City drivers 'should think twice' before buying SUVs

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Yep, we’ve been saying all of this for thirty years now.

The consumer continues to buy SUV’s in increasing volumes in the English speaking world and in most wealthy cities.

e all know that most gargantuan SUV’s have always been registered as new within the M25.

Is there really anyone who didn’t know that "It turns out that the home of the 'Chelsea tractor' really is Chelsea.”

Next up, we discover that the owners of EV’s emit. more CO2 than the rest of us as a result of their ever-increasing air travel and home delivery service usage, negating any form of EV related climate change savings.
 
Perfect time to tax urban electric SUV on weight and size, foot print. More crowded roads and larger vehicles!!!
 
And its absolutely essential to have four wheel drive on your way to Waitrose.
 
Agree 100% big heavy and ugly -


( Nice w202 )

View attachment 111461
Whilst sweeping the streets clean of gas guzzling and ugly SUVs, let’s do the same with gas guzzling high performance cars with large engines and unnecessary body addenda.

As well as causing similar human health and climate damage as those ugly SUVs, they also lead to unnecessary noise pollution and are a danger to human safety when driven too fast.

They’re also bought in much greater numbers in London, and especially in areas such as Kensington and Chelsea, they’re too big for parking spaces and a nightmare on the school run, etc.
 
See this kind of thing winds me right up. SUV's in cities 'annoy' other road users because of their size and/or their environmental impact. Whilst they may not be the most eco-friendly type vehicles, who has the right to dictate what car someone buys? If you have the money, good luck to you. Personally I have no issue with them, no matter if the owners live in cities or not.

I can tell you now, if someone told me that my car 'annoys' them, the amount of f**ks given would be in negative figures - I learned to stop caring what other people think a long long time ago.
 
See this kind of thing winds me right up. SUV's in cities 'annoy' other road users because of their size and/or their environmental impact. Whilst they may not be the most eco-friendly type vehicles, who has the right to dictate what car someone buys? If you have the money, good luck to you. Personally I have no issue with them, no matter if the owners live in cities or not.

I can tell you now, if someone told me that my car 'annoys' them, the amount of f**ks given would be in negative figures - I learned to stop caring what other people think a long long time ago.
Too right, live and let live 👍
 
It's a mystery why there aren't more 2x4 SUVs on the market. It's a very practical vehicle, but the 4x4 makes no sense in urban environment.
 
It's a mystery why there aren't more 2x4 SUVs on the market. It's a very practical vehicle, but the 4x4 makes no sense in urban environment.
I think that there are.

Most of the Korean SUVs and small Volvo ones are 2wd.
 
I have always had a Range Rover or Discovery since 1972. I live in a rural area, access to my house is via an unsurfaced BOAT (Byway open to all traffic), I enjoy country sports and use it most days for trips to exercise my Flatcoat Retriever.

I can see the argument for increasing taxation on SUVs, but feel that those used in rural areas should not be penalised - probably the best solution is to up the charges that are paid by what are viewed as "non woke" cars when driving in city centres.

NJSS
 
Likewise the various offerings both large and small from VW and its offshoots.
I meant popular large SUVs such as the Range Rover, Land Cruiser, G-Wagen etc. Why aren't there 4x2 versions? Surly Chelsea tractor owner would be happy to save some money.
 
I think that there are.

Most of the Korean SUVs and small Volvo ones are 2wd.

As far as I'm aware, the majority of "everyday" SUVs are either 2wd, or a non-permanent 4wd (i.e. Haldex type) - things like the Kuga, all the VAG MQB platform cars, Qashqai etc. It's only the bigger and more expensive stuff that gets permanent drivetrain.
 
I meant popular large SUVs such as the Range Rover, Land Cruiser, G-Wagen etc. Why aren't there 4x2 versions? Surly Chelsea tractor owner would be happy to save some money.

Because that's not their use case - the Cruiser and G-wagen were designed to drive into the middle of nowhere. It's just that people insist on buying them for the middle of Knightsbridge.
 
I neither live in a city nor currently drive a 4x4 although the wife does have an Evoque which has a smaller footprint than my CLA. But this kind of BS gets my goat, if we start deciding that SUVs aren’t necessary in towns (and who says they don’t travel behind the town borders, we don’t live in the Middle Ages), what’s next?

supercars banned because you can’t do more than 70mph so they must be just as pointless and polluting? Will there be an equivalent of the so called “bedroom tax”, if your car has more seating capacity than people in your house you pay more?

We‘ve lost enough of our freedom over the past 12 months, we will be forced into EVs if we buy a new car from 9 years time - so don’t try telling me what car I can or cannot buy with my earned and taxed income
 
I think they should change the name of SUV's. To date I have never seen one that is "S" Sporty and U "Utility" but they are Vehicles... You can get sporty versions and Utilitarian versions but not both. They make no sense?

I toyed with the idea but instead decide, rightly so, that estate cars are way more practical and can be sporty... Each to their own

The only thing they are good for is the higher seating position for the elder generation to get in and out of more easily.

The don't annoy me one bit, but I just don't understand why they exist or are so popular. I can get more in the boot of my estate than I can in friends "SUV's"

Maybe its a fashion thing??
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom