Urban SUVs

Dades

Alun wrote:

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?

And if you ban SUVs from the road, what's next? Estate cars? Classic cars?

Where does THAT end?

prospect

I vote no also, freedom of choice etc. etc.

Can i ask a question though? (I suppose I just did eh!)

A few people are saying that in an SUV hits car type accident, the SUV driver is safer! (dunno if this is entierly true, but..) So they drive, or would drive an SUV.
If everyone does this, the number of SUVs will soon surpass cars (this is hypothetical).
So then we have a situation where nearly everyone has an SUV.

Here is the question:
Are you safer when you are driving a car, and have an accident with another car, or are you safer when you are driving an SUV and you have an accident with another SUV?

Because if my hypothetical situation comes true, then the people who now drive SUVs to feel safe, will have to get something bigger again!!!!

alias no.9

Hellrazer wrote:

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

Sorry to disappoint you but the santa fe is little more than a sonata in drag. Many models aren't even 4x4's. Obviously there are styling modifications that actually distinguish them from their lesser origins, nobody but rover would come up with the streetwise. You've bought into the image and you've been conned but you're not the only one. The Tucson in turn is an elantra in drag. You'd wonder why the salesmen wouldn't tell you this. Maybe it's because the sonata and elantra are about as desireable as a dose of the clap where as suv's are high fashion, you wouldn't want to dilute the image now would you?

As for seeing santa fe's every day that have been in major impacts, regardless of how the occupants fair in the impact, I'd rather not be in an impact than escape one unscathed. If there's that many of them involved in major impacts, you've got to question the safety of the damn things, don't you?

Gurgle

prospect wrote:

the people who now drive SUVs to feel safe, will have to get something bigger again!!!!

Humvees.

I'm pretty sure you can bang them off each other all day without anyone getting hurt.
On the downside, the world would run out of oil in 4 months if everyone started to drive Humvees.

BrianD3

prospect wrote:

Here is the question:
Are you safer when you are driving a car, and have an accident with another car, or are you safer when you are driving an SUV and you have an accident with another SUV?

If you're driving a well designed modern SUV (eg an X5) and you collide with another X5, your safety is about the same as if you were driving a well designed normal car (eg a Renault Megane) and collided with another Megane.

However, safety engineering in SUVs hasn't been a priority up until recently. They used to lag behind normal cars (some still do) and have only recently caught up. Ten years ago, if you collided two Isuzu Troopers/Pajeros/Nissan Patrols into each other both vehicles would suffer terrible damage. Whereas if you collided two ten year old VW Golfs together they would fare a lot better.

SUVs have also improved in their ability to avoid an accident. Some are better rthan others. An X5 will probably outhandle many normal cars.

However, SUVs may still be involved in more accidents not through any fault of the vehicle but because the driver has an "invincibility complex" about how safe his vehicle is and drives more dangerously as a result.

BrianD3

prospect

BrianD3 wrote:

because the driver has an "invincibility complex" about how safe his vehicle is and drives more dangerously as a result.

BrianD3

An excellent point.

edmund_f

would it be possible that a lot of the anti 4x4 is due to the 'soccer mom' syndrome. It amazes me how badly they are driven, and how much nicer the drive to work is during school holidays.It does annoy me to see a line of 20 cars with 1, maybe 2 kids in the back, are their kids so fat that they need a 4x4 to lug them about?.

Perhaps giving families a decent alternative to shuttling their kids back and forth to school may be a better alternative. That would mean that all the people driving 4x4's because they need them would not be lumped in with the soccer moms sterotype just because of the car they drive.

Hellrazer

alias no.9 wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you but the santa fe is little more than a sonata in drag. Many models aren't even 4x4's. Obviously there are styling modifications that actually distinguish them from their lesser origins, nobody but rover would come up with the streetwise. You've bought into the image and you've been conned but you're not the only one. The Tucson in turn is an elantra in drag. You'd wonder why the salesmen wouldn't tell you this. Maybe it's because the sonata and elantra are about as desireable as a dose of the clap where as suv's are high fashion, you wouldn't want to dilute the image now would you?

