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?

How is me pointing out your lack of reading skills showing a lack of respect to the families involved?

You need an SUV for all your off-reading, cool. You don’t need one to drive into the city. If I booked a trip to the wilds of Scotland, I’d hire a suitable car; if you are heading into Fitrovia, I suggest you do the same. HTH.

Because no one knows what caused the seizure, if that is what happened. Unexpected medical condition, known medical condition, or another cause.

I live in Cornwall and I’ve lost count of how many massive 4x4s can’t get through the lanes or are too big to fit past.

Every summer I try and avoid the lanes knowing that a 20 minute journey can take up to an hour because you physically can’t get past and have to reverse all the way back to the beginning.

I would understand it if there were lots of seats and they had a big family but the ones I’ve seen are normal 5 seater inside but just have massive body work.

There are so many that look just as nice but are more suitable.

I'd be in favour of an outright ban on these monsters. Nobody NEEDS an SUV. It's just a tacky and dangerous status symbol.

Quite. Apart from me (genetic throwback) my family are all extremely tall and manage to drive/travel in normal cars.

From her description, I can only imagine @CheswickMarritron's DH is significantly out of proportion ie tiny little legs and massively elongated body for his head to hit the roof?

I guess we'll recognise him if we see him.... 🙄

Car seats for starters. Multiple children all in seats for years and years.
My grandparents coped with their 4 kids by screwing a bench in the back or his van.

I drive a large SUV and live in a rural area. A rural area means I have to drive to cities to do/buy many things. I can only afford one car.

I do not need to pay extra insurance or undertake extra driving, or all of the other things you suggest. I can drive my 4x4 off road, in snow, through water when needed, which it frequently is. I can also tow the trailers I need to tow and reverse them when needed on both rural roads and in cities.

As I can only afford one car, that car is used for everything, yet you wish to restrict or charge me extra.

Accidents and/or criminal actions involving all forms of transports occur and will continue to occur, any loss of life is sad for everyone concerned, especially when children are involved but that does not mean other peoples lives should be curtailed or financially impeded.

Cars are now much safer to travel in, some are big, some are small but all are safer for the occupants. In addition, many tests are done on them to ensure, should they hit pedestrians they are also safer, but a car hitting a pedestrian normally means the pedestrian will fare worse - the only solution is to ban cars.

Knee jerk reactions are a plenty in life and they are normally not the right reaction and only ever cause further problems.

Where would London start and finish?
And what would people do if their journey is before/after the first and last trains or buses?
Or their journey on public transport takes 3 times as long or is more expensive.

I don't live in London, I use public transport to get to work (in London) but just because that works for me, I can't assume it works for everyone.

Well, congratulations on not being a farmer, archaeologist, groundsman, surveyor etc. perhaps we should just be banned from travelling other than for work? Or do you plan to buy us a second, smaller car?

Stop being intentionally oblivious. A great many of us need them. You and your life are not representative of other people's.

But again, this isn’t about you and your car. Anyone who needs an SUV because they live rurally can be catered for - any additional premium on SUVs could be based on postcode. N1? SW6? That’ll be an extra £10k tax, thank you very much.

SUVs should be banned IN CITIES.

Are farmers who technically live in London allowed SUVs?

My dh is also 6ft3 and we have never owned a car where his head hit the ceiling. And we used to drive a fiat panda which is basically a toy car.

Funny how these threads are full of people assuring us they need their SUV because they live rurally, yet one look at any wealthy urban or suburban street shows SUVs are ubiquitous.

DH and I have a tiny car each and our driveway looks utterly rebellious compared to the lines of giant SUVs on every other driveway on our very boringly affluent suburban street.

My DH, who has Parkinson's, can't physically get into or out of smaller, lower cars. I used to have a three row SUV for years, despite only having two children because DS, who is severely autistic, would be put in the back row so he couldn't hit me while I was driving. You wouldn't be able to tell any of that just by looking at my car and where I live.

Yes but this thread isn't aimed at you at all is it?!

Agreed, I have a Kia Picanto and 6ft 2 DH fits in it fine!!

How do you ‘technically’ live in London? Of course people who need SUVs to tow things or drive up hillsides should have them. But the twats who use them to drive their kids to school can get bent.

As a carless townie, how would you recommend we edge of town living country folk who need to move livestock and equipment about do that with one of
your small vehicles? It isn’t the vehicle that’s dangerous; it’s the driver.

Yet you say SUV's should be banned from cities - you cannot have it both ways, either people who have SUV's can go into cities or you ban them. Which is it?

So I am towing a trailer with my SUV into city, an ANPR camera thinks I shouldn't be there, I am fined or stopped from entering.

It is about me and my car, and about all the other people who have cars,including SUV's - one tragic action should not be used to curtail others lives.

As others have said EV are the same weight. A Tesla weighs the same as the LR Defender involved in the accident today - should both be banned? I expect if the Tesla had been driven today the same outcome would have happened.

Every car can be dangerous, irrespective of size, if driven incorrectly. Do not single out certain types.

FFS. Read the thread. No one is trying to take your utility vehicle. This is about the pointless SUVs driven in our cities by people who would rather pave over the countryside than step foot in some mud.

Yes, the driver is more than likely at fault, but a shit driver in a smaller, shorter car, is less dangerous than one in a heavy, high SUV.

While it is of course the driver that makes the car dangerous or not in the most literal sense, the reality is the inherent risk to others is automatically higher when your vehicle is bigger, heavier and shaped in such a way as to almost guarantee serious injury in collision, compared to the "default" car for the majority of people.

People absolutely have needs for it - rural work/tasks and hilly/icy/steep/etc. driving are obvious. Other perfectly logical examples like a previous poster with her very specific family needs. But the reality is, the bulk of people driving SUVs and similar cars in cities likely do not need them routinely at all. And those people shouldn't increase their risk of fatally injuring others just for vanity, which plenty do.

I do not think it can be stated that a bad driver in a smaller car will cause less damage than a heavy, high one. Smaller cars are normally quicker than larger ones, they also have less visibility, being lower down, which means not only can the driver possibly see less, a pedestrian may see the car slightly later than a higher one.

There are too many variants to make the simple assertion that smaller cars will do less damage - it is not as simple as that.

Automatic cars can be involved in accidents if people mistake which is the brake pedal, it wouldn't happen in a manual car, therefore should automatic cars be banned?

I can have it both ways, actually. Restricting SUV ownership amongst city dwellers could be done simply with additional tax at a punitive level. Those who occasionally enter the city in their SUVs for legitimate purposes would be exempt, or additionally taxed in some way that could be written off as a business expense.

‘me and my car’. You sound like a IS gun nut. Guns don’t kill people…cars don’t kill people. Yet you remove the guns, fewer people are killed. Restrict the cars, fewer people are killed.

As for Teslas - weird choice as they are almost universally hated these days - it may well have stopped itself depending on the level of AEB / active safety features engaged. So I’d say it’s a lot less likely that it would have happened.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the shape and height of a car really matter in pedestrian safety. Tesla's are heavy yes but you are more likely to be thrown up over the bonnet after a lower body impact of a saloon/hatchback due to the shape and height. SUVs/Pick ups have much higher bonnets which would impact a pedestrian at head height. They also hit in a way that means you are more likely to be pulled under the car and driven over.

This leads to a big difference in survivability.