Hacker News Reader

Comment by stinos | Hacker News Reader

Bit off-topic perhaps, but he SUV popularity remains baffling to me especially in this age. That's maybe because I'm looking from the wrong angle or I'm just wrong when it comes to physics. In general I see a pretty big car with a rather big front with flat parts and a high wheelbase. So in comparision with a more 'normal' one that means the user pays extra per mile because of the additional weight and wind resistance? So what makes that extra cost worth it, why does this type of car thrive so well? Is it just looks (I think they're ugly but that's irrelevant)? Is it the 'everyone has one' effect? Does it handle better perhaps? More on-topic: will the energy problem come into play when transitioning these cars into the EV-space?

edit to clarify, seeing the comments regarding hard to reach areas etc, where an SUV does something useful: I'm talking standard Western European countries here with mild climate, hardly any snow, i.e. no use for 4WD or so.

View on HN

I drive one, in the Netherlands, where the climate and road conditions are such that those are not a factor at all. The only reason I drive it is because it's so comfortable to sit higher up, and to have a better view of the road that way. It's comfortable to get in and out of (I'm 40 years old, work out several times a week, no mobility issues whatsoever - I still find it more comfortable). This is the second SUV I have, before that I had a tiny car and thought the same as you do, it was only once I started driving one that I started to see why people like them.

I don't think for transitioning to EV the form factor will be the problem. BMW will start delivering the first EV versions of my current car (X3) next year. For me, charging it where I live (city center) is the problem. Every time I see my neighbour roll his extension cord across the sidewalk I think 'no way I'm going to do that'.

Not intended in a nasty way, just factual:

The only reason I drive it is because it's so comfortable to sit higher up, and to have a better view of the road that way.

And thereby blocking the view of 'regular' cars.

Only to a degree I think - when you're sitting in a lower car, you can't view over other cars anyway. I guess you can see through other cars' windows, which is harder when the other cars are higher, like for me when I'm between several trucks. I don't recall that as being a 'problem' as such from when I drove a lower car. Maybe other people experience it differently.

Any junction where there's a lane on your outside, a person in a "normal" sized car is unable to see through into the junction.

For some reason, all of the traffic lights installed in my city now don't have a set of lights at the far side of the junction visible, so there is a fairly large window where you can be stuck with no visibility of the traffic lights in 2 lanes of traffic if you might have a filter light.

There's also rear view mirrors (big vehicle takes up more of my window, so I can't see if there's a bike coming)

Main issue I always had with SUVs is the lights. They all have way to bright xenon lights. When you drive a sports car (I drove a fiat coupe & a mx-5/Miata) in the dark you cannot see anything when a SUV is behind you.

Not to speak of opposing(?) traffic on smaller roads. I almost died several times ;)

Very happy to no longer have a car.

This is argument of people that don't know how to drive well & safely. Maybe not tailgating every other car and just keeping the safe distance would be enough? It definitely is for me and my car is lower than average sedan.

It goes both ways.

If the person in front of you isn't driving like such an jerk that you need to be looking around them to predict their moves or to find a passing opportunity it's not really a big deal.

In terms of perspective a raised POV can generally help with visibility, independetly to how tall other cars are.

Or even how tall the windscreen is can be a significant factor, in my car it is so short that the rearview mirror covers a significant part of the street.

And thereby blocking the view of 'regular' cars.

And small children.

How about trucks, buses, semis, delivery trucks and all other machinery?

I can definitely see why people like them and thanks for being transparent about it rather than try to justify it with secondary reasons.

My only suggestion is irrespective of the environmental aspect is, do check the performance of your next SUV with regards to "Pedestrian Safety" crash tests (Also standardized by Euro NCAP).

Specially when you mentioned city center, and The Netherlands. The difference between a regular sedan and an SUV could be the difference between a kid with fractured legs or the weight of forever taking someone's life.

I kind of wonder if what we Europeans call SUVs is really what a lot of thew people in these threads think about.