Alias as I said I work for Hyundai and as far as Sonata/Elantra in drag goes you are TOTALLY wrong.I havent bought into any marketing scam.I work for the company.I know the inside and outside of these cars like the back of my hand.The reason I bought one is because of their reliability plus the fact that I have an unlimited mileage warranty just for me though !!!!!

Like wise when I worked for Ford I drove a Ford,when I worked for Citroen I drove a Citroen--not because of some marketing scam but because I know what goes wrong and how to fix it and which is reliable.I drove a Puma which IS basically a Fiesta chassis with a different body on it but which is not what Santa Fe/Tuscon are--they are individual models built from the ground up.

As for Sonata/Elantra being undesirable---The two of those are 2 of the most reliable cars around.Reason they were not desirable is that Hyundai priced them too high and tried to compete with well established "executive" models like Mondeo etc.A few grand cheaper and they would have been a lot more around than there is.The Elantra diesel in my opinion is a better drive than a Mondeo.And this is from my experience with working for both marques.
Richie

Alun

edmund_f wrote:

would it be possible that a lot of the anti 4x4 is due to the 'soccer mom' syndrome. It amazes me how badly they are driven, and how much nicer the drive to work is during school holidays.It does annoy me to see a line of 20 cars with 1, maybe 2 kids in the back, are their kids so fat that they need a 4x4 to lug them about?

Not only that, but they then allow them to roam around inside the 'car' not buckled up thus negating the whole supposed benefit!

Alun

Hellrazer wrote:

Alias as I said I work for Hyundai and as far as Sonata/Elantra in drag goes you are TOTALLY wrong.

According to many motoring websites the '06 Santa Fe is indeed based on the Sonata platform. Of course they could all be wrong and you could be right .....

ferdi

The Atheist wrote:

What do you drive, Ferdi?

i'm a poor student, i have no car(if i did, it wouldnt be an suv), i cycle a push bike
but i still think i'm entitled to an opinion on the subject

alias no.9

Hellrazer wrote:

Alias as I said I work for Hyundai and as far as Sonata/Elantra in drag goes you are TOTALLY wrong.I havent bought into any marketing scam.I work for the company.I know the inside and outside of these cars like the back of my hand.The reason I bought one is because of their reliability plus the fact that I have an unlimited mileage warranty just for me though !!!!!

Like wise when I worked for Ford I drove a Ford,when I worked for Citroen I drove a Citroen--not because of some marketing scam but because I know what goes wrong and how to fix it and which is reliable.I drove a Puma which IS basically a Fiesta chassis with a different body on it but which is not what Santa Fe/Tuscon are--they are individual models built from the ground up.

As for Sonata/Elantra being undesirable---The two of those are 2 of the most reliable cars around.Reason they were not desirable is that Hyundai priced them too high and tried to compete with well established "executive" models like Mondeo etc.A few grand cheaper and they would have been a lot more around than there is.The Elantra diesel in my opinion is a better drive than a Mondeo.And this is from my experience with working for both marques.
Richie

First of all, you said you bought it for safety. My point was that it was in fact less safe that the sonata on which it is based on given it's higher center of gravity, reduced agility and longer stopping distances. My perspective on this is purely to challenge the myth that SUV's are safer than saloon cars.

My observation about undesirability is purely based on the slow sales and poor residuals for both models in this part of the world. It's funny how in the US, where the Sonata sells like hot cakes, part of the marketing of the Santa Fe is that it is based on the Sonata.

Have you anything to add regarding why so many santa fe's are involved in so many heavy impacts? You did after all claim to see the remains of such impacts every day. I stand by my earlier point that I'd much rather not be in a crash than walk away unscathed from one.

Dades

ferdi wrote:

i'm a poor student, i have no car(if i did, it wouldnt be an suv), i cycle a push bike
but i still think i'm entitled to an opinion on the subject

Everybody is.

alias no.9

Just to put this one to bed

They know it in the US

http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/features/2001overview/hyundai/santafe.tmpl

They know it in canada

http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/01santa_fe.htm

They know it in australia

http://www.motorpoint.com.au/hyundai_santa_fe.asp

Are you still convinced that I am totally wrong?

prospect

Well, based on alias' links, it looks like it is based on the sonata, in some way!

