Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not understand the obsession with SUVs/4x4s?

968 replies

GinDaddy · 10/09/2019 13:56

I'm genuinely curious to hear people's views below. Nearly every parent I know in my area has a 4x4 car of some sort. That's dozens of folk. The car parks at our local supermarket are covered in the things.

My AIBU is to ask, what is the obsession with these things? Why are they the "default" choice for parents now, considering so many folk can't park them properly, and our roads aren't set up for them?

I watched in amused horror yesterday as a lady with a Vauxhall Grandland X (yep...me neither) tried to park head-first in a bay in our local supermarket. The width of the thing was the issue, but once "parked", the rear of the car was practically touching the front of the neighbouring vehicle.

It was just absurd. Why is this car any better than an Astra estate, or in the same price category, a Skoda Octavia estate, both of which are narrower and better on fuel, and the Skoda which has extraordinary amounts of luggage capacity and legroom?

I think the answer is simple, it's an image thing. People feel their life is more exciting with DCs if they're in something that looks like it could climb a mountain at the weekend.

Only problem is, my DW and I find public car parks absurd at the moment as I find more and more of these hideous things parked terribly at every juncture.

The beauty of living in a capitalist economy is the prerogative of choice, helped by dollops of PCP finance handed out by every car dealer, meaning anyone can get into a boxy car on stilts.

But for goodness sake can people learn how to drive and park these things if they're going to be bought by everyone? Driving down streets with parked cars on either side is a game of "my car is bigger than yours, so move over", which is just embarrassing.

NOTE: I have no issues with envy here; we have a 6-year old estate car from a well known Bavarian marque with a three letter acronym. I don't ride 2mm off people's bumpers, and it serves our family's needs well.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 25/09/2019 22:25

Not very: it's fairly toxic. It's also very water-hungry.

Dumbledorker · 25/09/2019 22:33

I've just bought an SUV. It's on finance.
I'm a single mum of 3 kids and I cant buy a car outright. My reasons for choosing this car are as follows

  1. I saw it and I liked it

That's pretty much it.

mathanxiety · 26/09/2019 19:50

Back in 1992 my BIL in the US got a Ford Explorer. Its maiden voyage was a trip from Missouri to Wyoming. It seemed massively wide back then by comparison with other vehicles.

However, extreme vehicle length was still a thing in the US even at that point. My exMIL's car was 552 cm long back in 1992. Parking spots marked on streets reflected max lengths that were a good deal longer than average car lengths as the 90s went on. Most are a lot shorter than they were in 1992. A behemoth from the 1970s would have a tough time finding a street parking spot long enough nowadays.

I am sure that a car park that was laid out in 1992 wouldn't be fit for purpose now either. Where I live, car parks and streets are regularly resurfaced (thanks to snow ploughs and freeze/thaw action) and repainted, giving a chance to keep up with current trends in vehicle dimensions. People complain to management if the parking spots in a supermarket or mall are so small that damage to cars from doors opening becomes unavoidable.

The problem in the UK is that parking bay dimensions haven't kept up since the late 60s.
www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/features/motorists_are_being_squeezed_out_of_too_small_parking_spaces_1_3961768
Growing vehicle size is a significant issue for car park owners and drivers. Today’s Mini Cooper is 24% wider than the 1959 original, while the current Honda Civic is 18% wider than the first model launched in 1973.

I posted the dimensions of a 1968(?) VW Beetle compared to a current model upthread.

The problems people are seeing in car parks are not caused by 4x4s. All vehicles have grown bigger.

mathanxiety · 26/09/2019 19:54

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150402154836/www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/features/motorists_are_being_squeezed_out_of_too_small_parking_spaces_1_3961768" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20150402154836/www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/features/motorists_are_being_squeezed_out_of_too_small_parking_spaces_1_3961768
Sorry, link is here.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-38048793
Another article on parking bay size.

Sarah Lewis, from the AA, said the overwhelming majority of the organisation's members wanted the size of car parking spaces to be increased.

"We spoke to our members and over 90% said that they feel that parking spaces are too small comparatively to the size of modern cars," she told the BBC.

"There is nothing more frustrating than coming back to your car and finding it has been damaged."

Patrick Troy, from the British Parking Association, said the main problem was with older car parks.

He said: "There is no legal minimum size, there is a design standard which was put in place some years ago which is 4.8m by 2.4m. But it is just that, a design standard and a lot of car park operators use that as the minimum standard these days.

