Urban SUVs

ferdi

What do you think about people in Urban areas using 4x4s, SUVs, jeeps etc?

I think the practice should be banned unless you need it for business (and by this i dont mean the fatcat builders driving around in their '05 luxury Pick Up).

There is no need to drive one of these vehicals if your dropping the kids to school etc.

As you all no doubt know, if you are driving a normal car and are involved in a crash with an SUV, your chances of servival are far slimmer than if you had a crash with a normal car. The person in the SUV is far safer.

Personally i think everyone in urban areas should have to drive them (as they are fuel efficient) or no one should be allowed to drive them (as they are a hazard to other drivers during a collision).

your views please.

Dades

Perhaps if the government stops obstucting urban roads with unecessary ramps, people will feel less of a need for 4x4s.

Ramps are damaging for both cars and the environment.

And when they start banning certain types of car - it's the beginning of the end.

spockety

I'd say you're more likely to be involved in a higher speed or more likely to be fatal crash OUTSIDE urban areas, so maybe they should only be allowed inside cities!

ds20prefecture

ferdi wrote:

What do you think about people in Urban areas using 4x4s, SUVs, jeeps etc?
[SNIP]
your views please.

4x4s are an abomination on the streets, an affront to mankind, a thorn in mother natures womb.

They do, however, represent the freedom of choice of the individual driving them and this freedom is alleged to be protected by our so called democracy.

Who are you to call for them to be banned? If you don't like them, don't buy them. Feel free to ridicule those who drive them (I do) in the hope that this will make them unpopular, and thus the issue will go away.

I'm interested - how would you ban them?

Imposter

ferdi wrote:

As you all no doubt know, if you are driving a normal car and are involved in a crash with an SUV, your chances of servival are far slimmer than if you had a crash with a normal car. The person in the SUV is far safer.

If an SUV driver is in an accident with another SUV is it more dangerous than 2 normal cars crashing? I'd imagine it should be seeing as the higher position is the thing that helps in a SUV to car crash but it wouldn't be an advantage if 2 of these yolkeemajigs crashed together.

As for the original question there should be a huge extra tax put on them. Them and also those big transporter things (unless registered as taxis).

bazz26

ds20prefecture wrote:

I'm interested - how would you ban them?

Make them park at the very back of the shopping centres, i.e. the furthest parking space area from the entrance. This plus putting high kerbs around each space allocated should make them unpopular with every housewife with only one child who doesn't have a clue how to drive or park the bloody things.

impr0v

Didn't someone post a link here not that long ago of a crash test between a car and a Volvo XC90 which showed that the suv driver suffered the same severity of injuries as the car driver?

Dades

What do you drive, Ferdi?

For virtually any type of car you'll find a group with a thing against it.

And all the oil we can pull out of the ground, before it runs out, is going to get burned one way or the other.
No trendy cause is going to change that.

alias no.9

ferdi wrote:

As you all no doubt know, if you are driving a normal car and are involved in a crash with an SUV, your chances of servival are far slimmer than if you had a crash with a normal car. The person in the SUV is far safer.

It's the perception of being far safer in an suv than in an ordinary car that needs to be challenged. SUV's are less agile and manouverable and have longer stopping distances resulting in the ability of a driver to avoid hazards and correct errors being seriously compromised, creating an increased risk of being involved in an accident in the first place. In the event of an accident an SUV is more likely to roll given it's higher centre of gravity. In addition to this, the performance of many SUV's in crash tests is just a little bit disturbing. The difference between life and death in a car crash scenario is often the speed at which emergency services can remove the occupants from the vehicle and administer medical attention. I'm not sure who here saw comparritive crash tests being performed on top gear when they tested a land rover freelander and a ford fiesta. It was a 30mph, offset impact into a concrete barrier. The passenger cell in the fiesta held up quite well and the doors could open. The passenger cell in the freelander was buckelled and the doors would not open.

528i

Ban them all 'cept the X5 and new range-rover.. a bloody menace they are, wimen driving around oblivious to the whole family 3ft below in a fiat chiwawai that they nearly wiped out with a sudden prod of a stiletto.. ban rigid lorries & artics ta fluck too while your at it.. scourge on the oul windscreen of a wet day.

