6 ms·

Let's just say opinions differ here. I'm very much not in love with the idea of everyone driving around in massive cars. They take up huge amounts of space, bel

Let's just say opinions differ here. I'm very much not in love with the idea of everyone driving around in massive cars. They take up huge amounts of space, belch out pollution, and are much more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists when involved in collisions.

saiya-jin 6y ago
I hate SUVs with passion. Here in Europe, for long time we basically didn't have any (unless you really go to rough terrain, which 95% of SUVs here never do). Apart from football stars, eastern mafia guys and soccer moms. It became kind of fashion thingie for those who don't understand cars, or basic physics. Soccer moms love them, since they often don't have good driving skills, it puts them higher so they have better overview of the road (while blocking any view of those behind). Pollution, higher maintenance costs, much higher danger of car rolling during accident (and break your neck) be damned. Then there is category of these tiny 'SUV' (I think proper term is crossover), which are just bigger shopping carts, being a higher above ground. So from driving perspective, the worst combination - small, badly maneuverable car. We still have big wagons for those who are numerous / carry around a lot of things. These I prefer - they drive well, trunk space is enormous. Compared to most SUV which look big on the outside, but not so much inside. /rant
- NDizzle 6y ago
  So what do you use to bring your two softball playing girls to an 11 game weekend tournament? That you’re also coaching. And providing hydration for. And shade. And chairs, food, etc. Plus your wife and your 7 year old son. What do you use to take the same crew camping for 4-7 days at a time? I use the ever loving shit out of my vehicles. Keep that euro centric view of “not using big things” in Europe. Thanks!
  - danmur 6y ago
    I believe a station wagon was the suggested alternative. Love the attitude though :P.
    - NDizzle 6y ago
      Find me a station wagon that will take me on the rubicon. Until then I’ll keep my land cruiser.
  - emptyfile 6y ago
    Weekend tournament? We used to pack up our 5 member family and suitcases for 3 weeks at the seaside into a 2. generation Voklswagen Golf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk2 Us and every other family. I suppose the average american uses a 18-wheel cargo truck to go to vacation.
    - NDizzle 6y ago
      “At the seaside” so I guess you just bought coaching equipment when you got there, along with about 100 cold bottles of water. Got it.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        Cars can have trailers, roof racks, and people can rent large cars for the short duration they need them. Breathless one-upmanship aside it’s not unreasonable to go to places with water, or for multiple people to bring water.
        NDizzle 6y ago
        They literally won’t let us use water fountains right now. That’s for our own good. Wouldn’t want us getting the COVID!
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        bit strange to arrange a tournament in a place with no taps and no shops, but ok; “On average, a professional water delivery service will charge anywhere from $175 to $380 per truckload., and the average truck will hold 6,000 gallons.” - https://www.howmuchisit.org/pool-water-delivery-cost/ https://www.howmuchisit.org/pool-water-delivery-cost/ Could buy a lot of those for the price of an SUV, especially sharing the price between all the people. Inb4 the tournament is held on a remote mountain top inaccessible to tankers and hatchbacks alike and only accessible to 4x4s so there’s literally no other choice.
      - ric2b 6y ago
  - astura 6y ago
    I mean... a car? You aren't giving some outlandish requirements, all that stuff/passengers could fit into my compact sedan. I might need to get a roof rack for a trip, but that is much less costly than the massive difference in cost between buying/maintaining/operating/insuring an SUV vs a car. Growing up my family of five were able to comfortably fit all of us plus any luggage/gear in an early 80s subcompact hatchback.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    2 adults, 3 children, some drinks, some food, some foldable chairs, a tent or two? That easily fits in most cars unless we're talking about Smart's or sports cars.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  I dislike them too. You didn't mention that they also mostly diesel in Europe too. But I'm actually considering buying one (a petrol one). For a start, SUVs don't go off road. They are road vehicles. We had off-roaders for a long time in the form of Land Rovers etc. We called them 4x4s and they weren't really comfortable to drive on the road. I like the idea of having the right vehicle for the right purpose. If I had to travel to work by car (which I've done before and don't want to do again), I would like to drive a Mercedes "Smart" or VW Up, or similar. These are crap, consumable, plastic cars, but they do the job just fine. For the weekends? A sports car or hot hatch would be fun. For long trips and camping? An SUV would be great. SUVs and the much higher number of HGVs now also tear up the roads, which isn't great for your sports car. You'll have a better chance in an SUV yourself. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The problem is that, in the UK at least, it's really only possible to run one car for various reasons (even if you could afford the depreciation on multiple cars). So the SUV becomes the default. Also I just want a reliable car. I don't want it to be a project and constant worry that my investment is going to fall apart. That means Honda or Toyota. But if I have to choose between the regular hatchback or SUV, I might as well go SUV because it will be more fun. There's the Civic Type-R. I owned one, but I don't really want one of the newer ones (I don't need 300+ bhp in a hatchback).
