The mistake was allowing this class of vehicle to avoid emissions and safety regulations while still allowing them access to the same roads as everybody else. There will always be a place for large and specialized vehicles, for example in industrial and agricultural settings, but if they cannot meet safety standards then they should be used off the public road.
Or require a stricter license. Larger, more dangerous vehicles should be operated by drivers who are prepared to handle them. I bike past the testing lot for my local Department of Transportation most days and despite pickup trucks and suv's being the best selling vehicles in the country near every driver, at least where I live, is taking the test is a small 4 door sedan.
That's already the case, it's just that the limit for what requires a commercial driver's license is something like 26,000 lbs (in the US, at least). It should really be more like 4000 lbs tbh.
Better yet--PEOPLE over a certain size/weight should have their driver licenses suspended until they burn off a given amount through walking or cycling.
SUV video content needs separating from general car driving content; Large SUVs are specifically bad as the tall fronts cause more fatalities as a child is not thrown clear; they either go under the vehicle or the force of a rapid deceleration against a flat huge mass kills. The high mounted frontal crash bars fitted to taller vehicles also ride over lower crash protection on lower vehicles causing more fatalities. They are heavier and this mass damages other vehicles more or will mean a mis-pedalled they will bulldoze anything in its path. They have far more blind spots and rollover far more easily than standard cars, especially at highway speeds. They are more polluting, create more tyre noise, take up more road space, cause parking issues and are generally anti-social in residential areas; by the drivers they are marketed towards. What is needed is government legislation and taxation to prevent totally unsuitable vehicles from being an attractive choice in urban areas. Moreover, it should not be socially acceptable to drive an oversized tank with endless safety concerns amongst vulnerable road users. We have got to this point through the massive lobbying power of the car industry and through slow-witted weak governments. But it is sadly a metaphor of the age; “I’m doing something clearly at everyone else’s expense, but I don’t care as I’ll be ok” FREEDOM…
8:00 having to navigate between rows of cars this way looks terrifying. Both cars and cyclists benefit from separating lanes. The cyclists might be at their destination even sooner when separated 😊 buts alas, no ego status if your transportation vehicle is about 10% the size of next door neighbour’s SUV.
With SUV’s I think we are stuck with them especially as they make up a large amount of a manufacturer’s portfolio this may change a bit with electric cars but even now we are seeing massive electric SUVs being produced. However what definitely needs to be taken off our roads in the uk are the massive crew cab pick ups, a lot of these are being used a company vehicles due to low benefit in kind tax and one of these bowling towards you on a country Lane whilst walking or cycling is pretty terrifying!
100% agree that SUV's are a blight on the planet, but It would take a huge effort to persuade people that SUV's and (in NZ) double cab utes, are unnecessary or undesirable. Government action to legislate or tax them off the roads is probably necessary.
That government action won't happen without public support. I think the only possible approach is an incremental one, as being implemented in Paris currently. First, make parking much more expensive for oversize vehicles in cities. As residents notice the benefits of safer, quieter streets with better visibility, they will demand more action and for the restrictions to spread out from urban centres.
@@nbartlett6538I think it should be possible for governments to announce dimension limits for private cars that are registered after a certain date, say 5 or 6 years down the line. That way, we could phase out these monstrosities within a decade.
For me it's an example of how inefficient the government regulations can be. In America, the CAFE/EPA norms had a purpose of reducing the fuel consumption, but actually promoted the shift to large vehicles (because of different standards for trucks that you mentioned). The same with IIHS and safety: they focused on crash tests, but ignored the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
THIS! The only way to fix this is to roll back not just CAFE, but also safety regulations, emissions controls, and any other regulations there might be to where they were in about 1992, then require a CDL to operate anything classified as a "truck." We could then have practical compact, midsize, and full size cars again, even station wagons. This would never happen because both left and right would have a problem with this proposal, but hey, if I were king...
NHTSA now has proposed additions to vehicle tests to include testing or evaluating for safety of vulnerable users struck by vehicles open for public comment. Please go and support adoption of these tests and evaluations by NHTSA. Perhaps IIHS will follow suit.