For example, I am going to buy a new car in the next 2 years, so looking a bit, and two cars I might be choosing behind would be the:

Peugeot 3008/5008, seen as a SUV in the Netherlands: 67% Pedestrian Euro NCAP score: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/peugeot/3008/5008/26581

Peugeot 208, smaller car, same brand, same year: 56% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/peugeot/208/38543

Or the original posters BMW X3: 70% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/x3-/-x4/33285

Otoh, the BMW 3 series: 87% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/3-series/38531

Full electric BMW i3: 57% https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/i3/8863

So what I am trying to say is: yes, "SUV" in general are likely to be worse for pedestrians, but there is so much variability, that "picking a SUV" doesn't mean much about safety.

I understand the concern but it is not based on comparable data.

A few things to take into account:

- The 67℅ in the test in 2016 for the Peugeot 3008 is based on a Pedestrian Impact performance.

- The 56% of the test in 2019 for Peugeot 208 is based on a Pedestrian Impact Performance _and_ ADAS pedestrian detection +Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) performance

An important point with Euro NCAP is that typically the tests are always getting harder year on year to account for the expected technological development. Such that the same car would progressively score less if it were to repeat the Euro NCAP test year on year.

I hope this helps your concern.

In 'standard height' cars the first impact is usually on lower limbs or torso and secondary trauma to the head will happen on the bonnet or windshield.

In SUV's, pedestrian and cyclists are much likely to suffer head trauma on first impact.

My point is, in the horrific scenario that this should happens the survival rate will always be higher for non-SUV vehicles (ideally with longer bonnets and pedestrian friendly deformable structures).

Do you have any data about pedestrians killed by SUV’s vs other car shapes?

"At speeds in excess of 40 miles per hour, 100% of the SUV incidents studied resulted in the death of a pedestrian, compared to 54% for crashes involving cars at this speed."[0]

"The GHSA reported that the number of pedestrian deaths involving SUVs increased by 50 percent from 2013 through 2017, while the number of pedestrian deaths caused by passenger cars increased by 30 percent over that same period. That reflects booming sales of SUVs and the fact that pedestrians are much less likely to survive the impact of an SUV."[1]

[0] https://brandonlegalgroup.com/iihs-study-suvs-present-a-high...

[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestri...

Study size of n=79, amazing.

I assumed you asked in good faith so I will try to ignore the unnecessary sarcasm.

I hope a Cochrane meta-analysis meets your evidence based statistical standards.[0][1]

It's physics, a higher front-end means primary blunt force trauma to the chest and head (specially for children and cyclists), were by primary we mean the first and highest force trauma, and by chest and head we mean trauma to vital organs.

I am not judging if this type of vehicle is your preference but demanding scientific rigor without accepting the physics involved just feels like a cognitive dissonance. I am not arguing that higher front-end vehicles cause accidents, I am arguing that pedestrian are less likely to survive upon impact compared to other vehicles.

The only reason these vehicles are not banned from city centres is purely because they are a marketing and economical success not because of lack of evidence on their dangers.

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33147075/

I have not yet seen scientific evidence, just some correlation which doesn't bother to account for increased driving, increased smartphone and headphone use, etc. Further there doesn't seem to be any indication of SUV sizes, nor inclusion of other large vehicles. Even article itself says it should be taken with grain of salt.

All that said there is little doubt that lower car would be safer for peds. But all I asked is some evidence and you provided some garbage.

I don't think we ought to ban trigger-vehicle-of-the-year just because you feel like it. First I totally think we should discourage driving in cities, no matter the car. Pedestrian only streets, public transport, bike lanes is 100% my vibe. If you really want smaller cars in cities - make smaller parking spots. Make it inconvenient to use them (which is already case in European cities).

So answer me - what is your fetish with SUVs in particular and why you dance around fact that there are ton of other more dangerous vehicles on the road?

p.s. again your second links are irrelevant again - one is tiny sample size, other is about trucks.

> First I totally think we should discourage driving in cities, no matter the car. Pedestrian only streets, public transport, bike lanes is 100% my vibe.

There we have common ground.

