The Rise (and Fall) of the Suburban Main Battle Tank

[sojournermike]

Surely the "van" speed limits should be applied to these behemoth SUVs?

And the M6 Toll should charge then the van rate?

After all, they are bigger and heavier than some vans.

When I am plodding along gently in Big Van (my sleep-over van, registered as a motorhome, slept in when working away on client sites) it does shock me rather to see the speed those things go at. Move Over White Van Man- you have competition!

GC

I would take this a stage further and categorise any vehicle over a certain size / emissions / weight  as being of 'Special Type'  and have them fitted with Speed Limiters,  may be also Tachographs and require drivers to be better trained and face harsher punishments if they flout the law.  I'm sure there are very valid reasons for some of these vehicles, but if they couldn't go above 40mph (a speed that I would also limit HGVs to)  then they would only be used by those who really needed them.

Society needs to be moving away from bigger and bigger vehicles for personal transport and I don't see this happening unless these vehicles become onerous to own and use. We need to stop seeing giant 4x4s,  high performance limo's and sports cars as desirable and start viewing them as the environmental catastrophe  that they are.  I don't even see electric versions of range rovers etc  being acceptable either, their size and weight will still consume more energy that still has to be generated somewhere.

And if we did start to rid our roads of these oversized monstrosities may be more people would feel comfortable cycling, we need a completely different mind set to personal transport.

Just to say I agree!

[DuncanM]

I fail to see a significant difference to a cyclist in being hit by a 1.3 ton Golf compared to a 2 ton Range Rover. Also, while I understand the idea of needing a special license to operate a "big" class of vehicle we actually have such a restriction, it's just that "big" is defined as 7.5 tonnes. And if you got your car license prior to 1997(?) then you are legally allowed to drive them without anything extra.

I'm fully on board with the resource and emissions arguments, and I'd go further on the taxation system for emissions (and fuel duty), but they are vote losers, and our current government showed their colours at the climate change debate a few weeks ago. 

[Zipperhead]

I fail to see a significant difference to a cyclist in being hit by a 1.3 ton Golf compared to a 2 ton Range Rover. Also, while I understand the idea of needing a special license to operate a "big" class of vehicle we actually have such a restriction, it's just that "big" is defined as 7.5 tonnes. And if you got your car license prior to 1997(?) then you are legally allowed to drive them without anything extra.

I don't know if it affects cyclists in the same way as pedestrians (and I hope not to perform any empirical testing), but if a pedestrian is hit by a polo they will be hit at leg height for most people, and fall onto the bonnet. If they're hit by a Range Rover they're going to take that impact in the chest/abdomen.

[grams]

"I drive a perfectly safe car that only permanently maims any pedestrians that happen to get in my way." isn't that strong an argument tbh.

The obvious counter to this is "which would you rather be hit by?", which rather ignores the question of why you're crashing your car into me.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It's been 3.5t since the early 90s.

[ian]

I fail to see a significant difference to a cyclist in being hit by a 1.3 ton Golf compared to a 2 ton Range Rover.

The laws of physics just called and left you a message.

[hellymedic]

I fail to see a significant difference to a cyclist in being hit by a 1.3 ton Golf compared to a 2 ton Range Rover.

The laws of physics just called and left you a message.

kinetic energy = ½ mv² I believe. I'm no physicist but acquired O Level in 1974 & A Level in 1976.

My understanding is that the MOAR ke, the more potential for injury and the greater the braking distance...

[grams]

I fail to see a significant difference to a cyclist in being hit by a 1.3 ton Golf compared to a 2 ton Range Rover.

The laws of physics just called and left you a message.

That driving a car is roughly two thirds as awful as driving an SUV?

[Diver300]

My understanding is that the MOAR ke, the more potential for injury and the greater the braking distance...

Having a low vehicle means that injuries tend to be less, or to more easily fixed parts of the body, which favours the lower and usually lighter cars, as well as the reduction in kinetic energy.

The kinetic energy makes less difference when there is loads of it. A car isn't slowed much when it hits a pedestrian, so having more energy makes little difference. The height is the big deal, as it alters how fast energy is transferred to the pedestrian, so what force is applied.