What I especially don't like is that SUVs are marketed as offroad capable but few of them are. Many don't have AWD and their ground clearance is not much higher. Lifted combi/sedan/hatchback with AWD would do better job offroad while being more aerodynamic and probably still having lower center of mass (which means better handling).
Half teh particulate pollution from vehicles comes from tyre scrub and brake pads. The amount of particulate pollutions increases with size and weight. This has implications for EVs but espicially IC and EV SUVs
I work in the domain. I'll bet you many if not the majority of owners think only the monthly payment increase when you buy bigger. No. Everyhting is more expensive (cost, fuel, insurances, tires, repair and maintenance, etc.). At the end of the year it's a fair amount of money.
Governments will never care that much about the environment as people do, and they don’t care if an SUV burns more fuel, since petrol is taxed. More petrol burned = more tax. And that goes the same as why EVs are more expensive than regular cars, if you remove petrol from the equation, the initial price needs to be way higher. All countries have legitimate interest in the fossil fuel game.
Couldn't agree more always hated this ridiculous SUV craze. Not only more harmful to the environment, more damaging to roads but the weight and height of them increases pedestrian deaths. Not only can drivers not see children at close quarters, but the height means impact with a adult pedestrian now often directly strikes vital organs. 8:43
You mentioned how owning an SUV makes it so you're likely to run over other people's kids, a lot of collisions like that are of parents running over their own children in driveways due to the front and rear blind spots.
Agreed! first, I bicycle about 16k miles per year and I am a certified cycling instructor so I know a bit about bikes and traffic. I had a tiny pickup truck in the 90's with 2wd 4cyl engine and manual transmission. I paid the same higher truck registration fee in my state as someone with a vehicle more than double the weight. It had only seating for two people so when my daughter was born, I bought a 2 door wrangler because it had a back seat. This was 4wd and 6cyl engine, weighed more than the little pickup but my registration fee went down because the Wrangler is a stationwaggon on registration in my state. Still people would say it is an SUV putting it into the same category as vehicles with three row seating and far bigger. As far as not seeing a person. I brake for squirrels and have never hit any living thing other than bugs on my windshield. I worked for more than 20 years at an electric company and had to be at work every day including during snow storms that drop feet of snow, not just inches.
If ppl want to buy an SUV they can buy whatever car they want, there is nothing you can do abt it, nor is it your right to do anything abt it, is their car, their money, and their sh*t to pick.
I heard an environmental scientist on the radio who stated that if all the SUV’s in the world were a country it would be the third most polluting country in the world.
If someone can afford a Range Rover or an Audi Q7, they could probably afford 1K a year in VED. I'd like to see the government here in the UK legislate on maximum vehicle size and height when it comes to cars and set a date as to when manufacturers won't be allowed to sell these monstrosities for use on Britain's roads. There's no reason we can't phase these out over the next decade.
Psychologists in most cases have said the size of a man's suv is directly related to the length of his blank . Men buy big trucks because they perceive that the length of their blank is inadequate. It is a lack of endowment. By the way my vehicle is very small .
While I agree that urban neighborhoods are no place for F150 Raptors, I don't see anything wrong with Nissan Qashqai or Honda CRV featured in this video. SUV is a marketing term for anything from a slightly lifted hatchback to a 4-tonne truck. It makes no sense putting them all in the same bin. If I compare my 2nd gen Outlander (1650 kg / 4640 x 1800 x 1720 mm), with the Lancer sedan it is based on (1537 kg / 4570 x 1760 x 1505 mm), it's not that much different.
My problem is people who use little cars are trying to dictate what shape and size vehicles should be it really not a democratic process if I want a truck I buy a truck and I pay for it no one should be able to determine whether I should have one and little vehicles are not necessary more efficient
The same bad driver is more likely to hurt you with a suv than a sedan. Suvs are heavier and break slower and the bonnet design of sedans spreeads kinetic energy better than SUVs grille that smashes you like a wall.
SUVs and similar pickups make even safe drivers more dangerous as they’re more likely to hit someone due to poorer visibility and reduced handling and emergency braking ability due to sheer mass.
