To think the law needs to change on 4x4s and Supersized SUVs in Cities.

[JustMint]

Unsure how, but today's news is just horrifying, these vehicles really need to be reduced in numbers in residential areas in my opinion. They are significantly heavier than smaller cars (I know that's stating the obvious) but who really needs a 4X4 in a city?

Last thread like this was created by someone driving a porsche cayman which has a bigger footprint and worse fuel consumption that most of the SUVs mentioned on the thread :) Just saying.

Well almost impossible to police round here . It is residential but also has lots of farms around. It small yon but links to the city 10 miles away

You do realise people die every day in accidents involving smaller cars??

Car manufacturers need to make cars that carry more people but that aren’t tanks. Where are all the sensibly sized MPVs or estates. If you have a larger family, three children +, you don’t have much choice. I force my smallest teenager to squeeze in the back of my car but my old discovery was way more practical.

We live semi rural. We use our land rover to pull the trailer full of equipment, to carry our canoe, to transport Scout equipment...
We also use it to take the kids to activities or do the food shopping.

And sometimes I use it to drive to London to visit my parents.

One car, multiple uses... I can't make it shrink in the city!

They already are bringing in huge fines in the form of ULEZ which should reduce a few.

I have two big cars but I do need them
and won’t be persuaded to give them up for anything!

Well, as someone who lives in London with no car (and manages just fine because I've adapted my lifestyle) I can assure you I am not driving any kind of SUV/4X4.

It's not about the footprint though - it's about size and weight and the danger to pedestrians, particularly children. Research shows smaller cars are safer to cyclists and pedestrians.

What a ridiculous "something must be done" thread - OP even admits to having no clue how it would actually work.

Nonsense.

@DoThePropeller I agree. And people need to understand that a car for multiple uses does not make it safer if they hit a person.

@Fightyouforthatpie I mean people had no clue about how getting men on the moon would actually work when that started, and look how it ended...

Cars should be as small as possible to do what they need to do. If you do a lot of towing, you need a decent estate or a 4x4. If you don't tow, you don't need one.

4x4s are also useful in hilly snowy areas. Estates are also useful if you have a dog and three children and a buggy.
Etc.

Cars should be fit for purpose. Not status symbols.

That's neither true nor in any way comparable.

Would you also ban buses and other large vehicles? As tragic as today's incident is, it wouldn't make any difference what the vehicle was.

Cars should be fit for purpose. Not status symbols.

Exactly.

The weight of the car has no bearing on how badly someone is injured by it if they get hit. You think the child wouldnt have died if it was a small car?

As sad as it is these sorts of accidents will happen, it is unavoidable.

In a way it would make more sense to have rhe daily emissions charge in London on the "status" cars rather than the 20yo banger that someone can't afford to replace...

@Dartmoorcheffy can you show me research that says it wouldn't have made any difference? Because physics tells us otherwise - larger vehicles are more dangerous to people outside of the vehicle.

And nope, I wouldn't ban buses - though I do think their training needs to be seriously improved particularly in regards to cyclists. I would love to see lighter, and better designed buses though too. Buses are designed to carry many, many people - there's a need for them. There's very few people who need a 4X4 in London.

Exactly.

@missmollygreen the weight of the car (and the speed, and the design) are absolutely what matters if someone gets hit... You think a featherweight car is going to have the same impact as a 2.5 tonne one?

Here we go again, this thread pops up more or less weekly.
Most new cars now come with anti collision detection technology that brakes for you if you fail to do so, it includes cars, vans, lorries, buildings, children, adults, cyclists, animals etc etc.

Hm so what about vans, lorries, trucks, not to mention larger cars, jags, Daimlers etc, they all are weighty cars, in fact if you go online and google even fiestas knock down walls, houses and people if driven fast enough

we don’t know what happened here, but Amy car could have caused that carnage

and we dont all live in cities with good transport links. Even rural villages are residential areas, are you saying everyone parks outside residential areas in a great big car park?

ridiculous

How are you going to define need?

And who, OP, do you propose is regulating people's freedom to purchase whichever vehicle they desire?

Agree with the OP. Large cars are At least 16% more dangerous

but who really needs a 4X4 in a city Farmers who drive into cities occasionally? I have a large 4x4 as I have a farm and a rural business. Sometimes, perhaps once a month if I'm really unlucky, I have to drive into our local city.