Braking distance isn't much affected by the car mass, as the more mass, the more weight so more friction is available, given the all post 2004 cars have ABS, so can maximise the friction on all the wheels. Braking distance goes up as the square of speed, so in that way the kinetic energy makes a big difference.

[Rowan]

if you think we have a problem with Range Rovers - take a peep at whats coming with our free trade agreement with the US
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/wm3kjv8/?comments_page=2
just perfect for the school run

[quixoticgeek]

A few years back the latest EU regs on the design of cars made it a requirement to design to minimise the damage done to pedestrians,

The recent designs of car bonnets are designed to cushion the pedestrian once they have landed on it.

More info can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehicle_design

J

[Cudzoziemiec]

Which is relevant where the frontal area is lower than the pedestrian's CoG and they are knocked on to the bonnet. If the radiator grille is up to your shoulder, you're not going to fall on to the bonnet.

[quixoticgeek]

Which is relevant where the frontal area is lower than the pedestrian's CoG and they are knocked on to the bonnet. If the radiator grille is up to your shoulder, you're not going to fall on to the bonnet.

Yes. This is why it's so much worse to be hit by the 2 ton wank panzer, than a 2ton estate car.

From a safety stand point, range rovers, cybertrucks, F150's etc... really shouldn't be allowed on the streets in a civilised country...

J

[The Family Cyclist]

Just picked my van up from local Ford dealer. They have a ranger raptor which dwarfs my transit custom.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Which is relevant where the frontal area is lower than the pedestrian's CoG and they are knocked on to the bonnet. If the radiator grille is up to your shoulder, you're not going to fall on to the bonnet.

Yes. This is why it's so much worse to be hit by the 2 ton wank panzer, than a 2ton estate car.

From a safety stand point, range rovers, cybertrucks, F150's etc... really shouldn't be allowed on the streets in a civilised country...

J

In a civilised society, people wanting to buy one would be offered therapy.

[quixoticgeek]

Just picked my van up from local Ford dealer. They have a ranger raptor which dwarfs my transit custom.

Yeah, I don't understand why anyone would think it appropriate to drive one this side of the pond, esp in urban areas.

One of my Neighbours drives a Dodge RAM, which is too big to fit in the standard parking space, so rather than park sticking out slightly into the road (which it would make impassable), they park it with the wheels up on the pavement, cos entitlement...

I have been hit by a similar vehicle going round a corner, I was stood on the pavement of the corner in the narrow nice streets area of Ams, it's wheels stayed on the roadway the whole time, but the vehicle was so long, it overhung, and the side of the vehicle hit me.

J

[DuncanM]

Which is relevant where the frontal area is lower than the pedestrian's CoG and they are knocked on to the bonnet. If the radiator grille is up to your shoulder, you're not going to fall on to the bonnet.

Yes. This is why it's so much worse to be hit by the 2 ton wank panzer, than a 2ton estate car.

From a safety stand point, range rovers, cybertrucks, F150's etc... really shouldn't be allowed on the streets in a civilised country...

And presumably every cab-forward vehicle from the VW Type 1 all the way to busses?

Reducing the environmental impact means moving from wankpanzers -> smaller, more efficient cars -> busses -> bikes +walking.
Making cycling and pedestrians safer involves moving all vehicles from the areas where cyclists and pedestrians are, not just making the collision marginally less bad.

Those things are hard to do, so in much the same way as magic paint and magic hats, we get deform-able bonnets  Not sure how that's going to work with a Cybertruck that you can hit with a sledgehammer... 

[Mr Larrington]

if you think we have a problem with Range Rovers - take a peep at whats coming with our free trade agreement with the US
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/wm3kjv8/?comments_page=2
just perfect for the school run

Yes, it's big.  Commercial vehicles usually are.  The F-650 is a Class 6 truck, roughly equivalent to the European 7.5 tonne class.  No-one is going to use one on the school run any more than they'd use a DAF LF or a MAN LE.

[TheLurker]

Not sure how that's going to work with a Cybertruck that you can hit with a sledgehammer... 

Ach, we'll be just fine... as long as we end up hitting the windows. 