@@chow-chihuang4903 Better be prepared to outlaw even bigger trucks then. You know, the ones that bring literally everything to your local stores or to your front porch. And the ambulances, fire engines, and service vehicles. One might argue that the people who drive those trucks have more training, but in many cases they do not. That argument is empty anyway because what we need is to stop allowing people who don't have proper training -- and can't demonstrate their proficiency -- to operate _any_ motor vehicle. If the operator knows he or she has blind spots, and operates the vehicle accordingly, such vehicles are not significantly less safe than vehicles with so-called better visibility. You know what vehicles have great visibility and are unlikely to cause serious injury in a collision with a person? Bicycles.
@@rnbmeister If that is your argument, you had better be prepared to ban the even bigger vehicles with even worse visibility that deliver everything you and your family use, come to your house when it's on fire, rush to your aid when you're injured, and bring the plumber, HVAC tech, electrician, etc. to your house when something needs fixing.
My ex always said she wanted an SUV later.
Note the word "ex"
The mistake was allowing this class of vehicle to avoid emissions and safety regulations while still allowing them access to the same roads as everybody else. There will always be a place for large and specialized vehicles, for example in industrial and agricultural settings, but if they cannot meet safety standards then they should be used off the public road.
Or require a stricter license. Larger, more dangerous vehicles should be operated by drivers who are prepared to handle them. I bike past the testing lot for my local Department of Transportation most days and despite pickup trucks and suv's being the best selling vehicles in the country near every driver, at least where I live, is taking the test is a small 4 door sedan.
@@nbartlett6538 you mean like a yearly M.O.T that has an actual emissions test?
Trucks over a certain size/weight should require a special license or only for commercial use and not for individuals
That's already the case, it's just that the limit for what requires a commercial driver's license is something like 26,000 lbs (in the US, at least). It should really be more like 4000 lbs tbh.
@@andrewlalis indeed !
wrongy wongy wrong wrong
Better yet--PEOPLE over a certain size/weight should have their driver licenses suspended until they burn off a given amount through walking or cycling.
People buying Cybertrucks: what's an SUV?
SUV video content needs separating from general car driving content; Large SUVs are specifically bad as the tall fronts cause more fatalities as a child is not thrown clear; they either go under the vehicle or the force of a rapid deceleration against a flat huge mass kills. The high mounted frontal crash bars fitted to taller vehicles also ride over lower crash protection on lower vehicles causing more fatalities. They are heavier and this mass damages other vehicles more or will mean a mis-pedalled they will bulldoze anything in its path. They have far more blind spots and rollover far more easily than standard cars, especially at highway speeds. They are more polluting, create more tyre noise, take up more road space, cause parking issues and are generally anti-social in residential areas; by the drivers they are marketed towards. What is needed is government legislation and taxation to prevent totally unsuitable vehicles from being an attractive choice in urban areas. Moreover, it should not be socially acceptable to drive an oversized tank with endless safety concerns amongst vulnerable road users. We have got to this point through the massive lobbying power of the car industry and through slow-witted weak governments. But it is sadly a metaphor of the age; “I’m doing something clearly at everyone else’s expense, but I don’t care as I’ll be ok” FREEDOM…
SUVs/ trucks are incentivized due to CAFE standards. It’s bonkers.
8:00 having to navigate between rows of cars this way looks terrifying. Both cars and cyclists benefit from separating lanes. The cyclists might be at their destination even sooner when separated 😊 buts alas, no ego status if your transportation vehicle is about 10% the size of next door neighbour’s SUV.
With SUV’s I think we are stuck with them especially as they make up a large amount of a manufacturer’s portfolio this may change a bit with electric cars but even now we are seeing massive electric SUVs being produced. However what definitely needs to be taken off our roads in the uk are the massive crew cab pick ups, a lot of these are being used a company vehicles due to low benefit in kind tax and one of these bowling towards you on a country Lane whilst walking or cycling is pretty terrifying!
SUVs are a relatively recent addition to automobile manufacturers' fleets and can be replaced again just as they came.
100% agree that SUV's are a blight on the planet, but It would take a huge effort to persuade people that SUV's and (in NZ) double cab utes, are unnecessary or undesirable.
