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?

I need my car. I'm disabled and I live rurally.

Or am I not allowed out and should be out in an institution like they used to do?

Love my AWD SUV, will not be going back to a different type of car for a long time yet.

How would those of us who live rurally and don't have gritted roads for miles and are disabled and need to get to hospital appointments manage without a 4x4?

The extremists don't believe in the country either.

It's silly because if people didn't drag the debate to extremes, most of us could probably agree on a few things.

I've to go to a city tomorrow for a hospital appointment.

I cannot get there on public transport coz it's crap here and wouldn't get me there on time. And fucknose how and when I would get home.

Am i supposed to keep two cars then?

Maybe the way round that is to zone car registrations into rural, suburban and urban and prevent the largest cars from being registered to urban addresses? You could have exemptions for blue badge holders and Motability leases.

Then rural SUVs could be driven in to cities for appointments and visits without an issue.

Oh yeah, I'm getting confused.

I agreed when pp said about banning all private cars. I envisaged exceptions though. You or another pp was asking about where would the benefit or increased access come from for disabled period through the banning of private cars but the fact is that if we took all the unnecessary ones away then people who really needed to use them for disability reasons or access would be rolling about on uncongested roads. There wouldn't be judgment because everyone in London in a car would have a valid reason for having it, but if you took the cars out the equation that are owned by fully able bodied people saving themselves a short walk, bus, tube or train commute the difference would be huge. The LTN model could be changed if it wasn't trying to exclude a constant flow of avoidable journeys. It would be a utopia of free moving necessary vehicles. It would benefit anyone with real need.

I'm fully up for a ppm scheme for private cars that don't qualify for an exemption that makes them untenable. Biggest factors determining what you pay being footprint and value.

I don't expect any government current or future to not completely fuck up the required increase in public transport infrastructure to make any of this really viable though. Everyone will get fucked over as normal

*Disabled people

So are you intending to penalise all the owners of estate cars too?

People who need the extra storage for work, disabilities ect.

Brilliant better tell my brother who is a vet and needs an estate or myself that has to carry alot of kit to do my job 🤔

I have a relative who has her own cleaning company, so has an SUV to cart all the equipment around.
Also a few people who need big cars for their wheelchair/mobility scooter.

But no, we don't need to ban big cars in urban areas because of one tragic accident. Small cars can do a lot of damage too. It is generally down to the speed the vehicle is doing. The faster the speed, the bigger the mess (to quote the New Zealand ad campaign about keeping your speed down).

Totally agree with you. If you’re the sort of person who buys an unnecessarily massive car to tootle around town, take up two parking spaces and badly reverse park into the middle of the road, then you’re not going to have any insight into why we all think you’re a twat

Also agree. Lazy entitled snowflakes.

Often, if not always, an estate will offer more load capacity than an SUV so there's no argument there I'm afraid. The difference is an estate is lower, more fuel efficient, safer and generally lighter.

You clearly don't understand physics. That's not a dig but clear from your comments. SUV's are no good to anyone as it ends up an arms race where people need to keep up, just to be equally safe. Think about it. The bonnet line is significantly higher than a regular car so an impact will affect a child at head or chest level. The design of car safety is based on pedestrians being lifted off their feet and onto the bonnet, which is much safer than being hit by a flat surface. For car crashes, those that drive SUV's put all other car drivers at greater risk as they render crumple zones and side protection less effective or completely useless.

You're right. Small cars can do damage too but an SUV doing the same speed will always do more damage due to higher mass and body shape.

Also, bigger heavier cars will generate more brake dust and tyre wear. These are more significant than exhaust emissions so overall there's no justification for SUVs in urban or any areas, unless your circumstances demand it.

I do. It's the only way I can get to work...what with living rurally with no buses or any other means of public transport.

There are other car options if you are disabled. A lot of MPVs are lighter, safer due to bonnet shape and roomier than SUVs. Estates and MPVs are a better option in most circumstances. You can get 4x4 estates too. I'm disabled before anyone suggests I am being abelist.

There are some people that probably need a land rover or a pick up rurally. But this thread isn't about you, it's about the vast majority who don't.

Car marketing has clearly conned a lot of people into thinking SUVs are a better option. What's really worrying is how easily people have bought into that, and now we have a car arms race going on.

@JeandeServiette if they're going to do that they would need to make the scheme a lot better than the blue badge scheme. The number of significantly disabled people who have been turned down for a blue badge is appalling and if it was at that level it would significantly discriminate against disabled people.

I can't get in and out of a normal height car. I had to change my car as my disabilities got more severe to one which was higher so that I could enter and exit the car.

I know what you mean. I have an issue with height too. I find MPVs better as my friends Range Rover is actually too high and I have to sort of awkwardly step up into it. It's a personal thing though. Plus I'm a bit of a short arse.

Like I said there are some people that legitimately need an SUV but the vast majority do not. It's not a the legitimate users that are the problem.

There's quite a lot of black and white thinking on this thread, there's also an lack of understanding being demonstrated on so many levels about physics and how physics actually work. This is also not the first tragedy where a child has been killed by an SUV/4X4. Naturally whatever happens allowances can be made for those who need it, the issue is people self certifying themselves as needing these types of cars when in reality there's much safer options on the market, and those options need to increase in availability to people wishing to buy things.

On the disabled point - I am disabled, so disability is not a carte blanche for needing to have an SUV. Whilst some do, many people with disabilities, particularly in London, don't actually have a car at all. So shouting "well disabled people need cars" actually ignores the experiences of all those who don't need a car, or who cannot drive for legal/disability reasons... Some people with disabilities do need a car, but not everyone.

We live in North West London and East London (we stay in North West London for childcare reasons with family), and both streets have around 80% SUV/4x4 ownership (possibly pushing up to 90%). The vast majority of those people do not need an SUV/4X4 yet they will find an argument to tell you they do.

This response is nonsense. Research demonstrates how much more dangerous 4x4s are to pedestrians. Why on earth would a smaller car be quicker?!

This is also not the first tragedy where a child has been killed by an SUV/4X4.

But you’ve still not been able to say how many of those would have been avoided if the car was an estate or MPV rather than 4x4

It’s all well and good saying everyone could be driving a Polo but anyone I know with a 4x4 has it because they need a big car. So if you banned SUVs, they would swap to a MPV or estate which are a similar weight and power

I know from around my way (rural) there are plenty of people who have larger cars who do not seem to be able to handle them very well in terms of parking etc. (I include myself in this- I have a small car but I am crap at parking).

But I really instinctively do not like the idea of dictating what people can and cannot do with their own money.

@JustMint

Your thread is pretty spot on but you're going to get a lot of resistance because I suspect a lot here own SUV's.

Personally I can't stand the bloody things and it's mainly because I'm an engineer and know how pointless they are. I hate that manufactures have started pulling smaller cars from their product lines in favour of SUV's, because they're so popular.

There are lots of high seated, safeer options out there. I happen to drive an i3 and that's a small, lightweight car but reasonably high seated and easy to get in/out of. A Honda Jazz would also be a great option and possibly why it's so popular with older drivers.

It's been pointed out many times on this thread that's it's not just the weight of an SUV that's the problem, but also the shape and bonnet height. Combined with more blind spots it makes them more dangerous for everyone else around them.