@@chbr5623you’re both right. Which means less heavy, slow to stop, poor visibility SUV’s. And better pedestrian infrastructure, and more traffic calming… all pretty much antithetical to the average suv driver.
SUV drivers aren't capable of seeing beyond their hoods. The idea of the freedom to do what you want is not a good reason when so many are dying as a result of lax regulations
@@chbr5623that would mean increased testing for people that already have licenses. It would also mean more strict traffic laws, more traffic cops and possible more video capture machines to catch speeders and dangerous driving. Then people will complain that we've become a babysitting police state.
@@noleftturnunstoned Nobody I know recognizes his name. They watch CBC all the time but they've never seen him on television, and the "About Here" series as a whole is tucked away in a UA-cam link. Anyways, even if he does have that exposure with CBC, 101k views is arguably quite small for something of this importance.
The thing left out of this video (which I agree with everything he said) is why SUVs became so popular: auto-companies pushed them on people and paid billions in advertising them because the safety and emissions regulations on them are less strict than on regular cars, so the companies make more profit selling them. The US recently tried to tighten the standards on SUVs and the auto-companies lobbied hard and shut it down. The safety regulations talked about in this video should 100% be pursued, but just know that it is a major up-hill battle
@@vids595 the regulations are mentioned in this video: ua-cam.com/video/jN7mSXMruEo/v-deo.html The light truck segment was exempt from fuel economy standards in the US (CAFE). They were exempt but have since been added. The damage was done though and automakers can make more profits selling SUVs. From Wikipedia "CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks" even if the majority of "light trucks" are being used as passenger vehicles. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001, remained in 50% numbers up to 2011.[7] More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.[10] More recently, coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy
@@vids595 Look up "light truck" regulations. When these laws were written "light trucks" were basically work vehicles. So not a whole lot of them were around. But then the SUV came along, was classified as "light truck" and that was that. Personally I would like to see them just remove the light truck category completely. A vehicle shouldn't be unsafer for people outside of it just because the car maker cheesed it into a different category. The risk to people outside the vehicle should be the same, regardless if it is a VW Golf or an F350 Crew Cab.
@@christ2664 Um, no? "The United States government uses light truck as a vehicle class in regulating fuel economy through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard. The class includes vans, minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickups. Light trucks have lower fuel economy standards than cars, under the premise that these vehicles are used for utilitarian purposes rather than personal transportation."
One issue pushing people to SUVs too is the lack of practical, spacious, smaller hatchback options. It seems automakers have discovered they can make more profit selling SUV “benefits” like ride height and “off-road” or “bad weather” capabilities at a premium rather than engineering smaller practical hatchbacks or wagons since those can’t command the same price premium.
Hatchbacks are loud, impractical and unsafe. Within the same model, a sedan is favored against a hatchback every time. Automakers have learn their lesson.
@@littledovecitydust Only in North America. Hatchbacks are very popular in Europe. There is nothing inherently unsafe about a hatchback - concerns arise only if it collides with a substantially heavier vehicle. Which is the whole point of this story.
@@pervertt with everybody and their mother moving into taller heavier SUVs, hatchbacks are passively made unsafe. It's the inconvenient truth. The more direct is, abysmal sales figures for hatchback versions of cars.
@@littledovecitydust Which leads to a never ending arms race on the road - the next car you buy will have to be bigger and heavier than the last. Just so that you aren't killed by another driver with a bigger and heavier vehicle. It's a crazy rationale to anyone who lives outside North America.
Another idea is to tax vehicles by their weight, hear me out: heavier heavier vehicles are less efficient, more damaging to roads, more fatal to other road users and take up more parking space
An electric vehicle is always going to weigh more than its internal combustion engine counterpart largely because the batteries contribute a significant aspect of the vehicles curb weight and yet they are far more efficient than their counterparts, so I don't think this argument holds much weight (pun intended).
@@senekerc they aren't assuered to be more efficient, you would need to calculate the fuel equivalent of the electricity used to charge to calculate that, which can be very variable based on local solar power, nuclear etc. And ofc u are hauling more weight around so that reduces miles per energy as compared to fueled vehicles
they are taxed more.....they use more gas so pay more gas tax, cost more so pay more sales tax, you also had to get more income to afford so you paid more income tax
This guy! He's becoming a legend We need to bring back wagons and hatchbacks. Car manufacturers assume more people won't want them, but if you sell and market them appropriately, people will buy.
There are a couple more factors at play here, emissions and safety standards. Most vehicles we think of as SUVs are classed in the USA as light trucks, not cars. Trucks don't have to meet the same stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations that cars need to meet. This makes them cheaper to build than cars. Toss in the fact that automakers have larger profit margins on SUVs and Light Trucks and that pushes them to do what Ford has done and virtually eliminate cars from their lineups (Ford sells only one car, the Mustang). Now that cars are gone the race upmarket is still continuing as well with smaller SUVs and lower trim levels of larger SUVs disappearing as automakers discover they can make a bigger profit with more expensive vehicles. I don't see these trends changing without requiring light trucks and SUVs to meet the same emissions and fuel mileage standards as cars are currently required to meet. I also think that there needs to be greater liability assigned to drivers and manufacturers when there are vehicle-pedestrian impacts so that insurance rates go up for SUVs that don't protect pedestrians and drivers of small vehicles. I would even go so far as to propose new rules that lower SUV hood lines to match those of sedans if the isn't an active safety device to catch and protect them.
As companies like Ford are abandoning their sedan lines, is it a matter of preference for SUVs or lack of availability of smaller cars because manufacturers focus on the models with the higher profit margin.
You have the causation completely reversed. Ford is abandoning sedans because no one is buying them. SUVs and Sedans could have the exact same profit margins, obviously SUVs will be more expensive because they require more materials to build, and are heavier and larger and therefore more expensive to transport, but the bigger influence is economy of scale. The product you produce more of will be cheaper to produce per unit. They produce more SUVs because thats what sells more. If people only bought one model of ford, it would be insanely efficient at all levels from R&D to manufacturing, and therefore have a higher profit margin.
@@sirskelletor They’re not buying them because Ford’s sedans are terrible. Same for Chevy. Dodge has great sales actually. But most just opt for Japanese/Korean
@とひこ They aren't horrible. It's just called market shift. Even for toyota the sales of sedans have declined over time. If I can buy a SUV that gets the same mileage as a sedan but can carry 2x as much, why would I buy the sedan.. it just makes sense for most people.
@@alextran8188 I agree fully that SUVs just make more practical sense than sedans. Sedans still make up like ~50% of the market though so people are still buying them. It's not as doom and gloom as two bad American sedan manufacturers make it out to be lol. Especially German car makers, they often have full lines of sedans and multiple different coupe models.
😅 it's like an arms race, I went CUV because I can't see 🙄🤨 of course in Alberta you still can't see around 4x4s. Little cars need a periscope in addition to blindspot detection 😅
@@chbr5623 I live in a small town, 70% of daily traffic are big 4x4s. Semi trucks are mainly seen in highway (so no T intersection turns) and I maybe see cement trucks once a year 🤔 again mainly on highway or main ring roads 😅 so I'm mostly cursing about in town traffic and only seeing the hood of the trucks in the way of seeing oncoming traffic.
are you mentally challenged, busses, construction trucks, semi trucks are all necessities. the only people who should be driving pickup trucks are the handful of construction workers who need them, not people who are overcompensating.. @@chbr5623
Drivers know pedestrians are there. They don't care and expect people to jump out of the way. Legalize carrying a screwdriver or a hammer and legalize damaging any vehicle that gets near, and drivers will slow down and drive safer. 4:30 - He ignores and avoids mentioning how having a bigger vehicle makes drivers more aggressive, more willing to drive recklessly and endanger others because the SUV driver will survive, the other person won't. 5:50 - "Altering" suvs doesn't fix the problem of drivers. The only way to make those crapcans "safe" without banning them is a hard 20kmh speed limit imposed by a governor in the engine. Banning IS the better idea.
Another reason that sedans are not selling any more is that manufacturers are making sedans less useful in order to push customers into the higher profit SUV. Try to find a sedan nowadays where a 6 foot tall person can sit comfortably in the back seat. They exist, but they are not common. Most sedans are fastbacks with sloping roof-lines that kill the headroom in the back. They look cool, and they are a smidge more aerodynamic, but practical they are not.