I get the feeling - moving in the opposite direction (from MPV to an estate/ V60), it's definitely more difficult to get in & out. That said - the better view might be a bit misleading, a high position makes you more susceptible to look closer, which is maybe ok at very low city speeds but not great at highway speeds).

That said, it doesn't explain why MPVs all but disappeared (have been almost completely replaced by SUVs).

> why does this type of car thrive so well?

Cars around you on the road get bigger so you feel more uncomfortable in your small car (just like some feel uncomfortable driving close to big trucks) so your next car will be a bigger one. I think this kind of anxiety is the reason for most people.

They should try a 2CV for a short while, then their small car would be just fine... (Fun car but the lack of power can get you in dangerous situations, like when people don't expect you slowing down severely going uphill. Noisy too.)

Also, due to increased thickness of doors and frames for safety, car interior space has shrunk over the last decades. So you need a bigger car if you want the same amount of interior space for your head/feet/arms/groceries.

And also (if relevant to you), regulations for children's car seats have appeared and increased so that, if you need to carry three kids, you pretty much need an SUV (or minivan) to do it.

Good point. In my crossover my knees are pretty much always rammed into dash and I'm only 6'2". Pretty sure there's no airbags there too.

Streets and garages don't get bigger though, so larger cars are increasingly uncomfortable to drive. I've wanted a Model X for a long time, but it's so much wider than the Model S that it'd take significantly more effort to park in my garage and to maneuver through Vienna's narrow and busy streets.

One good reason to drive SUVs in cities are the bad roads, sometimes worsened by speed bumps by the way.

With all the modern safety regulations, sedans and hatchbacks need high belt lines that dramatically reduces the greenhouse. There is also a trend for huge wheels that make for harsh rides since tires have so little sidewall.

SUVs and crossovers have more tire sidewall and offer a much better ride around cities filled with pot holes and crumbing roads. The higher H-point (hip placement) means climbing up and in rather than having to lower yourself down, a much easier operation. The belt line is still high, but your seat is also higher, so greenhouse and visibility is better. Being father off the ground reduces the sensation of speed, so more timid drivers feel more confident.

Car markers also get much higher margins from SUV/crossovers, so they are pushing them hard. All the deals are for these big vehicles, so that's what people are buying.

Modern vehicles are so much more aerodynamic, so there isn't that much penalty for a crossover. They also share platforms with their sedan and traditional hatchback cousins, so there isn't even that much of a weight penalty. Tesla Model 3 and Y are the same vehicle underneath, and while Y pays a range penalty, it's pretty small at ~7% EPA.

> pot holes and crumbing roads

The sad thing is it's the SUVs that make the roads crumble. It's extremely noticeable in the UK. The roads don't last anywhere near as long as they used to because of everyone driving these heavy things around.

Road damage goes up with the 4th power of axle weight, so trucks do far, far more damage than anything else.

Trucks (lorries) have always been on the road, though. They don't generally drive down country roads every day and stick to the motorways where possible.

seems like a race to the bottom (unpaved roads again)

Getting in and out kids to their seats seems easier, plus extra space for stroller and all other mess that creeps on you is nice.

I imagine that you're younger (20's to 30's) and relatively healthy. If so, humor me for a moment. Imagine that you're wearing a pair of ski boots with thumbtacks packed in around the ankles. You shift your weight too far forward or bend it, the thumb tacks cut into your ankle. Not to mention now they're super stiff; you can barely bend them at all without the tacks digging hard into the skin.

Now imagine getting into a Honda Accord sedan. You have to bend down to get into the car, so your back is going to lean over and your knees are going to bend down...naturally causing your ankles to have to bend forward. Except ski boots and thumbtacks; Ow!! To get in you have to more or less turn your back to the car, splay your legs out and kinda fall back with your arms holding the sides of the frame of the car. Not a big deal but now imagine doing this times a day, every day, for the next 5 to 8 years. And I haven't even talked about trying to get out.