Balfa

I really hate SUVs (and i live in america, where they're much more common. ugh), but i think banning them is pretty ridiculous. You may as well ban every car except for the single highest scoring crash protection car on the market.

A much more useful thing would probably changing the taxing system. Tax large engines, yes, but put big taxes on personal vehichles over 1500kg and huge taxes on anything over 2000kg, and tax petrol higher (and diesel much lower), etc. Maybe even taxing urban cars based on length as well, as they add to traffic congestion marginally, but that's just another thing i'm throwing out there. i probably wouldn't agree with that tax

Also...

ferdi wrote:

Personally i think everyone in urban areas should have to drive them (as they are fuel efficient)

... what on earth is that? Do you think SUVs are more fuel efficient???

528i

and tax petrol higher (and diesel much lower)

I'd imagine around 90% of those 4x4's are diesel powered. What about banning diesels instead ? or sticking anodder 5c on the litre wuhahaha

Dades

Balfa wrote:

put big taxes on personal vehichles over 1500kg and huge taxes on anything over 2000kg

I'd prefer if they reduced taxes on smaller, lighter cars thanks very much.

BrianD3

impr0v wrote:

Didn't someone post a link here not that long ago of a crash test between a car and a Volvo XC90 which showed that the suv driver suffered the same severity of injuries as the car driver?

That was me. It was an XC90 vs a Golf Mk V. But in fact the XC90 did prove to be a safe vehicle. The driver would have walked away virtually unhurt whereas the Golf driver would have suffered leg and chest injuries.

But had the XC90 driver been in a big saloon (say a Volvo S80) instead of an SUV, he would have been just as well off and the Golf driver would also have been better off. Conclusion: 4wds are no safer than well designed large saloons plus they do more damage to other road users/vehicles.

Also, the XC90 is a very new design. Compared to new designs, older SUVs are substantially less safe for their occupants and are just as aggressive (possibly more so) towards other road users.

BrianD3

prospect

528i wrote:

I'd imagine around 90% of those 4x4's are diesel powered. What about banning diesels instead ? or sticking anodder 5c on the litre wuhahaha

Can't agree with you here 528i, I would think that most of these SUV's are petrol powered, particularly the 'posh' ones like BMW, Merc, Lexus.

Where as the landcruisers, and the defenders etc, are most likely diesel.

Hellrazer

Think I have to defend these SUVs.I work for a major manufacturer of SUVs and both myself and wife drive an SUV.

And yep the school run is done in the car.

The reason my wife got one was one of safety.SUVs can take a lot of damage in an impact,Ive seen first hand crashed/rolled SUVs where all the occupants walked away from the crash with minor injuries and Ive seen Fiestas,micras and even BMW,Audis with similar speed impacts where there have been serious injuries.
As a matter of fact one suv I had the pleasure of doing a repair estimate on rolled down an embankment "something like 5-6 full rolls" and all the occupants walked away from the crash unharmed whatsoever.

Which would you prefer?Your kids in a micra or a big safe SUV?I know what my answer is.

As for the gas guzzling-Some of these so called gas guzzlers have similar mpg statistics as your average family saloon car.My wifes one(Santa Fe 2.0 Petrol) has almost the same fuel consumption than her previous car(1.6 Grand Vitara).
And some of these "gas-guzzlers" are goiing to be the ones targeted for hybrid engines due to them having a lot more space to store fuel cells.

Just my 2 cent.
Richie

Gurgle

Hellrazer wrote:

The reason my wife got one was one of safety.SUVs can take a lot of damage in an impact,Ive seen first hand crashed/rolled SUVs where all the occupants walked away from the crash with minor injuries and Ive seen Fiestas,micras and even BMW,Audis with similar speed impacts where there have been serious injuries.

Saw a bit of Top Gear a couple of weeks ago.
I didn't catch the full article, but the gist of it was that what you're saying is an urban myth.

Hellrazer wrote:

As a matter of fact one suv I had the pleasure of doing a repair estimate on rolled down an embankment "something like 5-6 full rolls" and all the occupants walked away from the crash unharmed whatsoever.

The difference being that a proper car would have rolled down the embankment on its wheels.

- And don't get me started on the urban SUVs with pedestrian bars fitted.

2003 Hyundai Santa Fe gets the same rating as an 2002 Opel Corsa

alias no.9

Hellrazer wrote:

My wifes one(Santa Fe 2.0 Petrol) has almost the same fuel consumption than her previous car(1.6 Grand Vitara).