  - close04 6y ago
    I've seen plenty of people assuming SUVs are off-roaders just because they tend to have similar shape and proportions, or some form of 4/all wheel drive that's in no way comparable to true off-road vehicles. The second confusion is that every car that seems a bit "bulged" is called a SUV in Europe. Even small CUVs like the Volvo X40 or Mazda CX-3. The fact that they are also called "crossover SUV" or CSUV definitely doesn't help anyone. Unfortunately most people can't afford the "right vehicle for right purpose" approach they they pick the compromise that will be sort of a jack of all trades and master of none but cover pretty much all the needs. This comes with some drawbacks (larger outside dimensions, larger fuel consumption, less maneuverable, etc.) and some advantages (larger inside dimensions, more likely to fare better in a crash due to the added weight and ride height). Normally I'd say that if you have a specific driving need only 1% of the time, rent rather than try to tack the feature onto your car's requirements. There's no point in driving around with those drawbacks 99% of the time for that 1% when you drive with the advantage. But something like the safety advantage is there all the time, unless the manufacturer really screwed up someplace else. The biggest problem and misunderstanding lies with the CUV/CSUV segment. They are somehow viewed as "SUVs" but actually have almost all the disadvantages of a SUV with almost none of the advantages. Compared to the equivalent hatchback they sport a slightly larger body that increases drag and fuel consumption, and decreases maneuverability, bigger wheels and raised axles that just eat up more interior space, and probably have little to no safety benefit because the added weight contributes almost nothing to this (a Mercedes GLA weighs ~100Kg more than a normal A-class hatchback).
dmix 6y ago
> and are much more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists when involved in collisions I rammed into the back of an Uber Cadillac SUV (who had hit someone in front of them) on the highway doing about ~50-60km/hr upon collision and my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch. This almost makes me want an SUV rather than not. But I get what you're saying. It's like wearing masks during COVID, it mainly only prevents you from getting others sick, not the other way around... but that's half the battle.
- leoedin 6y ago
  Cars are literally designed to collapse in a crash. It's what the crumple zones are for. The passenger compartment is a protected space and the rest of the car collapses to absorb as much energy as possible. This means that the accelerations experienced by the occupants are less, reducing the chance of serious injury. Typical SUVs (excluding more modern car-chassis based ones) use body on frame construction - the chassis of the car is a big and heavy steel ladder. It doesn't have the same crash performance - even though it may look less damaged, the accelerations experienced by the passengers are greater. https://www.autolist.com/guides/body-on-frame-vs-unibody https://www.autolist.com/guides/body-on-frame-vs-unibody
  - Retric 6y ago
    That only really works for vehicles of sufficient mass. Physics means the mass of a large engine needs a lot of force to move around quickly in a collision. So car vs motorcycle or full sized SUV vs a Supermini doesn’t work that well.
- buran77 6y ago
  > my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch. SUV are objectively safer due to size and mass. This comes at the cost of efficiency (fuel, space), and damage to other "softer" traffic participants (pedestrians, cyclists, smaller cars). This effect is exaggerated by the fact that when braking or hitting something all cars lean forward and the nose goes down. So a small car crashing into the back of a SUV when both are braking (or the SUV just impacted someone in front) will definitely slide under the SUV and see a lot of damage. Also the back of a car is not designed to crumple as much as the front so it will see a lot less damage. And because I see a wave of downvotes without an actual counter-argument, I will leave this here [0] and quote the essential: > Research by the Highway Loss Data Institute shows that drivers and passengers in a hybrid are 25% less likely to be injured than those in the same model with a standard gasoline engine. And the death rate for drivers in hybrid crashes also was lower. The hybrid advantage is all about weight, it turns out. Putting 2 and 2 together, between cars built to the same safety standards and level of quality, the heavier one is safer. I though this would be obvious for the technical crowd, especially the ones willing to get past reading just the first half a sentence from a comment. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crash-test-hybrids-safer-than-other-cars/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crash-test-hybrids-safer-than-o...
gjs278 6y ago
my eyes rolled so hard you owe me a new set of them. dead cyclists is a good thing if you are cycling where you were supposed to be inside a car.