Government action to legislate or tax them off the roads is probably necessary.
That government action won't happen without public support. I think the only possible approach is an incremental one, as being implemented in Paris currently. First, make parking much more expensive for oversize vehicles in cities. As residents notice the benefits of safer, quieter streets with better visibility, they will demand more action and for the restrictions to spread out from urban centres.
@@nbartlett6538I think it should be possible for governments to announce dimension limits for private cars that are registered after a certain date, say 5 or 6 years down the line. That way, we could phase out these monstrosities within a decade.
Great video. It really summarizes the current problems we have on the road, including the major solutions.
I remember when SUVs almost went extinct because they were rolling over all the time...
The US is designed for automobiles and the fatal car accidents keeps rising year after year.
i don't think they should be banned, just HEAVILY taxed
3:09 i really hope you reported this driver crawling into bike box
@@CycleAngry I did indeed, was only a couple of weeks ago so I had to pixelate the number plate.
@@averagemanonabike glad, cars and mopeds crawling into the box are my major pet peeves ^^
@@CycleAngry if I did that I have so little time, even police cars do it
@@mlee6050 often I see cars breaking the law in front of police and think "haha he'll get a fine"
Just to later see the police car do the same thing
For me it's an example of how inefficient the government regulations can be. In America, the CAFE/EPA norms had a purpose of reducing the fuel consumption, but actually promoted the shift to large vehicles (because of different standards for trucks that you mentioned). The same with IIHS and safety: they focused on crash tests, but ignored the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
THIS! The only way to fix this is to roll back not just CAFE, but also safety regulations, emissions controls, and any other regulations there might be to where they were in about 1992, then require a CDL to operate anything classified as a "truck." We could then have practical compact, midsize, and full size cars again, even station wagons. This would never happen because both left and right would have a problem with this proposal, but hey, if I were king...
NHTSA now has proposed additions to vehicle tests to include testing or evaluating for safety of vulnerable users struck by vehicles open for public comment.
Please go and support adoption of these tests and evaluations by NHTSA. Perhaps IIHS will follow suit.
What I especially don't like is that SUVs are marketed as offroad capable but few of them are. Many don't have AWD and their ground clearance is not much higher. Lifted combi/sedan/hatchback with AWD would do better job offroad while being more aerodynamic and probably still having lower center of mass (which means better handling).
Cosigned. SUVs must be banned. Dangerous AF.
Half teh particulate pollution from vehicles comes from tyre scrub and brake pads. The amount of particulate pollutions increases with size and weight. This has implications for EVs but espicially IC and EV SUVs
i would be fascinated to know your source for that information
Great video!
8:12 The Range Rover is ridiculously massive - it completely dwarfs the other SUVs. It's like a moving block of flats!
I work in the domain. I'll bet you many if not the majority of owners think only the monthly payment increase when you buy bigger. No. Everyhting is more expensive (cost, fuel, insurances, tires, repair and maintenance, etc.). At the end of the year it's a fair amount of money.
I am kinda dissapointed how you didn't start the video with a chart of SUV sales going up together with road accident fatalities.
Governments will never care that much about the environment as people do, and they don’t care if an SUV burns more fuel, since petrol is taxed. More petrol burned = more tax. And that goes the same as why EVs are more expensive than regular cars, if you remove petrol from the equation, the initial price needs to be way higher. All countries have legitimate interest in the fossil fuel game.
Couldn't agree more always hated this ridiculous SUV craze. Not only more harmful to the environment, more damaging to roads but the weight and height of them increases pedestrian deaths. Not only can drivers not see children at close quarters, but the height means impact with a adult pedestrian now often directly strikes vital organs. 8:43
You mentioned how owning an SUV makes it so you're likely to run over other people's kids, a lot of collisions like that are of parents running over their own children in driveways due to the front and rear blind spots.
You are confused about the size and weight of a vehicle vs. A category of vehicle.