Hellrazer

alias no.9 wrote:

Just to put this one to bed

They know it in the US

http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/features/2001overview/hyundai/santafe.tmpl

They know it in canada

http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/01santa_fe.htm

They know it in australia

http://www.motorpoint.com.au/hyundai_santa_fe.asp

Are you still convinced that I am totally wrong?

Ok Alias---Apologies.Im coming from this from a purely service/parts point of view which is my area.If they say its built on the Sonata platform then ok Ill agree with that.But just one more thing--There are no parts bar SOME engine parts that are the same as a Sonata.Everything is different so I really had to argue the point whereas when I worked for Ford with say the Puma for example basically everything bar body panels could in some way be cross referenced against Fiesta.

Capt'n Midnight

prospect wrote:

Are you safer when you are driving a car, and have an accident with another car, or are you safer when you are driving an SUV and you have an accident with another SUV?

Because if my hypothetical situation comes true, then the people who now drive SUVs to feel safe, will have to get something bigger again!!!!

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

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

Don't know the SUV to SUV figure but considering they aren't safer than other cars in the same price bracket I doubt it , also the high centre of gravity and high impact point would suggest that a rollover is much more likey

LoneGunM@n

I voted yes .... I suppose one reason is because of the sol called soccer mom's .... It's annoying seeing a woman drive out of her drive in an SUV with 1 kid in the back and drive 2 minutes down the road to school, then turn around & drive back to the house again [saw it happen in Rathmines - school down from Des Cullen cars]!!

I saw a test done by Tiff Neddel a few years back where he demonstrated an SUV swerving at high speed to miss a stationary car in traffic ... talk about scary!! The SUV flipped and rolled!! Arguably it much safer to be in a crash in an SUV, but think about the poor folks in the other car or cars [in a roll situation]!!

As far as I'm concerned SUVs were built for a purpose & that purpose is not for carting kids/shopping bags to & from school/Brown Thomas!!

prospect

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

at SUV's are no safer that other cars in the same price bracket and probably worse than Saab / Merc / Volvo / BMW

Deviating slightly,

But isn't it funny that most people associate these cars with being the safest, when it seems to be that Renault top the safety polls! Or am i being sucked in by a marketing campaign ?

CJhaughey

I would have to say that most of the so called SUV's in this country aren't even in the same league as the yanks SUV's.
A big engine here is 3-4 litres over in the US they would call them economy models!The anti SUV lobby in the US was complaining about 5-7 litre vehicles like the Ford Excursion with 6.8l engines
I see plenty of Bmw/Mercedes with engines every bit as large as most 4x4 's driving around and no-one says anything about them.
why?

Alfasudcrazy

528i wrote:

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.

Yeah - I propose 528i for minister for transport

DubTony

A few years ago I read an article that claimed that an SUV crashing into a regular car was 4 times more likely to end with a fatality than a car/car crash. The fatality was almost always in the car. So while these monsters may seem safer for their driver and passengers, they can wreak havoc on other vehicles. As for banning them; I dont think so. We must have the right to choose what we want to drive.

I think the real issue is one of petty jealousy, primarily because so many of them are driven by women using them to drop off the kids and driving about 50 miles a week.

Taxing them at a higher rate won't make a damned bit of difference. There as as many Mercs, Beemers and Lexus out there as there Hyundais, Daihatsus and Hondas,. If someone can afford €60 to €80 K for a car they won't be put off by higher tax. With bigger engines comes higher road tax, and anyway, aren't those thing already loaded by insurance companies?

I drove a Pajero a few years back and the insurance was £400 more than on the Mitsu FTO I owned previously. It seems insurance companies are well aware of the damage SUVs/4X4s can do. Doesn't seem to be putting too many people off though. Personally I prefer to drive with my arse as close to the ground as possible.

Tony

BrianD3

I also don't believe that SUVs chould be banned, however I'd like to see some tighter control of who drives them. For instance - anything with a bumper height above a certain level and a weight above a certain level could be defined as an SUV. Drivers of SUVs could be required to do a training course before they'd be let loose on the roads. Maybe even create a separate licence category for SUVs.