saiya-jin 6y ago

I hate SUVs with passion. Here in Europe, for long time we basically didn't have any (unless you really go to rough terrain, which 95% of SUVs here never do). Apart from football stars, eastern mafia guys and soccer moms. It became kind of fashion thingie for those who don't understand cars, or basic physics. Soccer moms love them, since they often don't have good driving skills, it puts them higher so they have better overview of the road (while blocking any view of those behind). Pollution, higher maintenance costs, much higher danger of car rolling during accident (and break your neck) be damned. Then there is category of these tiny 'SUV' (I think proper term is crossover), which are just bigger shopping carts, being a higher above ground. So from driving perspective, the worst combination - small, badly maneuverable car. We still have big wagons for those who are numerous / carry around a lot of things. These I prefer - they drive well, trunk space is enormous. Compared to most SUV which look big on the outside, but not so much inside. /rant

NDizzle 6y ago
So what do you use to bring your two softball playing girls to an 11 game weekend tournament? That you’re also coaching. And providing hydration for. And shade. And chairs, food, etc. Plus your wife and your 7 year old son. What do you use to take the same crew camping for 4-7 days at a time? I use the ever loving shit out of my vehicles. Keep that euro centric view of “not using big things” in Europe. Thanks!
- danmur 6y ago
  I believe a station wagon was the suggested alternative. Love the attitude though :P.
  - NDizzle 6y ago
    Find me a station wagon that will take me on the rubicon. Until then I’ll keep my land cruiser.
- emptyfile 6y ago
  Weekend tournament? We used to pack up our 5 member family and suitcases for 3 weeks at the seaside into a 2. generation Voklswagen Golf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk2 Us and every other family. I suppose the average american uses a 18-wheel cargo truck to go to vacation.
  - NDizzle 6y ago
    “At the seaside” so I guess you just bought coaching equipment when you got there, along with about 100 cold bottles of water. Got it.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      Cars can have trailers, roof racks, and people can rent large cars for the short duration they need them. Breathless one-upmanship aside it’s not unreasonable to go to places with water, or for multiple people to bring water.
      - NDizzle 6y ago
        They literally won’t let us use water fountains right now. That’s for our own good. Wouldn’t want us getting the COVID!
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        bit strange to arrange a tournament in a place with no taps and no shops, but ok; “On average, a professional water delivery service will charge anywhere from $175 to $380 per truckload., and the average truck will hold 6,000 gallons.” - https://www.howmuchisit.org/pool-water-delivery-cost/ https://www.howmuchisit.org/pool-water-delivery-cost/ Could buy a lot of those for the price of an SUV, especially sharing the price between all the people. Inb4 the tournament is held on a remote mountain top inaccessible to tankers and hatchbacks alike and only accessible to 4x4s so there’s literally no other choice.
    - ric2b 6y ago
- astura 6y ago
  I mean... a car? You aren't giving some outlandish requirements, all that stuff/passengers could fit into my compact sedan. I might need to get a roof rack for a trip, but that is much less costly than the massive difference in cost between buying/maintaining/operating/insuring an SUV vs a car. Growing up my family of five were able to comfortably fit all of us plus any luggage/gear in an early 80s subcompact hatchback.
- ric2b 6y ago
  2 adults, 3 children, some drinks, some food, some foldable chairs, a tent or two? That easily fits in most cars unless we're talking about Smart's or sports cars.
globular-toast 6y ago
I dislike them too. You didn't mention that they also mostly diesel in Europe too. But I'm actually considering buying one (a petrol one). For a start, SUVs don't go off road. They are road vehicles. We had off-roaders for a long time in the form of Land Rovers etc. We called them 4x4s and they weren't really comfortable to drive on the road. I like the idea of having the right vehicle for the right purpose. If I had to travel to work by car (which I've done before and don't want to do again), I would like to drive a Mercedes "Smart" or VW Up, or similar. These are crap, consumable, plastic cars, but they do the job just fine. For the weekends? A sports car or hot hatch would be fun. For long trips and camping? An SUV would be great. SUVs and the much higher number of HGVs now also tear up the roads, which isn't great for your sports car. You'll have a better chance in an SUV yourself. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The problem is that, in the UK at least, it's really only possible to run one car for various reasons (even if you could afford the depreciation on multiple cars). So the SUV becomes the default. Also I just want a reliable car. I don't want it to be a project and constant worry that my investment is going to fall apart. That means Honda or Toyota. But if I have to choose between the regular hatchback or SUV, I might as well go SUV because it will be more fun. There's the Civic Type-R. I owned one, but I don't really want one of the newer ones (I don't need 300+ bhp in a hatchback).
- close04 6y ago
  I've seen plenty of people assuming SUVs are off-roaders just because they tend to have similar shape and proportions, or some form of 4/all wheel drive that's in no way comparable to true off-road vehicles. The second confusion is that every car that seems a bit "bulged" is called a SUV in Europe. Even small CUVs like the Volvo X40 or Mazda CX-3. The fact that they are also called "crossover SUV" or CSUV definitely doesn't help anyone. Unfortunately most people can't afford the "right vehicle for right purpose" approach they they pick the compromise that will be sort of a jack of all trades and master of none but cover pretty much all the needs. This comes with some drawbacks (larger outside dimensions, larger fuel consumption, less maneuverable, etc.) and some advantages (larger inside dimensions, more likely to fare better in a crash due to the added weight and ride height). Normally I'd say that if you have a specific driving need only 1% of the time, rent rather than try to tack the feature onto your car's requirements. There's no point in driving around with those drawbacks 99% of the time for that 1% when you drive with the advantage. But something like the safety advantage is there all the time, unless the manufacturer really screwed up someplace else. The biggest problem and misunderstanding lies with the CUV/CSUV segment. They are somehow viewed as "SUVs" but actually have almost all the disadvantages of a SUV with almost none of the advantages. Compared to the equivalent hatchback they sport a slightly larger body that increases drag and fuel consumption, and decreases maneuverability, bigger wheels and raised axles that just eat up more interior space, and probably have little to no safety benefit because the added weight contributes almost nothing to this (a Mercedes GLA weighs ~100Kg more than a normal A-class hatchback).