[Cudzoziemiec]

Which is relevant where the frontal area is lower than the pedestrian's CoG and they are knocked on to the bonnet. If the radiator grille is up to your shoulder, you're not going to fall on to the bonnet.

Yes. This is why it's so much worse to be hit by the 2 ton wank panzer, than a 2ton estate car.

From a safety stand point, range rovers, cybertrucks, F150's etc... really shouldn't be allowed on the streets in a civilised country...

And presumably every cab-forward vehicle from the VW Type 1 all the way to busses?

Presumably so.

Reducing the environmental impact means moving from wankpanzers -> smaller, more efficient cars -> busses -> bikes +walking.
Making cycling and pedestrians safer involves moving all vehicles from the areas where cyclists and pedestrians are, not just making the collision marginally less bad.

Those things are hard to do, so in much the same way as magic paint and magic hats, we get deform-able bonnets  Not sure how that's going to work with a Cybertruck that you can hit with a sledgehammer... 

Yes, yes and yes.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Bang on cue, road.cc is reporting the Tesla Cybertruck will not be road legal in EU.

The monstrous new battery-powered Tesla truck has caused plenty of controversy since its launch; mostly because it's been suggested that the sharp angular design of the shell and sheer enormity of the truck would pose a serious safety risk to pedestrians, cyclists and pretty much anything else in its immediate vicinity. Writing for Forbes Online(link is external), Carlton Reid says: "The European Commission has strict automotive testing and safety protocols, and the Cybertruck - as is - would fail many of them, including increasingly stringent pedestrian and cyclist protection standards."

This is backed up by auto standards expert Stefan Teller, who says serious modifications to the design of the Tesla Truck would have to be made before it passes stringent EU safety laws. He told the German car magazine Automobilwoche: “The bumper and hood must be able to absorb energy to protect pedestrians."

As if to perfectly illustrate the potential problems posed by the truck, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was recently shown knocking over a traffic bollard as he pulled out of a car park, seemingly oblivious. It was noted the bollard was about the size of a small child...

https://road.cc/content/news/269565-belgian-cyclist-vs-lorry-driver-video-spoof-version-tesla-truck-not-street-legal

[Zipperhead]

if you think we have a problem with Range Rovers - take a peep at whats coming with our free trade agreement with the US
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/wm3kjv8/?comments_page=2
just perfect for the school run

Yes, it's big.  Commercial vehicles usually are.  The F-650 is a Class 6 truck, roughly equivalent to the European 7.5 tonne class.  No-one is going to use one on the school run any more than they'd use a DAF LF or a MAN LE.

I don't think Chris Eubank has school age children any more.

[Mr Larrington]

Well, OK, there's alway one .  Or two, coz someone who lives just down the road from Lt. Col. Larrington (retd.) has a very shiny UK-registered Peterbilt 389 in his front garden.

[jsabine]

I will add that I agree too as I see in Slovakia what the future could otherwise be in the UK. Over here I wouldn say that by and large (by which I mean about 95%) of cyclists now ride on the pavement. As a road rider I get hooted at often. Road deaths here are approximately 3 times those in the UK, albeit here the population is only 1/12th of the size of the UK.

The official figures disagree, suggesting that the absolute no of road deaths is about 1/4 (447 in 2017 vs 1793) while the pro rata numbers are about 1.6x higher (in 2018, 46 per million vs 28, with the EU average 49).

[Gasman]

I read an article some years ago about the USA experience of such vehicles.  A big reason for their popularity was that they were classed as trucks and were therefore cheaper than cars as they didn't have to conform to the same safety standards.  Trucks could also be purchased as business vehicles and set against tax.  They were classed as trucks on the basis of the 'kerbside axle weight' (or some similar phrase); a notional value for the vehicle with a full load of passengers and cargo.  The author then pointed out that in many residential areas access to trucks is banned or severely restricted so it was perfectly feasible for local authorities to keep large SUVs off these streets.  What's more, with 'truck' again being defined by the kerbside axle weight, those who would inevitably argue that, since it never actually exceeded this limit, their vehicle should be allowed unrestricted road access could be given the equally reasonable response,
"In that case, PAY YOUR TAX!"