Agreed! first, I bicycle about 16k miles per year and I am a certified cycling instructor so I know a bit about bikes and traffic. I had a tiny pickup truck in the 90's with 2wd 4cyl engine and manual transmission. I paid the same higher truck registration fee in my state as someone with a vehicle more than double the weight. It had only seating for two people so when my daughter was born, I bought a 2 door wrangler because it had a back seat. This was 4wd and 6cyl engine, weighed more than the little pickup but my registration fee went down because the Wrangler is a stationwaggon on registration in my state. Still people would say it is an SUV putting it into the same category as vehicles with three row seating and far bigger. As far as not seeing a person. I brake for squirrels and have never hit any living thing other than bugs on my windshield. I worked for more than 20 years at an electric company and had to be at work every day including during snow storms that drop feet of snow, not just inches.
Yes, yes and yes!
All I want is to find a friggin station wagon 😭
If ppl want to buy an SUV they can buy whatever car they want, there is nothing you can do abt it, nor is it your right to do anything abt it, is their car, their money, and their sh*t to pick.
I heard an environmental scientist on the radio who stated that if all the SUV’s in the world were a country it would be the third most polluting country in the world.
Woah
Tax them 1k a year and they'll soon disappear.
If someone can afford a Range Rover or an Audi Q7, they could probably afford 1K a year in VED. I'd like to see the government here in the UK legislate on maximum vehicle size and height when it comes to cars and set a date as to when manufacturers won't be allowed to sell these monstrosities for use on Britain's roads. There's no reason we can't phase these out over the next decade.
Psychologists in most cases have said the size of a man's suv is directly related to the length of his blank . Men buy big trucks because they perceive that the length of their blank is inadequate. It is a lack of endowment. By the way my vehicle is very small .
As a psychologist I endorse this message. Also that's why I'm riding a motorcycle and bikes
That would be _inversely_ related, not directly.
Why is all my friends in this video💀
While I agree that urban neighborhoods are no place for F150 Raptors, I don't see anything wrong with Nissan Qashqai or Honda CRV featured in this video. SUV is a marketing term for anything from a slightly lifted hatchback to a 4-tonne truck. It makes no sense putting them all in the same bin.
If I compare my 2nd gen Outlander (1650 kg / 4640 x 1800 x 1720 mm), with the Lancer sedan it is based on (1537 kg / 4570 x 1760 x 1505 mm), it's not that much different.
The difference is probably that the hood is lifted, and hood height correlates with the odds of accidents being fatal for hit vulnerable road users.
My problem is people who use little cars are trying to dictate what shape and size vehicles should be it really not a democratic process if I want a truck I buy a truck and I pay for it no one should be able to determine whether I should have one and little vehicles are not necessary more efficient
If the truck is dangerous then it shouldn't be driven no matter what the truck driver thinks
SUVs are not dangerous. Bad drivers are dangerous.
The same bad driver is more likely to hurt you with a suv than a sedan.
Suvs are heavier and break slower and the bonnet design of sedans spreeads kinetic energy better than SUVs grille that smashes you like a wall.
SUVs amplify the danger of *any* driver by increasing their mass, strike height and reducing their visibility.
SUVs and similar pickups make even safe drivers more dangerous as they’re more likely to hit someone due to poorer visibility and reduced handling and emergency braking ability due to sheer mass.
@@chow-chihuang4903 Better be prepared to outlaw even bigger trucks then. You know, the ones that bring literally everything to your local stores or to your front porch. And the ambulances, fire engines, and service vehicles. One might argue that the people who drive those trucks have more training, but in many cases they do not.
That argument is empty anyway because what we need is to stop allowing people who don't have proper training -- and can't demonstrate their proficiency -- to operate _any_ motor vehicle. If the operator knows he or she has blind spots, and operates the vehicle accordingly, such vehicles are not significantly less safe than vehicles with so-called better visibility.
You know what vehicles have great visibility and are unlikely to cause serious injury in a collision with a person? Bicycles.
@@rnbmeister If that is your argument, you had better be prepared to ban the even bigger vehicles with even worse visibility that deliver everything you and your family use, come to your house when it's on fire, rush to your aid when you're injured, and bring the plumber, HVAC tech, electrician, etc. to your house when something needs fixing.