You forgot one major reason for the increase in SUVs. They operate in a less regulated vehicle class and are massively more profitable so auto makers have been pushing them. A vehicle that is more dangerous for everyone not in them is not "safer" like you repeat, they are more dangerous for approximately 100% of people on the road.
all very true, not to mention how dangerous it is when the driver of a tall SUV or pickup truck is a person of short stature as a result it is impossible for them to see a child crossing the road in front of their vehicle.
Where did you hear him say larger cars are killing more people? No where in this video did I hear him say larger cars are killing more people. Did you miss the part about ~40-50% fewer passenger deaths in SUVs? Do we want to cut 30,000 passenger deaths by 40% (in the US), or 6,000 pedistrian deaths by 5.6%?
@@ianhomerpura8937 That's not what I understood from my research but that doesn't mean I am right. :) Regardless, I hate these large trucks as well, but I've always done so for environmental reasons. I have several neighbors who are, for example, accountants, who drive giant F350 diesels to work from our location in the city. Why is this necessary!
@@jameshoiby but where is the stats of the people that never get back the health they had before an accident? if two SUVs a suburban crash against an expedition, one of them at 100km/h the other was just at 30km/h which one would suffer the most damage? or rollover? by more airbags that have the G forces and accelerations inside the cabin are more important, and now is the fashion of put to the cars in general glass roof or sunroof or moonroof so worse it's the result in case of an severe accident, plus the higher ground clearance makes the SUVs easier to lose the gravity center and get an easy rollover
I had an SUV and traded it in after 3 years for a smaller sports wagon. Living in Vancouver, parking stalls are designed for sub compact cars. Not only is it hard to find , get in and out of many parking spaces but I had 8 or 9 door dings withing 6 mo of ownership. The added space is nice, but rarely needed. Don’t think I will ever go back to an SUV.
Uytae’s stories are great. But what about the reason why SUVs became ubiquitous? Auto makers fashioned a loophole in safety and emissions standards for “light trucks” and then pivoted to marketing them for retail consumers.
Taxing SUVs and pick-ups differently than sedans is a simple approach that can easily and quickly implemented. The larger the vehicle the more people should pay in registration fees. Insurance fee should also be higher since they are menace to smaller vehicle and pedestrians.
Only on higher trims. **Like what the video explicitly stated, pedestrian safety features are written into the law as required standards for new vehicles in the EU and Japan.** But in North America, only those who can afford them would consider getting them on the grounds of whether they need them for their own safety as the driver.
@@littledovecitydust Subaru only made EyeSight standard on all trims in the recent couple of years, I know because I drive one. New cars are not cheap for the majority of North Ameircan population, and most of them are definitely not driving brand new Subarus or high-trim Hondas.
@@littledovecitydust Living in the Pacific Northwest might have also skewed your perception, Subaru is not mainstream enough be an indicator or industry trend setter in North America's mainstream.
Londoner here: there are a stupid amount of SUVs on our roads. It's as ridiculous as the nonsensical faux- utilitarian reasons that people use to justify buying one. I can't stand people who buy them
There's also another factor with SUVs and crashes. The likelihood of being in a head-on collision is only 6 percent. So yeah, there's not much incentive to buy an SUV based on that small number. Another way to be safe on the road is to just drive safely and be calm behind the wheel. The more aggressive you'll be, the more likely you are to crash. It's always best to keep your cool when driving.
Informative video! As a certified Traffic Control Person since 2008 this info is helpful for our industry in keeping ourselves safe and has changed the regulations that WCB has said we need to follow. 'Flaggers' get killed every year, usually by drivers who were distracted and inattentive to the road conditions. Reassuring when you consider the only thing between the driver/vehicle and a flagger is a piece of flattened painted metal saying SLOW/STOP - what a horrifying and sobering thought that all of us keep in the back of our minds as a 'reality'....
in car design there's all sorts of limitations and rules that are designed around pedestrian safety. One of them is that the front bonnet has to be a minimum height, as the slow hoods of the 70s and 80s were also fatal to pedestrians. I don't see why in the same way we can't have a maximum height for the bonnet.
It's pure selfishness, let alone the worse fuel efficiency. I heavily agree upon regulations for banning them, already bad enough that they're avoiding fuel regulation laws for "cars" by technically not being "cars"
then the government instead of steal the money to the taxpayers should first make streets that don't flood at winter with the first rain, nationwide , the most funny of your comment is that Canada makes many American vehicles on sale in Canada and the United States but can't even make the model for the local market non CAFE compliant
3:21 "The bigger the vehicle, the less likely the risk of death for its passengers." Precisely why the safest vehicle to be in on the road is...a public bus.
Force crash compatibility with the smallest possible vehicles. Any vehicle that completely destroys a Smart Car/Fiat 500(etc) in a crash should be deemed unfit for use on public roads.
In australia there have been new imports of US pick up trucks like RAM etc and they are massive compared to any other local pick up trucks from Toyota or the ones Ford have sold for years!
- it's primarily an ego (and narcissism) driven 'arms race', at least in the US where I am. Mine is bigger than yours so I'm 'better'... Where I work about half the parking area is filled with full-size pickups and SUV's. Most are driven there by a single person, mainly men.. If you look at a full-size US 'Big 3' truck (Ford, GM, Dodge) from 20 years ago versus now, the new ones appear they are all 'roided up' (on steriods).. A lot heavier + overly 'macho-ified' styling as well. Outside the US, a close friend has been looking into replacing his mid 1980's era Land Rover 109 (3.5 V8) that he has had a long time and is used solely as a work vehicle, mainly towing medium & large 2-axle cargo trailers. He needs 4wd and has looked at and driven several 4wd US pickups and even the smaller (in comparison) Jeep Gladiator tows no more than what he can now but is larger and heavier in comparison. The physical size makes even it ponderous where he lives (a heavily forested and mountainous area) + it uses a lot more fuel. Normal US pickups like the Ford F-series and Ram, which he looked into, are even larger and heavier, so they have been ruled out. He recently visited the US and we rented a new F-150 and did a road trip in it. He liked driving it but said it was simply 'far too large' to own/use normally where he lives. Now he is leaning towards keeping his LR and 'investing' in fixing the corrosion it has and if eventually needed, buying a Toyota to replace the LR. Where he lives, US trucks are so heavy (even the lighter duty 1/2 ton versions), that when you combine the weight of the truck & a trailer being towed, it requires the driver have a commercial drivers license. Not practical as that also restricts when and where you can use the 'truck' such as not before/after certain times of day, on Sundays or within some towns/cities.
Same here in the Philippines. There are a lot of new Ford Raptor and Rangers as well as Chevy Silverados. All of them are way too large to fit in existing roads.
@@MsZsc - Exactly. it's bascially an 'arms race'.. I used to own (last ten years) a 1977 GMC Sierra 2500 (3/4 ton chassis) longbed 2wd, considered a 'full size' pickup. Good truck btw.. If I compare it dimensionally to current model, my old truck looks more like a compact now. Utterly pointless if you ask me as that old truck did everything I needed it for and would fit inside a normal garage, unlike many current ones...
@@MsZsc that is not true. If anything bed space has increased as the width of these newer trucks have incresed.. you can still buy a truck with an 8 ft bed..
They burn more fuel and have more wear on roads. They also take up more space and their headlights sit at eye level of sedan drivers, blinding them. SUV's suck for anything but offroading, which their owners almost never do.
@@ianhomerpura8937couldn’t have agreed more with you on that, most people that drive suvs, can’t drive or don’t pay attention like for real, they are higher from the ground and have proximity sensors and yet they still hit pedestrians, kids and cyclists like how stupid and idiotic can you be with all the driving assistance at your disposal, and for people driving sedans they have better visibility on the road and seeing pedestrians and kids crossing the road, and those people are more better and smarter at driving and don’t need the help of proximity sensors and backup cameras to park or to do any of the basics for a car, in conclusion SUVs are piles of garbage. And are making people more dumber at driving and more reliant on the driving assistance rather than driving skills.