In an SUV at the right height, you turn your back, brace your butt atop the seat, lift your legs up and pivot into the car. No fuss. Barely any bending needed.

There's plenty of older people out there with chronic issues in their backs, spines, hips, knees, and/or ankles. Thing is, older people that are later in their careers tend to be the ones with the most purchasing power, and don't mind trading a slightly higher operating cost for more comfort.

Thanks for the info but same remark as for other comments: we're talking 40% here, so while this is a possible reason for a part of that it cannot possibly explain that number entirely, I think. I'm not that young, but my grandma has the exact problems you talk about and she has a bad time dealing with low cars indeed.

I think they also offer a slightly better vantage point. Since your driver seat is a bit up compared to everyone else, you might see a bit more of the road.

Also if you travel a lot outside of city, they make much more sense.

In the Netherlands more than 50% of new cars are bought by 55+ year olds

https://www.statista.com/statistics/678464/distribution-of-n...

That's not so surprising when half the population is 43 or older and you need to be 18+ to purchase a car.

Of course it's not surprising. Dutch pensioners are fucking loaded! They have the 2nd highest pensions as ratio of average earnings in the EU (first is Croatia). But it supports why 40% of vehicles are SUVs - 55% of vehicles are bought by 55+, they won't be squeezing into a Smart

If you have issues bending your knees to sit up, perhaps you should not be driving an object that weights a couple of tonnes and can kill people due to your reduced reflexes.

I can only speak for myself. I have a second home in a remote area with a very bad gravel road. In winter, when there is snow, I was frequently unable to get there.

Then I bought a SUV. It's a 4WD with and ample trunk. Now I can use my property to my liking according to my job time constraints rather then weather conditions.

But I sense your sub-sonic tone. I think the vast majority of SUV owners lives in a city with perfect snow removal in winter (if there even is snow at all) which hardly justifies owning such an ineffective car.

Until 10 years ago me and other 3 friends used to go snowboarding weekly, we live in Rome and the nearest ski stations are in Abruzzo, about an hour away in the central Italian Appenines.

One of the places we went more often is called Campo Felice, which is famous for its extreme weather conditions. Sudden snowfalls are pretty common and they can be very heavy.

But the main danger are temperature drops, sometimes temperature can go as low as -33 C, forming thick layers of ice on the roads.

We got stuck there a few times because either the car doors were completely frozen and would not open or it was too cold and the engine refused to start, not mentioning the suboptimal traction of our 2WD cars.

To solve the problem we put some money together and bought a used Fiat Panda 4x4 (https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b4/d6/dd/b4d6dd1544d24d3c8d73dadda...), it's an affordable 4WD with many features that rival with much more expensive cars (excluding of course the luxury stuff).

We never had a problem after.

The new model costs only ~16 thousand euros and it improves a lot over the old one which was admitedly quite spartan, but for me it was a feature not a bug.

Not commenting on the other parts of your post like others have, but

> Then I bought a SUV. It's a 4WD <...>

SUV doesn't imply 4WD. Most 4WD are SUVs, but lets not pretend that most SUVs are 4WD, or anything close to it. Most people buying Qashqai's or RR Evoque's aren't buying the 4WD models.

Perfect snow removal in winter in large cities means that your car will be sitting next to to a mountain of snow between it and the road if you park next to the sidewalk overnight. 4WD wins big time there.

People simply prefer the SUVs. They ride higher, people like that elevated feeling. They also give the added space, which is a selling point. They are undeniably trendy, and gas is super cheap, 2.20 per gallon here, so not high at all historically.

USD? Compare that to 1.40 € per liter, that's about 6.20 USD/gallon. A regular price in EU.

A proper diesel estate car like an MB E220d has a more usable cargo area than the typical SUV, rides comfortably and efficiently on the highway consuming less than 5 liters per 100 kilometers (fuel tank range is over 1200 kilometers), and has state-of-the-art safety technologies. In comparison, a SUV just gives you that extra confidence that no matter the weather conditions, you'll make it to your end destination because of the increased ride height, bigger tyres and 4WD systems. For most people that may be 2 or 3 days during the year, and the rest of the time they are paying dearly for this inefficiency.

