[Tom_77]

Interesting piece in The Guardian about SUVs.

[quote]

Sold as a means of escape from the concrete realities of the modern world, a symbol of individualism and the pioneer spirit, the SUV represents instead a uniform kind of selfishness, a collective indifference to community to which, alas, we are all more or less prone.

[/quote]

 

Topic

[bikes]

How about taxing cars based
How about taxing cars based on size and weight. I think local councils should charge larger vehicles more for parking permits as well.

[chrisonabike]

wtjs wrote:

Time for more petrol duty, to discourarage these horrifyingly wasteful guzzlers.

What about electric ones?  If it’s a really heavy vehicle with a high front that you can’t see out of very well and takes up lots of space it might be slightly better for being “emit elsewhere” but that doesn’t fix the other issues.

Yes, I know, ain’t nobody (yet…) voting for / voting in a Westminster government that is terribly interested in fixing those problems.

[wtjs]

Time for more petrol duty, to

Time for more petrol duty, to discourarage these horrifyingly wasteful guzzlers.

[andystow]

What should the UK do?

What should the UK do? Hopefully better than Australia.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/15/australia-may-increase-standard-car-parking-spaces-as-huge-vehicles-dominate-the-streets

[chrisonabike]

Well you’ve already done

Well you’ve already done “careful now”… if it’s fun with definitions we want I was going to propose one or two of my bikes as SUVs.  They’re used for both utility purposes and as close as I get to “sport” (not very…) and they certainly transport me to “adventures”.

So why not ignore the categories?  With that bike (or other “chunky” but legal pedelecs e.g. the Rad Rhino etc.) apply the same rules?  So check safety (visibility from the driving position*), the expected impact to others / to buildings that it crashes into (times the expected frequency of this).  How space-efficient is it for moving people / stuff and if stored in the public space when not in use?

Why not apply “road tax”, that’ll make everyone happier that the situation is “fairer” **.  So some kind of axle weight tax on it same as is sometimes proposed for other (four wheeled) motor vehicles (IIRC road damage is proportional to the fourth power of that).  And users should certainly pay for the pollution / carbon emissions of the electricity used in powering it.

I doubt the cyclists will notice the imposition.

* the old “cyclists drive their bikes, motorists just ride in their vehicles”.

** I don’t think it will obviously.  Cyclists will still be cyclists, and in people’s way etc.

[Adam Sutton]

Mate, even the Gaurdian

Mate, even the Gaurdian article was acknowlding that the idea of what an SUV actually entails needs consideration. There is a huge difference between what passes as an SUV in the majority of cases compared to something like a Land Rover Defender/Range Rover or BMW X series.

Nothing was even being refuted, an observation was being made. What is laughable is the average comment from most on here is littered with logical falllices of every kind, so carry on.

Edit: maybe we should apply a super tax to this? It is being described as an “SUV” after all so should be lumped in with Cadillac Escalades and Hummers, same as the Kona I gave as an example or Ford Puma maybe.

https://road.cc/ebiketips/content/news/fiido-titan-an-suv-e-bike-with-claimed-250-mile-range-video-4945

[Adam Sutton]

You could alway plump for the

You could alway plump for the GTAm version which is lightened, it just happens to come with the 2.9 twin turbo with an extra bit of tuning as well.

[chrisonabike]

Adam Sutton wrote:

Adam Sutton wrote:

Modern cars have wider pillars and all suffer this to a degree, due to increased safety of the cabin, much as in the opposite way cars now are designed to deform in the right places in an accident. 

Obviously a concern for buyers. The modern one does seem to have swelled a bit, being almost half as heavy again. Perhaps another reason we need these wider pillars?

(Just an old grouch I guess, wondering what’s changed about cars and why.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2019/01/03/new-vehicles-keep-getting-heavier-or-are-they/
I’ll be complaining that bikes are getting lighter next! )

[the little onion]

Except WT bikes are not

Except WT bikes are not statistically far more deadly, polluting or damaging than normal road bikes. That’s the issue

[Anonymous]

“A strawman would be trying

“A strawman would be trying to equate American vehicles to the SUVs on British roads.”

Look at American roads, look at British roads, what do you see ?

(Definition of strawman: refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction)

[Adam Sutton]

chrisonatrike wrote:

Strange, I thought you might pick a bicycle as an example – I can’t think why…

I mean, clearly there is at least a subset of “cyclists” that are egotistical and need affirmation that riding a bike makes them better.

https://road.cc/content/news/study-cyclists-more-caring-drivers-community-issues-304755

[/quote]

I wasn’t familiar with the cars you mentioned, but I have say it looks like the Alfa Romeo Giulia has reasonable forward visibility.

Wikipedia (FWIW) does mention the Stelvio has large blind spots due to the door pillars.  From the pictures though I can’t say if this is much worse in the other model.

[/quote]

I would dearly love a classic Giulia, they are something special.

Modern cars have wider pillars and all suffer this to a degree, due to increased safety of the cabin, much as in the opposite way cars now are designed to deform in the right places in an accident. 

[momove]

Obviously there’s always this
Obviously there’s always this https://www.tyreextinguishers.com/news

[momove]

Agreed. I’d add that if you
Agreed. I’d add that if you chose to drive the journey, it should also be considered an aggravating factor. Choosing to perform an activity so dangerous it is only allowed under licence by the government needs to also be considered.

[chrisonabike]

Strange, I thought you might

Strange, I thought you might pick a bicycle as an example – I can’t think why…

I wasn’t familiar with the cars you mentioned, but I have say it looks like the Alfa Romeo Giulia has reasonable forward visibility.

Wikipedia (FWIW) does mention the Stelvio has large blind spots due to the door pillars.  From the pictures though I can’t say if this is much worse in the other model.

[Adam Sutton]

chrisonatrike wrote:

If you can think of a catchy word or phrase which more accurately describes “vehicle which is principally designed to safely transport fragile egos” 

Bicycle?

You will also find that again, when you are not fixated on American SUVs and RR’s etc, the sightlines as you put it, on many “SUV”s in Europe are better than the saloons they share a platform with. I have driven both the Alfa Giulia and Stelvio, both sharing the Giorgio platform, and the Stelvio “SUV” had noticably better forward visibility due to the increased headroom and higher seating position giving a better angle of view down the sloping bonnet. 

[Author]

Replies