We should regulate them as mentioned and we should add a tax to the sales and direct that money into improving testing and infrastructure improvements for people walking and cycling such as crosswalk upgrades.
@@chbr5623 Oulu, Finland. Cold and ice is not a factor in whether or not winter cycling is viable in a city or not. Proper infrastructure, and proper winter maintenance of that infrastructure is. ua-cam.com/video/Uhx-26GfCBU/v-deo.htmlsi=6oryQYGqD5Iq9bqu
@@Xachremos It's a dumb idea to prioritize cycling in Edmonton in the winter where the roads have deep ice ruts and are ice covered for more than 6 months of the year.
You can't see anything when an SUV is in front of you. If there is an SUV to your left, you can't see pedestrians to your left. vice versa. That's when pedestrians get hit (by the car not the SUV) crossing the streets. SUV have high centre of gravity- they can't corner and prone to roll overs and they are usually the first ones in the ditch during snow storms.
Jeremy Clarkson talked about the SUV ridiculousness in 2000. He didn't take into account the inherent danger of SUVs to pedestrians nor the danger it posed to other cars, but he did describe how stupid they are. The safety it provided came at tremendous cost such as terrible fuel economy, extreme weight that increase rollover risks and the flawed factor of safety in which increase safety in one area actually decrease overall safety.
Smaller cars have become more dangerous because there are more SUV's on the road to crash into said smaller cars. If we hit the reset button and put out policy like Japan where they gave incentives to buy a smaller car, then that statistic would reduce.
The only thing SUVs successfully protect are the profit margins of the car companies. - Cities are settled with high road maintenance costs (heavier vehicle == More wear and tear on roads). - Nature, as they require more resources to build and operate - Anybody not in one of the UAVs - Loss of even more public space because these larger vehicles require larger parking spaces. None of this will of course convince people not to buy them, but the SUV is the poster child on why we can't have nice urban areas.
We may be getting to a point where SUV's and light trucks should require a separate license, just like a motorcycle or bus does. In the video "These Stupid Trucks Are Literally Killing Us" by Not Just Bikes, he shared information on how drivers of trucks and SUV's are more likely to be bad drivers and take more risks than drivers of regular sedans. The larger size and safety ratings makes them more confident in their probably mediocre driving ability. larger vehicles have more blind spots, especially right in front because of the very tall hood of the car. I think it took 11 children sitting down in a straight line in front of the SUV in a test before the driver was able to see one of the children. 11 children! No wonder people run over their own kids and tailgate cars on the road, they probably don't know just how close they are. SUV's and Trucks are bigger, heavier, have longer stopping distances, have higher bumpers that are incompatible with smaller vehicles (That's what bumpers are for, to hit each other in a collision. A higher bumper misses the lower bumper and crushes the smaller vehicle.), they're harder to park because they're so large, which is also an issue for smaller vehicles, because now we can't see around your behemoth when we're trying to get out of a parking spot, etc. And as another user pointed out, heavier vehicles damage the roads quicker than lighter ones, and road maintenance already bankrupts towns and cities as it is, so it only makes sense that large vehicles be harder to drive by law. There should be additional training, higher taxes, and harsher penalties when at fault in a collision, as these vehicles are a bigger danger to everyone who isn't in one.
The rise in pedestrian deaths since 2010 are attributed to people being glued to their phones. I-phone sales doubled from 2009 to 2010 and then it nearly doubled again in 2011. You know what happened in 2012? It double again. The reason cyclist do not have an increase in deaths is because its impossible to bike and use a smart phone at the same time. They are focusing on the task at hand. Your increase in pedestrian deaths is smartphones not SUVs. I will agree that a small car is less likely to kill a pedestrian but it's the responsibility of the smart phone user to pay attention and not walk out into an intersection before its their turn to go. I walk in my city quite a bit. I see people with their heads down far too often.. On the street and in the car. If you want to ban something ban the use of smart phones while walking and driving. Ill guarantee you results.
Here in North America , many pedestrians that are hit knowingly do things to contribute to their injuries or death. Like walking too far outside the white line marker , or riding bike too far to the left of the marker . many simply assume traffic will swerve dangerously to opposite oncoming traffic lanes to avoid hitting them . Really stupid things that people should know better , but they don't , and the sad part is most towns keep making driving lanes more narrow , attempting to split more area of the road to share with pedestrians , Then they have everyone drive on it over 40 to 50 miles an hour. Does this make sense. No.
They are also very big, require more space to store, more energy to run, and have worse visibility than a sedan. I would like to live a town with less SUVs and trucks!
Speaking from the US, there is no reason why Detroit auto manufacturers would change their current obsession for SUVs and trucks. It costs more for them to build passenger cars due to safety regulations. If SUVs and trucks actually had to meet passenger car criteria, Detroit would be pushing a different plan. Another very alarming feature when talking about weight is how much heavier electric SUVs and trucks. As more of those are sold, you can bet pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and serious injuries will skyrocket.
This is just late-stage car dependency; an endless arms race for larger, more heavily armoured vehicles. "I'm okay with my relative safety coming at the expense of other road users." The whole modality of private vehicle transportation and the psychology it breeds will always lead to this
My Mercedes sedan beats out any suv in looks or comfort or safety.....for me and others sharing the roads. and at 40yrs old, this trouble -less beauty has meant that even w. low income, I own properties frm my years of saving. At this point, I feel that the car may outlast me! No one has ever said "this car is too old to put a new windshield in or buy 4 new winters"....unlike a relative of mine w. a big SUV of only half the age of mine. That was a shock event. Just cus the paint was still nice 😂
I want a single seater car with the option for a passenger attachment and a trailer attachment. It would be like a transformer, getting wider or longer only when needed. Would save so much on gas and could move through traffic and park easier. How many years away are we?
Everything old is new again. We went through this in the late 90s and early 2000s with offset collision and that gave birth to the crossover, which sits lower to the ground and uses a car chassis instead of a truck chassis. Most crossovers have sloped hoods so they’re not as “unsafe” as this report suggests. Consumers are trending towards crossovers and SUVs as they’re much easier for the older population to get in and out of.
There's more in vehicle distractions than 10 years ago. There's also more distractions for pedestrians. In Vancouver on Georgia and Burrard Street, for example it can be really hard to make a right hand turn on a green light. If your in a car or truck trying to time your turn usually you look at vehicle traffic first then carefully check for people. Every thing can be clear for 1 second and change instantly then. I think specific intersections should have pedestrian crossing times where everyone can walk, then vehicle traffic only. I'm sure this had been studied but wasn't adopted for efficiency. Right now people have to take risks just to make it from point A to point B and that has to change.
The idea that SUVs should be banned because they hit and kill pedestrians just doesn't hold for me - you just can't reason that there's a safer way to hit pedestrian with vehicles.
People want SUVs to feel safe because we are bad drivers. SUVs and trucks are exempt from gas guzzler tax and use more gasoline compared to cars. Heavier vehicles like SUVs trucks and EVs wear down and destroy our roads quicker.
In Canada, trucks and SUVs are certainly needed in winter for its hight clearence in the snow. A Sudan thats only a foot off the ground is going to get stuck every winter.
2 major things: 1. The types of drivers who own SUVs must be relevant. SUVs are expensive, which means their drivers will probably tend to be older, more cautious, and more experienced. 2. Even if we don't ban them, we should 100% tax them and apply better emission standards to them.
I live in a U.S. city that tends to flood easily whenever it rains hard, so most people drive suv of trucks so that they have enough ground clearance to drive through some minor flooding. By the way, in my city there are no pedestrians unless you are in downtown. My wife used to drive sedans, but after a few times getting stuck because of rain and almost getting her car flooded she now drives and suv.
in the majority of cities people are driving SUVs being the only person in the huge vehicle with no perceivable benefit to anybody except profiting car manufacturers. People are buying these things when they do not need them for the "off road" capabilities at all
@@MsZsc i do generally agree with you, but i wouldn't call my wife's SUV big. It is a Mazda CX-5 which is about the same size or maybe smaller than a Toyota RAV4
your town and rural use cases are the exception, not the rule. This also applies to depending on cars for infrastructure instead of trains and public transit as a whole. 80% of car sales now being these things is insane.
