that drive into parking space and end up taking 2 spaces, 2. you park in an empty car park like completely empty and some fool goes and parks right beside u not even a space between us i do be like seriously all this open space and you park right beside me......

I have a mate who always parks right up beside cars that take two spaces out of mischief.
His car is a wreck so he doesnt care about dents

NSAman

maddness wrote: »

30 pages of this...

Actually its 23 but who is counting?

We all hate SUV drivers, Prius Drivers (well thats obvious).. but love dem skoda's

sebdavis

NSAman wrote: »

Actually its 23 but who is counting?

We all hate SUV drivers, Prius Drivers (well thats obvious).. but love dem skoda's

Hate Skoda

Now splashing Skoda across the back of them just makes them 100 times worse....

I seen one lad had desperately tried to colour in the Skoda with black so it didn’t show up on his black Kodis**t...says it all

colm_mcm

sebdavis wrote: »

Hate Skoda

Now splashing Skoda across the back of them just makes them 100 times worse....

I seen one lad had desperately tried to colour in the Skoda with black so it didn’t show up on his black Kodis**t...says it all

You know half of them come with black badges?

Calahonda52

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56723560
Chelsea tractors

Louis Friend

sebdavis wrote: »

Hate Skoda

Now splashing Skoda across the back of them just makes them 100 times worse....

I seen one lad had desperately tried to colour in the Skoda with black so it didn’t show up on his black Kodis**t...says it all

My sister has one of those and they’re lovely. What do you drive?

sebdavis

Louis Friend wrote: »

My sister has one of those and they’re lovely. What do you drive?

A tractor, looks better, sounds better and more comfortable

Louis Friend

sebdavis wrote: »

A tractor, looks better, sounds better and more comfortable

No it doesn’t, no it doesn’t, and no it isn’t.

FrankC21

A picture is worth a thousand words

Two "SUV/Crossover" Parked.



Reference:

Originally taken from thread
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058178089

magicbastarder

maddness wrote: »

30 pages of this...

simple solution - change your posts per page to 30 (i think the default is 20), and you'll only see 20 pages of this!

JCN12

FrankC21 wrote: »

And more times on the motorway they fckin tailgate you and flash you that I should give way to them acting like they own the road. Juke and ecosport are bloody horrible looking car hate the look of them.

You should give them the italian tune up Frank

garv123

FrankC21 wrote: »

A picture is worth a thousand words

Two "SUV/Crossover" Parked.



Reference:

Originally taken from thread
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058178089

Hi sorry to barge into this thread of yours, but can I possibly use the photos to post it on

"Why do people hate on SUV drivers?" Thread

Just to give prime example of SUV/crossover owners. If you don't mind?

Edit: do not worry will reference this thread for plagiarism purpose.

Prime example :pac::pac: People never crashed cars, or parked like a d1ick before crossovers came out ?


Prime example of Fluence and Fiesta owners..

magicbastarder

are those two cars not just mating?

liamog

I just see two cars that are standard car width parked closely next to each other.
Was somebody planning on using the vertical space at the top of the cabin for an alternative reason, in which case the fact they are crossovers would of made a difference?