A sedan definitely does not have more cargo space than an SUV.

I was talking about the E-Class estate, called the "T-Modell" in Germany:

https://imgur.com/f1yksSW

Ah true, but as someone that might buy a (used) car in the next few years: trendiness & freshness do play into this as estate cars do lose points in my book for their "old-school" look as it was the type of car people had when I was a kid (and I am nearly 40).

So that together with the higher ride height, which makes getting kids in and out easier and almost no extra cost makes the SUV more likely to win than a similarly specced estate.

(and please keep in mind a "SUV" in Europe is not really the same as "SUV" in the states).

You'd be surprised. Most SUVs are really poorly designed and while they look big on the outside and maybe even have a large theoretical cabin capacity they are terrible at carrying cargo. I have witnessed someone fail to get an office chair into their Mercedes SUV that fit into a hatchback car. In addition, the loading height is higher, which makes them less practical.

SUVs generally have tall cabins, but lack in horizontal boot space and depth. The floor plan of the car matters a lot. The main selling point of big estate cars (Volvo V90, E-Class T-Modell, Skoda Superb) is the rectangular shape of the boot, coupled with a flat floor with the seats down. The metal loading lip is also at the level of the floor, making access easy. Some also have additional storage compartments under the boot floor, and even specially designed extra-size fuel tanks.

Here in Europe SUVs are especially in and around cities where you will never go offroad with that car.

This is the most reasonable argument, totally agree. People always talk about terrain, "oh you don't need it".

SUVs are a comfortable ride. You see everything, you sit comfortable, they feel spacious (not always are...), it's the design between normal cars and pickup trucks or vans.

It’s 1.22 € per liter (taxes like always included) here currently in Germany which is $6.60 per gallon. Prices will rise next year because of an added CO2 tax.

Still people buy more and more SUVs

Most cars are bought used. A new car is not very economically sound purchase decision unless you are pretty well off. The buyers of these new cars don't care much about fuel economy or CO2 emissions, and want a lot of car for their splurge investment. So the makeup of the vehicle population is chosen by a relatively irrational and/or affluent minority of car users.

I bet a lot of the owners are parents of toddlers. Getting a child in an out of a childseat is a great deal easier with SUVs. The extra cost in fuel is negligible for most people because they don't do mega miles.

In the US fuel prices are low enough to just not worry about the difference in fuel consumption. Especially for people shopping for the $40,000+ models. Several thousands gallons over the life of the vehicle or so.

Yeah, but this article is about Europe, and SUVs make up over 40% of new registrations. Mind you, the typical "European" SUVs, while bigger than other European cars, are midgets compared to what someone from the States would call an SUV.

I don't think many people in Europe really prefer SUVs, perhaps it's just the best type of electric car that is on offer or maybe the one with the biggest subsidies.

Of course I speak from my point of view as someone who was raised in The Netherlands. In The Netherlands I never saw many SUVs on the road.

Elon Musk is actually contemplating [0] to produce smaller EVs for the European market and I think those could become very popular indeed. Smaller cars are generally just nicer to use in compact crowded cities.

---

[0] https://electrek.co/2020/11/24/elon-musk-tesla-hatchback-ele...

>I don't think many people in Europe really prefer SUV

Oh I think you're wrong, there's definitely a significant market for people who prefer SUVs, electric or not. This is not new. After all most of these European urban SUV are really neither S or U, they're just SUV shaped.

I remember watching a French TV show about cars maybe 15 years ago where they were talking about the growing popularity of SUVs, and back then diesel was the norm.

There's 10s of small EV's you can already buy for nearly half price of Model 3 in EU.

They probably can make it cheap enough, especially if it's made in EU to skirt tariffs, but by then there will 100s of competitors.

Right now you can already buy 35k euro SUV when Model Y is something like 60k.