You know what is even more bizarre about suvs, the electric ones have very high hood while electric motors are far more compact than ICE. They could offer 0 frunk space in order to make the hood lower, but they're not doing that.
One thing that you didn't touch on is illegal modifications. Governments and regulators need to do a better job at clamping down on such changes, especially as it relates to engines, noise, and visibility.
Worth noting that a lot of the proliferation of the SUV owes a lot to the way US (and probably Canadian) fuel efficiency regulations explicitly exclude "light trucks", which includes SUVs. Car makers have no incentive to invest in expensive R&D to make cars more efficient, when they could just churn out massive monstrosities with higher profit margins, and which don't require meeting as stringent efficiency regulations. I suspect if the US and Canada closed this loophole (which was initially intended to prevent work trucks or commercial vehicles from being included), we'd see a different mix of products on the market.
I live in a small Arkansas town there are 3 car dealers they don't even sell cars only big Bubba trucks and SUVs. The whole town is littered with them.and now the price of gas is closing in on $4 a gallon 🤣😅🥳🥳
One thing that does not make it into the stats: the bigger and heavier vehicles, especially with AWD/FWD take much longer to stop in the dry and will wind up much further off the road when the loss of control is in slippery conditions...
EV should be more popular because they weigh more ...1000s of pounds more. Wouldn't that make them safer to get into an accident? Not for the Ice car hitting them
I’m not sure I agree with the overall takeaway from this video. Heavier and heavier cars means more and more energy in a crash and there are other disadvantages too such as noise pollution increasing with vehicle weight and the simple amount of space SUVs and trucks take up on roads and when parked. I’m sure the auto industry would love to sell us more and more features to increase pedestrian safety, but I don’t think it’s the best option. And before you say “snow”, my mini does better in heavy snow than my dad’s F150.
I wanted to go camping with my car, I would love to buy a station wagon, but they have such little ground clearance that I can’t take them anywhere even if it’s just unpaved roads I will be scared if it damages the bottom of the car, so I can only go for a suv😢
Regular cars have more regulations. People avoid regulation by skipping SUVS and getting trucks. Notice how some trucks remove their plastic bumpers and install all kinds of steel safari cages.
There is no mention of the owner's debt or the expenses associated with maintaining the roads for these types of vehicles. Additionally, it's important to consider the pollution and environmental impact of these vehicles, particularly in the context of climate change. It appears as though the CBC may have received some funding from large truck companies, as they seem to be promoting the sale of F-150s without addressing these concerns.
And then, there are all the trucks consumers are buying for their daily transportation - massive and usually much cheaper then a full size SUV. I think there’s a middle ground to be found where safety and practicality meet. I’m not going back to low car, but I’m also not embracing a, truck like, full size SUV.
6:07 Technological solutions only get you so far. What happens when that module doesn't do it's job properly or when it fails? Or more importantly, someone who's used to that function doesn't bother paying as much attention when they drive since "The car will take care of it for me" and then they get into a car without that feature. Complacency is my single biggest complaint with these "Convenience features"
I think you neglected at least 3 major points: 1) the reason for the dramatic growth in the light trucks market segment has been because vehicle manufacturers, recognizing the high profitability of SUVs etc, have made it almost impossible to buy sedans 2) the reason that light trucks are so profitable is because the US gov't excepted them from fuel economy and safety standards that other passenger vehicles were required to meet 3) because of their poor fuel economy, the growth in the number of SUVs is directly related to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the vehicle segment of GHGs. The SUV is a peculiarly American approach to the safety of self vs the safety of others. It's rather like they proliferation of guns, where the greater number of guns begets yet more guns, as people who are fearful of those people who already have guns seek to protect themselves by joining, and thereby escalating, the arms race. Nobody outside of the NRA thinks that's a good idea, so why do we think it's a good idea not to try to put water on the growing fire of SUVs?
Wish you would've hit the speed angle as well, our roads are designed to move cars as fast as possible, e.g. big wide lanes, right on red, slip lanes. We need to design our streets to make drivers slow down, and studies say this will actually increase car throughput!
If the government really wants to improve the safety for pedestrians, cities need to be completely redesigned for pedestrians and bicyclists so that vehicles are not even driven in the center and around shopping areas. The structure of cities is completely incompatible with the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. The idea that they should be traveling in the same area is ridiculous. There should be large thruways that commuters take to get into the city/shopping area and then public transportation/walking paths/bridges that provides access to center city. The other major improvement is increasing the effectiveness and testing to acquire drivers' licenses. Most North American states/provinces give out drivers' licenses like they come in crackerjack boxes. Passing tests should be difficult and you should be retested regularly. You need to improve the skill and safety of the drivers or take them off the road.
Solution is clear: Tex incentives shouldn't be given to suvs and evs. It should all be done by weight and it should be exponential. Time to get people out of SUVs. It's the most sensible and green thing to do!
Finally, someone says it: We need to consider the safety of those OUTSIDE the car, not just inside the car.
Let's focus on people getting hit with cars at 60 kph rather than prevent any such contact in the first place.
@@chbr5623you’re both right. Which means less heavy, slow to stop, poor visibility SUV’s. And better pedestrian infrastructure, and more traffic calming… all pretty much antithetical to the average suv driver.
SUV drivers aren't capable of seeing beyond their hoods. The idea of the freedom to do what you want is not a good reason when so many are dying as a result of lax regulations
@@chbr5623that would mean increased testing for people that already have licenses. It would also mean more strict traffic laws, more traffic cops and possible more video capture machines to catch speeders and dangerous driving. Then people will complain that we've become a babysitting police state.
@@elliotjordan2326 Those are your ideas.
This guy needs way more exposure. These topics are so important to learn about.
What do you think this is?? He has been on UA-cam for a while and is now partnering with CBC
@@jellybeansi ok
@@noleftturnunstoned Nobody I know recognizes his name. They watch CBC all the time but they've never seen him on television, and the "About Here" series as a whole is tucked away in a UA-cam link. Anyways, even if he does have that exposure with CBC, 101k views is arguably quite small for something of this importance.
Uytae Lee hitting it out of the park again, and again. Love his work! More, please!
Literally 😂
This time he hit himself in the head repeatedly with his nonsense.
SUV = Sports Uytae Lee T Vehicle
The thing left out of this video (which I agree with everything he said) is why SUVs became so popular: auto-companies pushed them on people and paid billions in advertising them because the safety and emissions regulations on them are less strict than on regular cars, so the companies make more profit selling them. The US recently tried to tighten the standards on SUVs and the auto-companies lobbied hard and shut it down. The safety regulations talked about in this video should 100% be pursued, but just know that it is a major up-hill battle
What safety regulation(s) is less strict for SUV's? I'm not finding any.
@@vids595 the regulations are mentioned in this video: ua-cam.com/video/jN7mSXMruEo/v-deo.html The light truck segment was exempt from fuel economy standards in the US (CAFE). They were exempt but have since been added. The damage was done though and automakers can make more profits selling SUVs. From Wikipedia "CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks" even if the majority of "light trucks" are being used as passenger vehicles. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001, remained in 50% numbers up to 2011.[7] More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.[10] More recently, coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy
@@vids595 Look up "light truck" regulations. When these laws were written "light trucks" were basically work vehicles. So not a whole lot of them were around. But then the SUV came along, was classified as "light truck" and that was that.
Personally I would like to see them just remove the light truck category completely. A vehicle shouldn't be unsafer for people outside of it just because the car maker cheesed it into a different category. The risk to people outside the vehicle should be the same, regardless if it is a VW Golf or an F350 Crew Cab.
what are you talking about? you literally made this up lol.
@@christ2664 Um, no?
"The United States government uses light truck as a vehicle class in regulating fuel economy through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard. The class includes vans, minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickups. Light trucks have lower fuel economy standards than cars, under the premise that these vehicles are used for utilitarian purposes rather than personal transportation."
I have a feeling Not Just Bikes also did a very good video on this topic.
100%, it's excellent, and very informative as to the history of these vehicles and why they were made popular.
Not Just Bikes did a wonderful job covering the topic. Vehicles ballooning in size over the past 2 decades is crazy.