dmix 6y ago

> and are much more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists when involved in collisions I rammed into the back of an Uber Cadillac SUV (who had hit someone in front of them) on the highway doing about ~50-60km/hr upon collision and my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch. This almost makes me want an SUV rather than not. But I get what you're saying. It's like wearing masks during COVID, it mainly only prevents you from getting others sick, not the other way around... but that's half the battle.

leoedin 6y ago
Cars are literally designed to collapse in a crash. It's what the crumple zones are for. The passenger compartment is a protected space and the rest of the car collapses to absorb as much energy as possible. This means that the accelerations experienced by the occupants are less, reducing the chance of serious injury. Typical SUVs (excluding more modern car-chassis based ones) use body on frame construction - the chassis of the car is a big and heavy steel ladder. It doesn't have the same crash performance - even though it may look less damaged, the accelerations experienced by the passengers are greater. https://www.autolist.com/guides/body-on-frame-vs-unibody https://www.autolist.com/guides/body-on-frame-vs-unibody
- Retric 6y ago
  That only really works for vehicles of sufficient mass. Physics means the mass of a large engine needs a lot of force to move around quickly in a collision. So car vs motorcycle or full sized SUV vs a Supermini doesn’t work that well.
buran77 6y ago
> my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch. SUV are objectively safer due to size and mass. This comes at the cost of efficiency (fuel, space), and damage to other "softer" traffic participants (pedestrians, cyclists, smaller cars). This effect is exaggerated by the fact that when braking or hitting something all cars lean forward and the nose goes down. So a small car crashing into the back of a SUV when both are braking (or the SUV just impacted someone in front) will definitely slide under the SUV and see a lot of damage. Also the back of a car is not designed to crumple as much as the front so it will see a lot less damage. And because I see a wave of downvotes without an actual counter-argument, I will leave this here [0] and quote the essential: > Research by the Highway Loss Data Institute shows that drivers and passengers in a hybrid are 25% less likely to be injured than those in the same model with a standard gasoline engine. And the death rate for drivers in hybrid crashes also was lower. The hybrid advantage is all about weight, it turns out. Putting 2 and 2 together, between cars built to the same safety standards and level of quality, the heavier one is safer. I though this would be obvious for the technical crowd, especially the ones willing to get past reading just the first half a sentence from a comment. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crash-test-hybrids-safer-than-other-cars/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crash-test-hybrids-safer-than-o...

gjs278 6y ago

my eyes rolled so hard you owe me a new set of them. dead cyclists is a good thing if you are cycling where you were supposed to be inside a car.