That's very true, there's a shop on the outskirts of Paris that specializes in selling import American cars (a booming business apparently) and never having been to the USA I was genuinely amazed at the scale of the vehicles. It's the first time I saw a "car" that was basically as tall as I am, and I'm not small. Everything truly is bigger in America. Since then started paying attention to the size of the vehicles in American-produced media and I realized how absolutely huge cars can be over there.

I was also remembered of an HN thread years ago where people were commenting on the failure of Smart cars in the US. Many Americans were basically arguing that the car was too small to feel safe in traffic, which sounded a bit silly to me, but now that I know that every other car in the US is closer in size to a tank it makes a lot of sense.

As far as justifying SUVs go... if you're looking for a nice car, subcompact SUVs cost pretty much the same as sedans while offering a lot more trunk space and nice features like electric seat adjustment, nicer center consoles, etc. that might not always be available on sedans.

In my case, my decision was made by the thousands of poorly calibrated aftermarket LED headlights I regularly see in the US. They blind me all the time in a sedan, but in an SUV I'm just high enough up that I usually don't get totally blinded.

A few reasons. Note: I say this as a big outdoor recreator, so consider that bias.

1) the US has experienced a massive boom in outdoor recreation over last five years. All west coast campgrounds booked out months in advance (if they accept reservations), ski destinations never been busier, etc. west coast culture has a large outdoor recreation aspect, even if most people only do one or two outdoorsy things a year, their self perception is they are “outdoorsy”. Multiple neighbors have suvs so they can occasionally go camping. Could easily do it in a car but then you’d have to have a self perception that’s a closer match to lazy city dweller 2) external image. Related to above, I have observed coworkers purchase new cars and the perception of the car was important. One particular example was a coworker who got a minivan for family. Wife was miserable for six months because she was worried about being perceived as a boring mom. Finally took a 5k hit and traded it in on a new Subaru. They drive 4K miles a year, never go camping, but wanted to fit that west coast image of active family. 3) they are just more comfortable and can fit more stuff. You can get by without a truck and still haul bags of soil etc. there are some small hatchbacks that can work for this (loved my old Honda Fit, amazing storage for tiny car), but a hatchback suv makes this much easier 4) actually use it as intended. I consider this the least common reason, but some people load up their AWD suv with four people and snow shoe or cross country ski gear and get out every weekend. You can do this in a car (I’ve done it in all sorts of vehicles) but you are more likely to run into issues with a car.

I’ve had tiny cars, compact suvs, full size suvs, a van, and now a truck, and it’s hard to imagine not having an suv because they are so versatile if you recreate. Throw a topper on your roof rack, get a set of snow tires, and you can go almost anywhere in any conditions.

Households that used to have a minivan or pickup and two commuter cars now have a crossover or SUV and a sedan. As the prices of vehicles go up consumers are forced to pick more generalist vehicles because having a 10yo pickup that you drive once a week isn't a financially justifiable option anymore.

Because it doesn’t matter. Fuel consumption is perhaps 10% or less of my cost per km. If that fuel consumption goes up or down 10% that means my driving cost goes up or down 1%. My 60L tank takes me 1100km. I don’t care if more streamlining or lower height would take it 1200km. 1100km is at least two toilet breaks anyway. So I’ll pick the practical car I want/need and don’t care too much about consumption so long as it’s reasonable. I wanted a bit higher clearance and 4WD (and I use it too - but rarely). Last time around it was a jacked up wagon and I don’t think I’ll buy an SUV because the 4WD wagon is so much better at everything plus it’s cheaper.

With an EV, this equation of cost and range goes out the window. The difference between 300km and 400km range is huge.

This is exactly why we need the negative externality of emissions be properly priced into the fuel price. It's appalling how cheap fuel is, especially in the US.

I pay some of the highest fuel prices in the world but it’s still cheap per km when the car/service/insurance/taxes/etc is so much more expensive. If prices were twice as high it wouldn’t change the equation much.

>but he SUV popularity remains baffling to me especially in this age.

Kids, stuff.