Are you implying that when NJB releases a video, a similar video appears on this channel soon after?
NJB sucks. He's a bitter, angry, hateful, cynical doomer with an equally obnoxious fanbase.
One issue pushing people to SUVs too is the lack of practical, spacious, smaller hatchback options. It seems automakers have discovered they can make more profit selling SUV “benefits” like ride height and “off-road” or “bad weather” capabilities at a premium rather than engineering smaller practical hatchbacks or wagons since those can’t command the same price premium.
Hatchbacks are loud, impractical and unsafe. Within the same model, a sedan is favored against a hatchback every time. Automakers have learn their lesson.
@@littledovecitydust Only in North America. Hatchbacks are very popular in Europe. There is nothing inherently unsafe about a hatchback - concerns arise only if it collides with a substantially heavier vehicle. Which is the whole point of this story.
@@pervertt with everybody and their mother moving into taller heavier SUVs, hatchbacks are passively made unsafe. It's the inconvenient truth. The more direct is, abysmal sales figures for hatchback versions of cars.
@@littledovecitydust Which leads to a never ending arms race on the road - the next car you buy will have to be bigger and heavier than the last. Just so that you aren't killed by another driver with a bigger and heavier vehicle. It's a crazy rationale to anyone who lives outside North America.
@@pervertt people's wallet is the limiting factor. At one point, poor people are just more vulnerable on the road.
Another idea is to tax vehicles by their weight, hear me out: heavier heavier vehicles are less efficient, more damaging to roads, more fatal to other road users and take up more parking space
Can here to say this. Tax the weight but do it at the manufacturing level so consumers don't get this panties in a bunch.
An electric vehicle is always going to weigh more than its internal combustion engine counterpart largely because the batteries contribute a significant aspect of the vehicles curb weight and yet they are far more efficient than their counterparts, so I don't think this argument holds much weight (pun intended).
@@senekerc they aren't assuered to be more efficient, you would need to calculate the fuel equivalent of the electricity used to charge to calculate that, which can be very variable based on local solar power, nuclear etc. And ofc u are hauling more weight around so that reduces miles per energy as compared to fueled vehicles
they are taxed more.....they use more gas so pay more gas tax, cost more so pay more sales tax, you also had to get more income to afford so you paid more income tax
Yeah, they do that in Japan
This guy! He's becoming a legend
We need to bring back wagons and hatchbacks. Car manufacturers assume more people won't want them, but if you sell and market them appropriately, people will buy.
Wagons please... More of those xD
Exactly@@driftinsti
The lizard means begs to differ on that
Can we have them in higher ground clearance please, I wanted to go camping with them
@@victoryh67so like the Volvo v90 cross country?
Utaye Lee makes the best content CBC has to offer
SUV in the open country - makes sense.
SUV in the city - makes no sense.
Fix the roads.
Ban SUVs in the city.
@@ryuuguu01 Ban eco-hippies.
They don’t make sense anywhere
@@robgrey6183Loser
Hope Uytae makes more CBC gem videos. The last season was fantastic.
@外宇宙外星人殺魔鬼Ask other Universes Alien to kill devils. Take your meds bro
There are a couple more factors at play here, emissions and safety standards. Most vehicles we think of as SUVs are classed in the USA as light trucks, not cars. Trucks don't have to meet the same stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations that cars need to meet. This makes them cheaper to build than cars. Toss in the fact that automakers have larger profit margins on SUVs and Light Trucks and that pushes them to do what Ford has done and virtually eliminate cars from their lineups (Ford sells only one car, the Mustang). Now that cars are gone the race upmarket is still continuing as well with smaller SUVs and lower trim levels of larger SUVs disappearing as automakers discover they can make a bigger profit with more expensive vehicles. I don't see these trends changing without requiring light trucks and SUVs to meet the same emissions and fuel mileage standards as cars are currently required to meet.
I also think that there needs to be greater liability assigned to drivers and manufacturers when there are vehicle-pedestrian impacts so that insurance rates go up for SUVs that don't protect pedestrians and drivers of small vehicles. I would even go so far as to propose new rules that lower SUV hood lines to match those of sedans if the isn't an active safety device to catch and protect them.
As companies like Ford are abandoning their sedan lines, is it a matter of preference for SUVs or lack of availability of smaller cars because manufacturers focus on the models with the higher profit margin.
You have the causation completely reversed. Ford is abandoning sedans because no one is buying them. SUVs and Sedans could have the exact same profit margins, obviously SUVs will be more expensive because they require more materials to build, and are heavier and larger and therefore more expensive to transport, but the bigger influence is economy of scale. The product you produce more of will be cheaper to produce per unit. They produce more SUVs because thats what sells more. If people only bought one model of ford, it would be insanely efficient at all levels from R&D to manufacturing, and therefore have a higher profit margin.
get sports cars or sports sedans.
@@sirskelletor They’re not buying them because Ford’s sedans are terrible. Same for Chevy. Dodge has great sales actually. But most just opt for Japanese/Korean
@とひこ They aren't horrible. It's just called market shift. Even for toyota the sales of sedans have declined over time. If I can buy a SUV that gets the same mileage as a sedan but can carry 2x as much, why would I buy the sedan.. it just makes sense for most people.
@@alextran8188 I agree fully that SUVs just make more practical sense than sedans. Sedans still make up like ~50% of the market though so people are still buying them. It's not as doom and gloom as two bad American sedan manufacturers make it out to be lol. Especially German car makers, they often have full lines of sedans and multiple different coupe models.
Great content. The problem as a pedestrian and small car owner is I can't see around SUV's.
😅 it's like an arms race, I went CUV because I can't see 🙄🤨 of course in Alberta you still can't see around 4x4s. Little cars need a periscope in addition to blindspot detection 😅
Can you see around a bus or a cement truck, semi, delivery vans? Those tend to be on the road a lot too...
@@chbr5623 I live in a small town, 70% of daily traffic are big 4x4s. Semi trucks are mainly seen in highway (so no T intersection turns) and I maybe see cement trucks once a year 🤔 again mainly on highway or main ring roads 😅 so I'm mostly cursing about in town traffic and only seeing the hood of the trucks in the way of seeing oncoming traffic.
are you mentally challenged, busses, construction trucks, semi trucks are all necessities. the only people who should be driving pickup trucks are the handful of construction workers who need them, not people who are overcompensating.. @@chbr5623
Drivers know pedestrians are there. They don't care and expect people to jump out of the way. Legalize carrying a screwdriver or a hammer and legalize damaging any vehicle that gets near, and drivers will slow down and drive safer.
4:30 - He ignores and avoids mentioning how having a bigger vehicle makes drivers more aggressive, more willing to drive recklessly and endanger others because the SUV driver will survive, the other person won't.
5:50 - "Altering" suvs doesn't fix the problem of drivers. The only way to make those crapcans "safe" without banning them is a hard 20kmh speed limit imposed by a governor in the engine. Banning IS the better idea.
Another reason that sedans are not selling any more is that manufacturers are making sedans less useful in order to push customers into the higher profit SUV. Try to find a sedan nowadays where a 6 foot tall person can sit comfortably in the back seat. They exist, but they are not common. Most sedans are fastbacks with sloping roof-lines that kill the headroom in the back. They look cool, and they are a smidge more aerodynamic, but practical they are not.
You forgot one major reason for the increase in SUVs. They operate in a less regulated vehicle class and are massively more profitable so auto makers have been pushing them.
A vehicle that is more dangerous for everyone not in them is not "safer" like you repeat, they are more dangerous for approximately 100% of people on the road.
all very true, not to mention how dangerous it is when the driver of a tall SUV or pickup truck is a person of short stature as a result it is impossible for them to see a child crossing the road in front of their vehicle.
One of Canada's pride. Uytae Lee.
Reasonable people: We should consider that larger cars are killing more people
SUV/truck drivers: BUT MUH FREEDOM
Where did you hear him say larger cars are killing more people? No where in this video did I hear him say larger cars are killing more people. Did you miss the part about ~40-50% fewer passenger deaths in SUVs? Do we want to cut 30,000 passenger deaths by 40% (in the US), or 6,000 pedistrian deaths by 5.6%?
SUV/truck drivers: I'm not putting my life at risk by driving a smaller car, based on the way I see other people drive.