You're wife's santa fe, just like all santa fe's, are little more than a marketing scam. I bet they didn't tell you in the showroom that what you were getting is a hyundai sonata estate that's had the suspension jacked up making it less composed on the road. Don't kid yourself that it is any safer in an impact, just less likely to avoid one and more likely to roll. Just my 2c.

peasant

The only reason why SUV's are "safer" than normal cars is a simple law of physics. The heavier object passes it's momentum onto the lighter one in case of a collission. That's why you often see virtually undamaged school-run-tanks having totally mashed up another "normal" car. This is were they get their "safe" reputation from

On their own, dynamically speaking, they are less safe than a normal car due to high centre of gravity, inertia, etc. Later models might have similar crash perfomances than cars, but older models, esp. with seperate ladder frames don't fare well at all.

SUV's don't do anything really well (drive on road, drive off road, be practical, be econmical) other than being a fashion statement and an in-yer-face statement ...Mine's bigger than yours.

So with all that in mind, they offer no advantages whatsoever to 99% of their owners and should be banned, really (esp. the Porsche Cayenne !!)

But I voted against the ban for the same reasons that ds20prefecture has stated so eloquently above.

Having said all that, I happily drive my bonsai SUV (Jimny) eventhough it handles like a pig and probably isn't all that safe in a crash, just because I like it (and because I need either a four by four or a new driveway ).

mike65

You can't ban them, but you could make them subject to a "clean tax" ie if said 4x4 is'nt caked in mud they pay say 1000 euro a year to reside inside a city/town limits! Of course you could say 4x4 owners are higher taxed anyway as they get through more fuel as a rule and they cost more than most cars to buy and service.

Mike

BrianD3

peasant wrote:

The only reason why SUV's are "safer" than normal cars is a simple law of physics. The heavier object passes it's momentum onto the lighter one in case of a collission. That's why you often see virtually undamaged school-run-tanks having totally mashed up another "normal" car. This is were they get their "safe" reputation from

This would apply to some SUVs which are very safe (at the expense of doing horrendous damage to other vehicles) Examples of such SUVs would be the Range Rover, X5, XC90.

Other modern SUVs don't fare so well despite their weight. Check out this crash test between a Kia Sorento and a smaller, lighter, cheaper Golf Mk V. The Golf is also pitted against an XC90. The page is in austrian but the story is obvious from the diagrams and videos.
http://www.oeamtc.at/netautor/html_seiten/crashtest_kopfankopf2004/kopfankopfdetail.html

Turns out that in a head on crash, the Kia is very little safer than the Golf. I should point out that the Sorento is a bigger, heavier SUV than the likes of a Vitara or Santa Fe so I would expect them to be worse again. Were one of these Korean off roaders to hit a bigger normal car like a Volvo S80 or Renault Vel Satis I fully expect that the SUVs would come out worse. The only type of crash where I would prefer to be in one of these over a normal car would be a side impact, but only if it was a car doing the impacting, any advantages would be negated if it was another SUV.

BrianD3

peasant

According to that report the Kia is less safe because its ladder frame broke and allowed the Golf to impact deeper into the passenger area, resulting in more injuries for the Kia passengers and less for the Golf's.

Hellrazer

alias no.9 wrote:

You're wife's santa fe, just like all santa fe's, are little more than a marketing scam. I bet they didn't tell you in the showroom that what you were getting is a hyundai sonata estate that's had the suspension jacked up making it less composed on the road. Don't kid yourself that it is any safer in an impact, just less likely to avoid one and more likely to roll. Just my 2c.

Actually youre totally wrong there.No marketing scam at all--The Santa Fe can hold its own against other SUVs in its class.4 wheel drive,decent fuel consumption and overall a well built SUV as a matter of fact it was the best selling suv here for a good few years .I do know someone who works for Hyundai

As for it being a "jacked up sonata" Ive never heard such a load in my life.There is nothing (except for the timing beltand maybe an oil filter) that is the same as a sonata.