"The problem here is older car parks, some of which have been around since the 60s and 70s and aren't designed for those larger vehicles."

Drabarni · 26/09/2019 19:55

We don't see many of them round here, Grin
You can buy a dooer upper for the same price as some of those.
I always laugh if we visit friends in other areas the amount of people driving them.
They can't be very economical to run.
How much does it cost to fill one up?

j712adrian · 27/09/2019 15:46

Most of them are utterly unnecessary unless its to accomodate increasingly American-sized obese English people.

mathanxiety · 28/09/2019 06:25

Refreshingly original anti-American angle there.
Hmm

Hollycatberry · 07/10/2019 11:57

Although the thread is nearly full I think this guardian article kind of backs up what @GinDaddy started the thread about. The safety and environmental concerns are going to start turning the tide against these vehicles soon. Maybe a ban in cities would be a good place to start.

www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/oct/07/a-deadly-problem-should-we-ban-suvs-from-our-cities

"A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving"

INeedNewShoes · 07/10/2019 12:36

Thanks for linking that article Holly - I'm surprised by the stats and also didn't realise that so many people are opposed to SUVs.

(I'm not an SUV driver).

mathanxiety · 07/10/2019 16:53

Since the rise of SUVs and the rise of smartphones coincided, I am not sure the death rates for pedestrians can be entirely ascribed to SUV driving.

Hollycatberry · 07/10/2019 17:59

Huh? The studies are saying pedestrians are more likely to die when hit by an SUV because it causes upper body injuries which are harder to survive. It wasn’t looking at the reason why the collision happened. Whether the pedestrian was on their mobile or not would be irrelevant to the injuries sustained.

Why can’t drivers accept that these large vehicles can cause more harm and accept more care and responsibility needs to be taken with them.

mathanxiety · 08/10/2019 03:34

I was thinking drivers on their phones, whether texting or talking or checking weather, news, whatever.
Though of course since you mention them, pedestrians have been known to walk with their eyes glued to their screens too.

www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief86.pdf
From this pdf:
Drivers who fatally struck a pedestrian differed by age, sex and type of vehicle
Among the 492 pedestrians fatally struck by a motor vehicle:

  • Driver sex was known for 75% of pedestrian fatalities. Among these, 83% were struck by a male driver.
  • Driver age was known for 72% of pedestrian fatalities. Among these, nearly one-third (30%) were struck by a driver aged 18 to 34 years.
  • Type of vehicle was known for 77% of pedestrian fatalities. Among these, more than three-quarters (78%) were struck and killed by cars, 12% by trucks (excluding pick-up trucks), and 9% by buses.
  • Pedestrians killed in collisions with a bicycle were rare, accounting for 1% of pedestrian fatalities.

Looking at the tables:
Maybe we should be thinking hard about letting men drive in built up areas?
And we should breathalyse men before we let them walk around the city.

Scroll down to Table 5 to see that there isn't a lot of difference between fatalities between the categories 'SUV/Jeep/Van/Pick-up' and 'Car (other than SUV/Jeep/Van/Pick-up)'.

I am choosing NYC as a reasonable example of pedestrian/SUV issues because it is a very built up area, with many drivers from all over the world, plus buses and bicycles, and many pedestrians, including many tourists from all over the world as well as from rural parts of the US. (Wherever you go in the US you will see a coach bus from some city in Iowa).

The rollover stats refer mostly to accidents on the open road, and no breakdown of road conditions (ice, gales, for instance) is offered.

havingtochangeusernameagain · 14/11/2019 09:46

Just saw this in the Times today: www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/soaring-demand-for-suvs-exacerbates-climate-crisis-kbpj5mpzg

Have copied and pasted the article for those who don't have a subscription:

The increasing demand for sports utility vehicles is eliminating the emissions savings made by those who have switched to electric cars, the global energy watchdog has warned.

There has been a sixfold increase in SUVs since 2010, from 35 million to 200 million, and they now account for 40 per cent of new car sales, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

It said that nearly all manufacturers had increased advertising of the cars because they tended to provide higher profit margins.

The share of motor sales in Britain taken by SUVs rose from 21 per cent in 2014 to 39 per cent last year, according to separate analysis of industry data by the green group Transport & Environment. Four of Britain’s top ten best-selling cars last month were SUVs — the Nissan Qashqai, Ford Kuga, Kia Sportage and Range Rover Evoque.