@@jameshoiby lower passenger deaths, but in return with way more pedestrian deaths, including their own children
@@ianhomerpura8937 That's not what I understood from my research but that doesn't mean I am right. :) Regardless, I hate these large trucks as well, but I've always done so for environmental reasons. I have several neighbors who are, for example, accountants, who drive giant F350 diesels to work from our location in the city. Why is this necessary!
@@jameshoiby but where is the stats of the people that never get back the health they had before an accident? if two SUVs a suburban crash against an expedition, one of them at 100km/h the other was just at 30km/h which one would suffer the most damage? or rollover? by more airbags that have the G forces and accelerations inside the cabin are more important, and now is the fashion of put to the cars in general glass roof or sunroof or moonroof so worse it's the result in case of an severe accident, plus the higher ground clearance makes the SUVs easier to lose the gravity center and get an easy rollover
I had an SUV and traded it in after 3 years for a smaller sports wagon. Living in Vancouver, parking stalls are designed for sub compact cars. Not only is it hard to find , get in and out of many parking spaces but I had 8 or 9 door dings withing 6 mo of ownership. The added space is nice, but rarely needed. Don’t think I will ever go back to an SUV.
Just discovered Uytae Lee after watching his Vancouver Specials story. He's a brilliant presenter. Imagine how good he'll be in a decade from now.
that has nothing to do, things don't always improve over time!
if the truck at 3:43 is indicative of large vehicle drivers, it's no wonder they're so dangerous 🤦
Uytae’s stories are great. But what about the reason why SUVs became ubiquitous?
Auto makers fashioned a loophole in safety and emissions standards for “light trucks” and then pivoted to marketing them for retail consumers.
Uytae is the best thing coming out of CBC. Give this guy a bigger budget.
More importantly freedom on choosing topics.
Taxing SUVs and pick-ups differently than sedans is a simple approach that can easily and quickly implemented. The larger the vehicle the more people should pay in registration fees. Insurance fee should also be higher since they are menace to smaller vehicle and pedestrians.
I think it would be more effective to require a different license classification in order to drive vehicles over a certain weight.
@@vids595. I agree. Stricter licensing criteria.
The only menace on our roads are incompetent drivers and wreckless oblivious pedestrians.
@@huntsbychainsaw5986 Everybody thinks they're a great driver and everyone else are terrible drivers.
@@michaelvickers4437 The difference is that I've got the credentials to prove I'm right.
SUV/truck owners care about safety... for themselves! Having said that, many new vehicles today come with autonomous braking...
Only on higher trims. **Like what the video explicitly stated, pedestrian safety features are written into the law as required standards for new vehicles in the EU and Japan.** But in North America, only those who can afford them would consider getting them on the grounds of whether they need them for their own safety as the driver.
@@teasea546 not sure if you're correct. Subaru has their safety tech across all lineups, and Honda offers it higher trims but Hondas are cheap.
@@littledovecitydust Subaru only made EyeSight standard on all trims in the recent couple of years, I know because I drive one. New cars are not cheap for the majority of North Ameircan population, and most of them are definitely not driving brand new Subarus or high-trim Hondas.
@@littledovecitydust Living in the Pacific Northwest might have also skewed your perception, Subaru is not mainstream enough be an indicator or industry trend setter in North America's mainstream.
I never met a car owner who cared less about his own safety than SUV owners...
Londoner here: there are a stupid amount of SUVs on our roads. It's as ridiculous as the nonsensical faux- utilitarian reasons that people use to justify buying one. I can't stand people who buy them
There's also another factor with SUVs and crashes. The likelihood of being in a head-on collision is only 6 percent. So yeah, there's not much incentive to buy an SUV based on that small number. Another way to be safe on the road is to just drive safely and be calm behind the wheel. The more aggressive you'll be, the more likely you are to crash. It's always best to keep your cool when driving.
Informative video! As a certified Traffic Control Person since 2008 this info is helpful for our industry in keeping ourselves safe and has changed the regulations that WCB has said we need to follow.
'Flaggers' get killed every year, usually by drivers who were distracted and inattentive to the road conditions. Reassuring when you consider the only thing between the driver/vehicle and a flagger is a piece of flattened painted metal saying SLOW/STOP - what a horrifying and sobering thought that all of us keep in the back of our minds as a 'reality'....
I just love the SUV driver with tinted windows, where I can make absolutely zero eye contact as a pedestrian or cyclist.
The unquenchable thirst for public space and resources solely set aside for drivers just keeps growing... ENOUGH!
in car design there's all sorts of limitations and rules that are designed around pedestrian safety. One of them is that the front bonnet has to be a minimum height, as the slow hoods of the 70s and 80s were also fatal to pedestrians. I don't see why in the same way we can't have a maximum height for the bonnet.
It's pure selfishness, let alone the worse fuel efficiency. I heavily agree upon regulations for banning them, already bad enough that they're avoiding fuel regulation laws for "cars" by technically not being "cars"
then the government instead of steal the money to the taxpayers should first make streets that don't flood at winter with the first rain, nationwide , the most funny of your comment is that Canada makes many American vehicles on sale in Canada and the United States but can't even make the model for the local market non CAFE compliant
love Uytae Lee! his stuff is great
As a non-american, seeing cars literally six feet tall and that badly designed is just horrifying.
3:21 "The bigger the vehicle, the less likely the risk of death for its passengers."
Precisely why the safest vehicle to be in on the road is...a public bus.
Force crash compatibility with the smallest possible vehicles. Any vehicle that completely destroys a Smart Car/Fiat 500(etc) in a crash should be deemed unfit for use on public roads.
In australia there have been new imports of US pick up trucks like RAM etc and they are massive compared to any other local pick up trucks from Toyota or the ones Ford have sold for years!
- it's primarily an ego (and narcissism) driven 'arms race', at least in the US where I am. Mine is bigger than yours so I'm 'better'... Where I work about half the parking area is filled with full-size pickups and SUV's. Most are driven there by a single person, mainly men.. If you look at a full-size US 'Big 3' truck (Ford, GM, Dodge) from 20 years ago versus now, the new ones appear they are all 'roided up' (on steriods).. A lot heavier + overly 'macho-ified' styling as well.
Outside the US, a close friend has been looking into replacing his mid 1980's era Land Rover 109 (3.5 V8) that he has had a long time and is used solely as a work vehicle, mainly towing medium & large 2-axle cargo trailers. He needs 4wd and has looked at and driven several 4wd US pickups and even the smaller (in comparison) Jeep Gladiator tows no more than what he can now but is larger and heavier in comparison. The physical size makes even it ponderous where he lives (a heavily forested and mountainous area) + it uses a lot more fuel. Normal US pickups like the Ford F-series and Ram, which he looked into, are even larger and heavier, so they have been ruled out. He recently visited the US and we rented a new F-150 and did a road trip in it. He liked driving it but said it was simply 'far too large' to own/use normally where he lives.
Now he is leaning towards keeping his LR and 'investing' in fixing the corrosion it has and if eventually needed, buying a Toyota to replace the LR. Where he lives, US trucks are so heavy (even the lighter duty 1/2 ton versions), that when you combine the weight of the truck & a trailer being towed, it requires the driver have a commercial drivers license. Not practical as that also restricts when and where you can use the 'truck' such as not before/after certain times of day, on Sundays or within some towns/cities.
Same here in the Philippines. There are a lot of new Ford Raptor and Rangers as well as Chevy Silverados. All of them are way too large to fit in existing roads.
@@AB-pl1ko the huge "pickups" US car manufacturers like to sell literally have LESS BED SPACE than smaller pick-ups from decades ago.
@@MsZsc - Exactly. it's bascially an 'arms race'..
I used to own (last ten years) a 1977 GMC Sierra 2500 (3/4 ton chassis) longbed 2wd, considered a 'full size' pickup. Good truck btw.. If I compare it dimensionally to current model, my old truck looks more like a compact now. Utterly pointless if you ask me as that old truck did everything I needed it for and would fit inside a normal garage, unlike many current ones...
@@MsZsc that is not true. If anything bed space has increased as the width of these newer trucks have incresed.. you can still buy a truck with an 8 ft bed..