Im talking from my own experience here.I see Santa Fes everyday which have been in major impacts and the persons involved have walked away.Another example was a guy who hit a wall at 90mph drunk one night.Car was in s**te but he still walked away with minor injuries.Wouldnt have liked to be in a normal saloon car hitting a wall at that speed.And there are photos to back this up but unfortunately I cant post them up as there is an investigation going on at the minute.
Richie

Hellrazer

Gurgle wrote:

2003 Hyundai Santa Fe gets the same rating as an 2002 Opel Corsa

Erm--youre not comparing like with like there.Santa fe gets 4 stars in the SUV class of tests--corsa gets 4 stars in the Supermini class of tests.
Your comparison is inaccurate.
Richie

Alun

So what do you do when you and everyone else on the road is driving a SUV and you feel vulnerable? Buy a Hummer? A Sherman tank? Where does it end?

BrianD3

Hellrazer, anecdotal evidence when it comes to car safety isn't worth a sh1te. So some guy apparently drove his car into a wall at "90 mph" and survived? I can guarantee you that if you drove ANY car into something unyielding at 90 mph you'd be as flat as a pancake inside your car. Different story if the wall is weak and breaks whn you hit it or if you hit it a glancing blow etc. but then again people leave out vital details like this.

People are silly. The exaggerate and give wrong information and they have extremely poor knowledge of physics and engineering. Instead, they are fooled by clever marketing. The amount of times I've heard people say stuff like "I drove my VW Polo into a tree at 100 mph, I survived cause VWs are great in a crash, if I'd been in any other car I'd have been dead" :rolleyes: Load of bollox.

BrianD3

Rabies

I don't think they should be banned.

We have 2 jeeps. One is my fathers for work (commerical) and the other is my mothers for weekends (7 seater).

Both jeeps are needed. My father is often pulling heavy trailers and fuel bowsers and visiting sites out in fields or wherever. A car isn't practicle in his case. My mother only uses her jeep at weekends when she is taking my brother and sister to horse shows. It is needed to pull 2 horses, waste of time using a car for work like that. We got a 7 seater because often a few of us will go to the show and it saves more than one vehicle travelling. Our car is used weekdays for normal stuff, school runs, shopping etc... just to keep the 4x4 bashers at bay

I do think it is a waste to see people driving sh!tty little Freelanders, Rav4s and HRV/CRVs. Most of those would proably get stuck if they ever tried to go off road.

Maybe if there was a slightly higher tax on passenger 4x4 it would cut down on "soccer mom" syndrome that has taken over many people's lives. But commerical 4x4s should have a lower tax rate. Most are needed regardless of what many people think.

Hellrazer

Fair comment Brian.

But I did see the car and as I say Ive been working in the trade for nearly 10 years now and never saw a crash as bad as this one.

Car was wrote off and there is a garda investigation going on at present.Garda say if this guy hadnt hit the wall front on he`d be dead.Airbags/seatbelt tensioners saved his life.The wall was knocked down and the engine was pushed back into the passenger area a few inches but not enough to cause leg injuries.They reckon if it had hit a couple of inches to the right or left of dead centre it would have been fatal.It was a 90mph crash(according to the Guards) as this guy tried to outrun a garda checkpoint for drink driving.

BrianD3

Hellrazer, thanks for the extra info re: this crash. The problem is that most gardai haven't got sufficent expertise to look at a crash and give a reasonable estimate of how fast the vehicle was travelling when it hit. It may have driven through the checkpoint at what they *think* was 90 mph (may have been less, may have been more, they wouldn't know unless they used a speed gun on him) Anyway, IME people tend to overestimate speeds when judging them as outsiders and underestimate them when driving themselves.

Even if he was doing 90, he may have only been doing 30 at the moment of impact with the wall. Who knows?

BrianD3

stratos

Strangley enough in the good ol' U.S.A. the highest occupant fatatality group is the suv's. Most are single vehicle rollovers.

Capt'n Midnight

ferdi wrote:

As you all no doubt know, if you are driving a normal car and are involved in a crash with an SUV, your chances of servival are far slimmer than if you had a crash with a normal car. The person in the SUV is far safer.

The figures from the states suggest that the person in the other car is SIX times more likley to be killed. Also that SUV's are no safer that other cars in the same price bracket and probably worse than Saab / Merc / Volvo / BMW
Also SUV's are more dangerous to thier occupants in certain conditions because of the high centre of gravity, corners in this part of the world are sharper than in the states. Also because the drivers feel safer they take more risks.