Fantastic to see parking charges tripled for SUVs
- Thread starter JustTheGent
- Start date
h_m_boro
Well-known member
Mechanic who sorted it, in his opinion, reckoned it was caused over time going over potholes etc. I'm not a mechanic so.....
Ours happened just after Xmas when, as is usual, everyone is skint........but Boxing Day
Laughing
Well-known member
I don't remember how much the spring cost, fitted, but it was hundreds of pounds. A local machanic would have charged me less than 200. It stung! I went to a quickfit type place, so no surprises on the inflated cost.Mechanic who sorted it, in his opinion, reckoned it was caused over time going over potholes etc. I'm not a mechanic so.....
Ours happened just after Xmas when, as is usual, everyone is skint........but Boxing Day
Metal fatigue does increase over time, even without potholes. But springs are consumables on a car. Potholes don't help. I claimed my money back from Asda, but it took a couple of years. I believe you can do the same with your local council too.
On the subject of purely potholes. I live down south and they are a reall problem now, is that the same everywhere?
Anton_Berg
Well-known member
Nice bit of gerrymandering by the French Sadiq Kahn. Offer something that benefits people on both sides of the SUV debate at the same time, and make visitors to Paris (who don't get a vote) pay.
A better way to curb oversize vehicles (in the UK at least), would be to class them the same as buses an HGVs and limit their speed to 60mph. Farmers et al who need to go off road would not be affected most of the time. Others could either carry on and get used to saving fuel, or else buy a 'standard' car.
A better way to curb oversize vehicles (in the UK at least), would be to class them the same as buses an HGVs and limit their speed to 60mph. Farmers et al who need to go off road would not be affected most of the time. Others could either carry on and get used to saving fuel, or else buy a 'standard' car.
MickaelDebevePhenomenal
Well-known member
1finny
Well-known member
I’m not using it as any criteria for anything.
Just responding to a micro view that those in SUVs are more safe. The implication being - stuff pedestrians or other motorists that come not contact with them
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
MickaelDebevePhenomenal
Well-known member
What a bizarre take. Surely every single person owns a car to aid convenience.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
Whoosh.!
Andy_W
Well-known member
They're already taxed by volume, they cost more to build, so are more expensive to buy. Cost more to fuel or charge up, as they're less aerodynamic and heavier.
I know what you are getting at and I guess necessity would be a better a word than convenient for the following scenario which is fairly common.
To comply with UK car seat legislation/guidance, if you have 3 children under the age of 12 and under 135cm, which is fairly common, then you almost certainly need an SUV or 7 seater vehicle. The only exception we found when looking was a Ford C-Max. Particularly if you want your children in the safer car seats.
Just something to bare in mind when people sarcastically make the comments of requiring an SUV for school runs, for a lot of people they actually are required.
Last edited:
Andy_W
Well-known member
I don't see what peoples problem is, they're nice to drive, good view, better to get in and out of, more comfortable and they often come with a much higher spec than base models from the same manufacturer, so offer benefits elsewhere.
Not all of them are 4x4, probably most aren't, but most will have bigger wheels/ tyres so be better in most driving conditions, other than if you're leathering it round corners where there will be more roll, due to higher CoG.
Sure, people don't use the full functionality 70% of the time, but they will use most of the main functionality 90% of the time I expect. Could also say that about any car. So to say someone is not driving in 4x4 through a field is a poor argument, this isn't probably even 2% of the design requirement.
Could say the same about when people cry about EV's not having 300-500 mile range, it makes no sense when most journeys are <20 mile commutes or school runs. Same as crying about public charging, when most people buying them don't even use public chargers 99% of the time. Again, poor arguments.
SUV's are just a different level of car, for different markets, and different people have different priorities, whether that's super mini, hot hatch, saloon, coupe, estate, SUV etc. Someone might want a 2WD 1.5ltr SUV, someone else might want a 4WD 3ltr hatchback. Someone might want to spend 5k or have a 5k budget, someone else might want to spend 50k or have a 50k budget.
Not all of them are 4x4, probably most aren't, but most will have bigger wheels/ tyres so be better in most driving conditions, other than if you're leathering it round corners where there will be more roll, due to higher CoG.
Sure, people don't use the full functionality 70% of the time, but they will use most of the main functionality 90% of the time I expect. Could also say that about any car. So to say someone is not driving in 4x4 through a field is a poor argument, this isn't probably even 2% of the design requirement.
Could say the same about when people cry about EV's not having 300-500 mile range, it makes no sense when most journeys are <20 mile commutes or school runs. Same as crying about public charging, when most people buying them don't even use public chargers 99% of the time. Again, poor arguments.
SUV's are just a different level of car, for different markets, and different people have different priorities, whether that's super mini, hot hatch, saloon, coupe, estate, SUV etc. Someone might want a 2WD 1.5ltr SUV, someone else might want a 4WD 3ltr hatchback. Someone might want to spend 5k or have a 5k budget, someone else might want to spend 50k or have a 50k budget.
Last edited:
Andy_W
Well-known member
It's not just seats either, if you're moving any 4 people around, or even dogs etc, regularly you're likely going to just want more space overall, bigger boot, able to fit car seats/ pram in etc. They would be better served with a bigger car, rather than a bigger engine, yet most don't seem to have a problem with people getting bigger engines than they need?
1finny
Well-known member
I accept life is a compromise but if you don't see what people's problems are......
1. As per earlier - they kill/harm more people
2.........
Carbon emissions from global SUV fleet outweighs that of most countries
Popularity of sport utility vehicles driving higher oil demand and climate crisis, say experts
www.theguardian.com
Whether these issues are enough for people to want any kind of legislative change is more subjective.... and your view is as valid as mine or anyone else's.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Tax them off the road. Only in peoples minds do they “need” a vehicle that size in a country, the majority of who's roads, weren't built to accommodate. They are dangerous to other road users, heavy on ware and tear on our road infrastructure and henceforth our pockets. They clog up towns and cities, they spend most of their time idle and consume enormous amounts of tarmac and concrete.
pierrequiroule
Well-known member
There was an amusing piece on french TV a few nights ago about the increasing size of cars and the difficulty of parking them in underground and multi-storey car parks. It was literally impossible to get out of the car when two of the larger vehicles parked side-by-side between pillars. I have zero interest in cars and never use these places anyway, so googled the subject. It seems to be a real thing as this article from the Guardian before the vote illustrates.
www.theguardian.com
SUVs drive trend for new cars to grow 1cm wider in UK and EU every two years, says report
Bigger cars more likely to kill people, release more toxic gas and are outgrowing design of cities
www.theguardian.com
Glover_elbow
Well-known member
Fewer options these days look at volvo discontinuing estates and saloons in the uk.