Uytae and his team are great at reporting interesting topics. Kudos to CBC Vancouver for having them on the team.
Ban SUVs and pickup trucks unless for very specific industrial purposes.
They burn more fuel and have more wear on roads. They also take up more space and their headlights sit at eye level of sedan drivers, blinding them. SUV's suck for anything but offroading, which their owners almost never do.
and most of them suck at off roading too
They are great at keeping you safe from other drivers.
We love our suvs! There comfortable, spacious inside & safe. Sedans are low to the ground, get high sided in snow conditions.
@@404notfound..... safe for those inside, but not for everyone outside. And with idiot drivers in many places, lots of pedestrians die.
@@ianhomerpura8937couldn’t have agreed more with you on that, most people that drive suvs, can’t drive or don’t pay attention like for real, they are higher from the ground and have proximity sensors and yet they still hit pedestrians, kids and cyclists like how stupid and idiotic can you be with all the driving assistance at your disposal, and for people driving sedans they have better visibility on the road and seeing pedestrians and kids crossing the road, and those people are more better and smarter at driving and don’t need the help of proximity sensors and backup cameras to park or to do any of the basics for a car, in conclusion SUVs are piles of garbage. And are making people more dumber at driving and more reliant on the driving assistance rather than driving skills.
We should regulate them as mentioned and we should add a tax to the sales and direct that money into improving testing and infrastructure improvements for people walking and cycling such as crosswalk upgrades.
Cycling is great in Edmonton where the road is ice covered for more than 6 months per year and the winters can reach well below -40 C.
@@chbr5623 Oulu, Finland. Cold and ice is not a factor in whether or not winter cycling is viable in a city or not. Proper infrastructure, and proper winter maintenance of that infrastructure is.
ua-cam.com/video/Uhx-26GfCBU/v-deo.htmlsi=6oryQYGqD5Iq9bqu
@@Xachremos It's a dumb idea to prioritize cycling in Edmonton in the winter where the roads have deep ice ruts and are ice covered for more than 6 months of the year.
You can't see anything when an SUV is in front of you. If there is an SUV to your left, you can't see pedestrians to your left. vice versa. That's when pedestrians get hit (by the car not the SUV) crossing the streets. SUV have high centre of gravity- they can't corner and prone to roll overs and they are usually the first ones in the ditch during snow storms.
Jeremy Clarkson talked about the SUV ridiculousness in 2000. He didn't take into account the inherent danger of SUVs to pedestrians nor the danger it posed to other cars, but he did describe how stupid they are. The safety it provided came at tremendous cost such as terrible fuel economy, extreme weight that increase rollover risks and the flawed factor of safety in which increase safety in one area actually decrease overall safety.
Smaller cars have become more dangerous because there are more SUV's on the road to crash into said smaller cars. If we hit the reset button and put out policy like Japan where they gave incentives to buy a smaller car, then that statistic would reduce.
The only thing SUVs successfully protect are the profit margins of the car companies.
- Cities are settled with high road maintenance costs (heavier vehicle == More wear and tear on roads).
- Nature, as they require more resources to build and operate
- Anybody not in one of the UAVs
- Loss of even more public space because these larger vehicles require larger parking spaces.
None of this will of course convince people not to buy them, but the SUV is the poster child on why we can't have nice urban areas.
We may be getting to a point where SUV's and light trucks should require a separate license, just like a motorcycle or bus does. In the video "These Stupid Trucks Are Literally Killing Us" by Not Just Bikes, he shared information on how drivers of trucks and SUV's are more likely to be bad drivers and take more risks than drivers of regular sedans. The larger size and safety ratings makes them more confident in their probably mediocre driving ability. larger vehicles have more blind spots, especially right in front because of the very tall hood of the car. I think it took 11 children sitting down in a straight line in front of the SUV in a test before the driver was able to see one of the children. 11 children! No wonder people run over their own kids and tailgate cars on the road, they probably don't know just how close they are. SUV's and Trucks are bigger, heavier, have longer stopping distances, have higher bumpers that are incompatible with smaller vehicles (That's what bumpers are for, to hit each other in a collision. A higher bumper misses the lower bumper and crushes the smaller vehicle.), they're harder to park because they're so large, which is also an issue for smaller vehicles, because now we can't see around your behemoth when we're trying to get out of a parking spot, etc. And as another user pointed out, heavier vehicles damage the roads quicker than lighter ones, and road maintenance already bankrupts towns and cities as it is, so it only makes sense that large vehicles be harder to drive by law. There should be additional training, higher taxes, and harsher penalties when at fault in a collision, as these vehicles are a bigger danger to everyone who isn't in one.
NJB sucks. He's a bitter, angry, hateful, cynical doomer with an equally obnoxious fanbase.
Glad this video is now widely available for others to watch. I'm guessing the success of @notjustbikes recent video on SUVs helped.
I watch NotJustBikes too, it definitely gave me some things to help form an opinion about transportation.
NJB sucks. He's a bitter, angry, hateful, cynical doomer with an equally obnoxious fanbase.
The rise in pedestrian deaths since 2010 are attributed to people being glued to their phones. I-phone sales doubled from 2009 to 2010 and then it nearly doubled again in 2011. You know what happened in 2012? It double again. The reason cyclist do not have an increase in deaths is because its impossible to bike and use a smart phone at the same time. They are focusing on the task at hand. Your increase in pedestrian deaths is smartphones not SUVs. I will agree that a small car is less likely to kill a pedestrian but it's the responsibility of the smart phone user to pay attention and not walk out into an intersection before its their turn to go. I walk in my city quite a bit. I see people with their heads down far too often.. On the street and in the car. If you want to ban something ban the use of smart phones while walking and driving. Ill guarantee you results.
I really like these indepth series and hope cbc does more!
Here in North America , many pedestrians that are hit knowingly do
things to contribute to their injuries or death.
Like walking too far outside the white line marker , or riding bike too
far to the left of the marker . many simply assume traffic will swerve
dangerously to opposite oncoming traffic lanes to avoid hitting them .
Really stupid things that people should know better ,
but they don't , and the sad part is most towns keep making
driving lanes more narrow , attempting to split more area of the road
to share with pedestrians ,
Then they have everyone drive on it over 40 to 50 miles an hour.
Does this make sense.
No.
love the suburban stereotype of the smallest wife driving the biggest SUV
aka the suburban soccer mom
The smallest man also drives the biggest truck
YES! Calling out large vehicles and the lack of regulations!
Brilliant as ever, thanks for treating this subject. More important thant we think
They are also very big, require more space to store, more energy to run, and have worse visibility than a sedan. I would like to live a town with less SUVs and trucks!
Unfortunately improving safety doesn't make them any less polluting or reduce traffic. :(
Speaking from the US, there is no reason why Detroit auto manufacturers would change their current obsession for SUVs and trucks. It costs more for them to build passenger cars due to safety regulations. If SUVs and trucks actually had to meet passenger car criteria, Detroit would be pushing a different plan. Another very alarming feature when talking about weight is how much heavier electric SUVs and trucks. As more of those are sold, you can bet pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and serious injuries will skyrocket.
Uytae Lee saved CBC
This is just late-stage car dependency; an endless arms race for larger, more heavily armoured vehicles. "I'm okay with my relative safety coming at the expense of other road users." The whole modality of private vehicle transportation and the psychology it breeds will always lead to this
This guy needs his own channel. No way I would ever subscribe to the CBC...
My Mercedes sedan beats out any suv in looks or comfort or safety.....for me and others sharing the roads. and at 40yrs old, this trouble -less beauty has meant that even w. low income, I own properties frm my years of saving. At this point, I feel that the car may outlast me! No one has ever said "this car is too old to put a new windshield in or buy 4 new winters"....unlike a relative of mine w. a big SUV of only half the age of mine. That was a shock event. Just cus the paint was still nice 😂
I want a single seater car with the option for a passenger attachment and a trailer attachment. It would be like a transformer, getting wider or longer only when needed. Would save so much on gas and could move through traffic and park easier. How many years away are we?
i support anythign SUV hate; we need more of it
(We should still ban them, tho)
feel free to move to europe
Uytae is a joy to watch
Everything old is new again. We went through this in the late 90s and early 2000s with offset collision and that gave birth to the crossover, which sits lower to the ground and uses a car chassis instead of a truck chassis. Most crossovers have sloped hoods so they’re not as “unsafe” as this report suggests. Consumers are trending towards crossovers and SUVs as they’re much easier for the older population to get in and out of.