SUVs consume 25 per cent more fuel per mile than a medium-sized car because of additional weight and poorer aerodynamics. They were responsible for all of the growth in oil demand, of 3.3 million barrels a day, from passenger cars between 2010 and 2018, with total fuel consumption from other types of car falling slightly, the agency said.

If the sales trend continued, SUVs would be responsible for an additional two million barrels of oil a day by 2040, offsetting the savings from nearly 150 million electric cars. The IEA said the car industry planned to offer 350 electric models by 2025 but they would mainly be smaller cars as SUVs were “harder to electrify”. It forecast that global annual sales of electric cars would rise tenfold by 2030 from two million last year. Even so, electric cars would still account for less than 7 per cent of the world’s fleet.

The agency’s annual World Energy Outlook report said: “Unless there is a major change in consumer preferences, the recent boom in SUV sales could be a major obstacle towards developing cleaner car fleets.”

Boris Johnson pledged yesterday to invest an extra £500 million in rapid charging points for electric cars to ensure that drivers would never be more than 30 miles from one.

SUVs have become the second fastest rising source of greenhouse gas emissions globally after power generation, according to the IEA.

Almost half of all cars sold in the US are SUVs, although the agency noted that “this trend is universal”, making up 42 per cent of sales in China, 30 per cent in India and 27 per cent in South Africa.

SUVs produced 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide last year, a rise of 544 million tonnes on 2010, higher than the growth in emissions from heavy industry, lorries, aviation and shipping. The IEA said that male and younger drivers were more likely to buy SUVs.

The AA said that cheap car finance was partly responsible because it meant that more people could afford an SUV. The government’s decision to charge a standard rate of £140 a year in road tax after the first year for all cars, regardless of emissions, had also reduced the incentive to buy a more fuel efficient car.

Luke Bosdet, an AA spokesman, said that lack of gritting in winter prompted some people to buy SUVs while for others the motivation was “a bit of keeping up with the Joneses”.

Greg Archer, UK director of the campaign group Transport & Environment, said: “The growth in SUV sales is the main reason CO2 emissions from new cars have been rising. This is making it harder for carmakers to achieve targets for reducing emissions.”

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said drivers valued SUVs for their “style, higher ride and commanding view of the road”. It said that average CO2 emissions from new SUVs, or “dual-purpose” cars, had fallen by more than 43 per cent since 2000.

TheVanguardSix · 14/11/2019 10:06

Land Rovers- the bigger the better- in West London.
Instarage. Right there.
What bothers me is how even the most obnoxious SUV is modestly dwarfed by the HUGE Land Rovers in our area. West Londoners do not need mahoosive Land Rovers. It's ridiculous! And it's always- sorry!- some overly made-up, 25-year-old mum of 1 (three-month-old child) in the back seat, barrelling down narrow London roads, ready to kill other children, take out other mothers cycling/walking along the pavement, with the front end of her Baby on Board battle tank.

I'm sorry but I have yet to actually observe someone who knows how to drive a Land Rover in West London. They ALL drive like total assholes. All of them. If you drive one, you KNOW you cannot defend yourself or your lethal driving skills.
My neighbour has one. I swear, there's a dent a week in her car. She can't drive it. I cycle everywhere and I see her barrelling around in her Land Rover. She cannot fucking drive the thing. It's 6 months old, dented on both sides because... she can't drive it.

tillytrotter1 · 14/11/2019 10:52

The safety features are second to none - 16 airbags, all sorts of gizmos that ensure you don't crash, like keeping the same distance form the car in front at all times, not allowing you to veer off to the side on a motorway (the steering wheel gently moves you back) and all sorts of other things like this.

To be honest if you need 'gizmos' to take over such basic driving skills I'm not sure you should be driving at all!

tillytrotter1 · 14/11/2019 10:56

I'm sorry but I have yet to actually observe someone who knows how to drive a Land Rover in West London.

Not just in West London. I was once asked, aggresively, to move to another parking space as she couldn't easily reverse her Sherman tank-like vehicle and wanted to drive through!
It's amazing that you can take a test in a Corsa on Monday then go out and buy one of these on Tuesday.

Diamondsandjems · 15/05/2020 15:43

@ LaurieMarlow

Only now got around to reading this post as I’m very busy.

Just wanted to post a reply

😂

user1471505494 · 15/05/2020 16:25

A normal estate car won’t tow a trailer through mud ice or snow. I will keep mine thank you

New posts on this thread. Refresh page