People who genuinely need SUVs for work/recreation would have no problems with doing the extra training. Most soccer moms wouldn't bother.

Even now, some SUVs are close to the max weight that you can drive with a car licence. Some Land Rover Discovery models have an unladen weight of 2700 kg and a design gross weight close to 3500 kg. Anything with a design gross weight of >3500 kg is regarded as a small truck and requires at least a C1 driving licence.

BrianD3

Ernie Ball

I don't believe they should be banned. I do believe they should be taxed extremely heavily so that the owners bear more of the societal costs (danger for others, danger to the environment) of their use.

Balfa

Those last two posts by BrianD3 and Ernie Ball are the two best posts on this thread. Spot on opinions. I especially like the "bear more of the societal costs" thing. And extra training courses for SUV drivers would be great.

Looking at the poll as it stands (30-27 in favour of banning), i hope a lot of people are confusing the question "should they be banned" with "do you dislike them". I think banning is ridiculous. The greater the variety of cars we own, the more individualism we have. Tossors should be allowed to express their individualism by buying SUVs

As far as safety goes, anything that's bigger and has more metal to twist and act as a spring is going to absorb a lot more impact energy and generally be safer during a collision. This is somewhat (but not fully) offset by the extra braking distances and poor handling that'll get you in a collision in the first place.
Having said that, the design of a car's safety, on a minute scale, is a far greater deciding factor in its overall safety than the size of the car. For example, many new cars with crumple zones are designed to eject the engine (a generally non-deformable block of iron which is useless at absorbing impact energy) out the bottom of the car, raising the passenger cabin up and over it. Any car with this ability will be far safer during a horrendous head-on impact.

rooferPete

I had a Chevy SUV hired out in LA earlier this year, I can't remember the exact make and model but it was one dangerous heap of junk.

The only advantage was as a visitor I had some view over the cars in front of me so I could see the junctions and turns etc.

I honestly believe if I wasn't used to driving a Transit van I would have rolled the tank at least twice, the two were very frightening moments especially in a strange place where they insist on driving on the wrong side of the road.

From that experience it would get the thumbs down from me on safety grounds, as for their big engines ? what a joke the one I was driving had no pulling power and terrible acceleration.

I was buying petrol at two dollars a gallon but that tank left a sour taste in my mouth, three refills, none under thirty dollars in ten days and it still needed a top up on return.

I really appreciated my own car when I got home.

ferdi

we do not have the right to drink and drive as we are then a potential hazard to other road users.

we no longer have the right to choose to smoke indoors as it has the potential to damage the health of others.

why then do we still have the choice to drive cars which are more likely to endanger the safety of others in a crash situation?

CJhaughey

ferdi wrote:

we do not have the right to drink and drive as we are then a potential hazard to other road users.

we no longer have the right to choose to smoke indoors as it has the potential to damage the health of others.

why then do we still have the choice to drive cars which are more likely to endanger the safety of others in a crash situation?

You do have the right to drink and drive, It's just that if you are caught you will face penalties.
It is a personal decision just as driving a 4x4 is a personal decision.
If you were to ban vehicles purely on the grounds that it is "more likely to endanger the safety of others in a crash situation" then maybe Lorry's Buses, etc might be banned too no?

ds20prefecture

ferdi wrote:

we do not have the right to drink and drive as we are then a potential hazard to other road users.

we no longer have the right to choose to smoke indoors as it has the potential to damage the health of others.

why then do we still have the choice to drive cars which are more likely to endanger the safety of others in a crash situation?

Because our forebears fought and died for that choice? It's called a free society. All cars are more likely to endanger the safety of others relative to smaller cars or no car at all.

In 100 years time there is a good chance that there will be no cars at all, but for me, and I would reckon most people in a motoring forum, this is not a future I look forward to.

I wish I knew why I find this thread so irritating.

Ernie Ball

ds20prefecture wrote:

Because our forebears fought and died for that choice?

Our forebears died so we can drive SUVs?