There's more in vehicle distractions than 10 years ago. There's also more distractions for pedestrians. In Vancouver on Georgia and Burrard Street, for example it can be really hard to make a right hand turn on a green light. If your in a car or truck trying to time your turn usually you look at vehicle traffic first then carefully check for people. Every thing can be clear for 1 second and change instantly then. I think specific intersections should have pedestrian crossing times where everyone can walk, then vehicle traffic only. I'm sure this had been studied but wasn't adopted for efficiency. Right now people have to take risks just to make it from point A to point B and that has to change.
The idea that SUVs should be banned because they hit and kill pedestrians just doesn't hold for me - you just can't reason that there's a safer way to hit pedestrian with vehicles.
People want SUVs to feel safe because we are bad drivers. SUVs and trucks are exempt from gas guzzler tax and use more gasoline compared to cars. Heavier vehicles like SUVs trucks and EVs wear down and destroy our roads quicker.
In Canada, trucks and SUVs are certainly needed in winter for its hight clearence in the snow. A Sudan thats only a foot off the ground is going to get stuck every winter.
2 major things:
1. The types of drivers who own SUVs must be relevant. SUVs are expensive, which means their drivers will probably tend to be older, more cautious, and more experienced.
2. Even if we don't ban them, we should 100% tax them and apply better emission standards to them.
I live in a U.S. city that tends to flood easily whenever it rains hard, so most people drive suv of trucks so that they have enough ground clearance to drive through some minor flooding. By the way, in my city there are no pedestrians unless you are in downtown. My wife used to drive sedans, but after a few times getting stuck because of rain and almost getting her car flooded she now drives and suv.
in the majority of cities people are driving SUVs being the only person in the huge vehicle with no perceivable benefit to anybody except profiting car manufacturers. People are buying these things when they do not need them for the "off road" capabilities at all
@@MsZsc i do generally agree with you, but i wouldn't call my wife's SUV big. It is a Mazda CX-5 which is about the same size or maybe smaller than a Toyota RAV4
your town and rural use cases are the exception, not the rule. This also applies to depending on cars for infrastructure instead of trains and public transit as a whole. 80% of car sales now being these things is insane.
Maybe your town should levy a tax on SUVs and fix its crumbling infrastructure.
If a "city" has no pedestrians except its downtown, I won't call that a "city".
You know what is even more bizarre about suvs, the electric ones have very high hood while electric motors are far more compact than ICE. They could offer 0 frunk space in order to make the hood lower, but they're not doing that.
One thing that you didn't touch on is illegal modifications. Governments and regulators need to do a better job at clamping down on such changes, especially as it relates to engines, noise, and visibility.
Great work , All the Love from Quebec :)
Worth noting that a lot of the proliferation of the SUV owes a lot to the way US (and probably Canadian) fuel efficiency regulations explicitly exclude "light trucks", which includes SUVs. Car makers have no incentive to invest in expensive R&D to make cars more efficient, when they could just churn out massive monstrosities with higher profit margins, and which don't require meeting as stringent efficiency regulations.
I suspect if the US and Canada closed this loophole (which was initially intended to prevent work trucks or commercial vehicles from being included), we'd see a different mix of products on the market.
I live in a small Arkansas town there are 3 car dealers they don't even sell cars only big Bubba trucks and SUVs. The whole town is littered with them.and now the price of gas is closing in on $4 a gallon 🤣😅🥳🥳
Car arms race is a good way of putting it. These things are weapons.
One thing that does not make it into the stats: the bigger and heavier vehicles, especially with AWD/FWD take much longer to stop in the dry and will wind up much further off the road when the loss of control is in slippery conditions...
EV should be more popular because they weigh more ...1000s of pounds more. Wouldn't that make them safer to get into an accident? Not for the Ice car hitting them
Ban them and stop this madness. Canadian cities are becoming a hell place for anyone outside a car. this include all your children
I’m not sure I agree with the overall takeaway from this video. Heavier and heavier cars means more and more energy in a crash and there are other disadvantages too such as noise pollution increasing with vehicle weight and the simple amount of space SUVs and trucks take up on roads and when parked. I’m sure the auto industry would love to sell us more and more features to increase pedestrian safety, but I don’t think it’s the best option. And before you say “snow”, my mini does better in heavy snow than my dad’s F150.
What about SUVs' centre of gravity issue that makes them more susceptible to rollover in an accident?
The electric SUVs coming out now have a lower center of gravity than many cars.
LOL
I wanted to go camping with my car, I would love to buy a station wagon, but they have such little ground clearance that I can’t take them anywhere even if it’s just unpaved roads I will be scared if it damages the bottom of the car, so I can only go for a suv😢
Regular cars have more regulations. People avoid regulation by skipping SUVS and getting trucks. Notice how some trucks remove their plastic bumpers and install all kinds of steel safari cages.
There is no mention of the owner's debt or the expenses associated with maintaining the roads for these types of vehicles. Additionally, it's important to consider the pollution and environmental impact of these vehicles, particularly in the context of climate change. It appears as though the CBC may have received some funding from large truck companies, as they seem to be promoting the sale of F-150s without addressing these concerns.
It's buses and heavy trucks that damage the roads not vehicles under 10,000 lbs...
And then, there are all the trucks consumers are buying for their daily transportation - massive and usually much cheaper then a full size SUV. I think there’s a middle ground to be found where safety and practicality meet. I’m not going back to low car, but I’m also not embracing a, truck like, full size SUV.
Great content, great editing, great design! Thank you!
6:07
Technological solutions only get you so far. What happens when that module doesn't do it's job properly or when it fails? Or more importantly, someone who's used to that function doesn't bother paying as much attention when they drive since "The car will take care of it for me" and then they get into a car without that feature. Complacency is my single biggest complaint with these "Convenience features"
Uytae does not miss
It’s so sad, drivers are so aggressive these days it’s almost like you need an SUV to protect yourself
the solution is simple, and it's already implemented in many countries. Bigger vehicles should require a big vehicle license.
Another banger from Uytae
I think you neglected at least 3 major points:
1) the reason for the dramatic growth in the light trucks market segment has been because vehicle manufacturers, recognizing the high profitability of SUVs etc, have made it almost impossible to buy sedans
2) the reason that light trucks are so profitable is because the US gov't excepted them from fuel economy and safety standards that other passenger vehicles were required to meet
3) because of their poor fuel economy, the growth in the number of SUVs is directly related to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the vehicle segment of GHGs.
The SUV is a peculiarly American approach to the safety of self vs the safety of others. It's rather like they proliferation of guns, where the greater number of guns begets yet more guns, as people who are fearful of those people who already have guns seek to protect themselves by joining, and thereby escalating, the arms race.
Nobody outside of the NRA thinks that's a good idea, so why do we think it's a good idea not to try to put water on the growing fire of SUVs?
SUV are truly more comfortable
Wish you would've hit the speed angle as well, our roads are designed to move cars as fast as possible, e.g. big wide lanes, right on red, slip lanes. We need to design our streets to make drivers slow down, and studies say this will actually increase car throughput!
If the government really wants to improve the safety for pedestrians, cities need to be completely redesigned for pedestrians and bicyclists so that vehicles are not even driven in the center and around shopping areas. The structure of cities is completely incompatible with the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. The idea that they should be traveling in the same area is ridiculous. There should be large thruways that commuters take to get into the city/shopping area and then public transportation/walking paths/bridges that provides access to center city. The other major improvement is increasing the effectiveness and testing to acquire drivers' licenses. Most North American states/provinces give out drivers' licenses like they come in crackerjack boxes. Passing tests should be difficult and you should be retested regularly. You need to improve the skill and safety of the drivers or take them off the road.
Solution is clear: Tex incentives shouldn't be given to suvs and evs. It should all be done by weight and it should be exponential. Time to get people out of SUVs. It's the most sensible and green thing to do!
Spot on!!