The decade(s) before SUVs had cars big enough to pack all that, I grew up in one. Seeing all other comments I think it's going to be a combination of reasons which make actually a difference with other cars and cannot be found in that combination (height seems a big factor, handling (though mainly the bigger wheels), safety, idea that it can do more, perhaps looks) and marketing etc.

It handles better the road in bad conditions (rain, snow, wind, bad road, etc.) and it's more comfortable (you feel the road less).

Interesting thought about SUVs: The first few cars were actually quite tall, so were carriages for many years.

If you consider that, low sedans that make it harder to easily get in and out of the car for many people, are the abnormality, and the classical adult man high shape will keep increasing in popularity as cost and gas becomes less of an issue for more people.

I drive one for the internal space. Used to drive an MPV, now an SUV, which is basically an MPV, but slightly higher on the wheels. Lots of room for the kids, plus 700+ liter of boot for sports gear.

For me, the main reason is kids. It is a LOT easier to get kids in and out of an SUV. A minivan would have been even better (only convenience wise) but that is a bridge too far for me.

If you live in a mild winter climate, sure SUV popularity may be baffling. If you have to experience to winter of, say, Montreal, then an SUV/Pickup is a bit more justifieable.

An SUV typically handles better than (and is cooler looking than) a van, yet will still comfortably carry a family if that’s your life. Older folks with creaky joints like the height, so they don’t have to crouch into a sedan with its lower seats.

That last one is interesting, but the first argument works just as well for cars like Volkswagen Sharan etc which are also very popular and given all things perhaps cheaper?

A big wagon is still a better car - roomier, drives better than comparable SUV (lower centre of mass). If old/injured folks would be the only ones getting them, I would understand it. But that's not the case.

How do you feel about minivans?

You mean weight/drag related? That's tough to guess i.e. if you take something with roughly the same features and internal volume as an SUV it could be lighter (not necessarily), it's wheelbase is normally lower which helps but on the other hand some of them don't look very aerodynamic for the rest. Should be possible to make them as safe I guess.

It's simply an arms race. People feel threatened by bigger cars so they want to keep up.

Safety (larger size and heavier weight), higher up seating position (also means better safety since you can see farther out), better ground clearance in general (good for places with snow for example), good cargo capacity and/or 3 row seating (though the latter are available in mini-vans, but they're not "cool" and are not generally as capable - e.g. most don't come with AWD).

It's a psychology thing. People feel less if they are sharing a road with somebody who is sitting way higher than them. Also big cars feel (and probably are) safer (for the occupants). So now there is a sort of race to for SUV adoption.

I don't have an SUV but I ride a motorcycle and it's true that being able to see over other vehicles is pretty nice, I feel oddly boxed in when I'm driving a car. But of course it's just an arms race at this point, if everybody has an SUV then the same problem occurs.

That being said, driving a small "urban" car in many european cities can be challenging (and parking even more so), I can't imagine that having a big SUV would be more pleasant overall if you live in a city.

Higher cars roll over much easier, which is very dangerous, but safety is also a feeling.

With modern roof strength requirements, seatbelts and airbags this is a red herring. Rollovers these days tend to result in everyone walking away.

Especially as all these "mild" hybrids have enough of a battery to move the centre of mass so far down that they are lower than older sedans.

This is why Teslas won so many safety awards at the start: they were pretty much unrollable in the tests as they existed at the time.

Same here, asked this couple of times and the responses from pro-SUV were mostly for emotional reasons, not rational. Bear in mind that there are proper SUVs for proper terrain, then wannaby suv/crossovers/whatever which don't handle rough terrain well and are just not good cars overall. Also you can have a small crappy dacia sedan or audi a6 all road type.

The reasons pro SUV often boil down to:

  - I need to see more - indication that person isn't a good driver to have this need - my older bmw is super low and I see no problem there, sensible drive makes much more difference, but new/bad drivers want to buy extra safety feeling
  - people being sheepish, so they buy what is fashionate because others have it (although physics often disagrees its a good choice)
  - the "I drive rough terrain" - which often boils down to going to ski resort in the winter, you don't need SUV for that, not even 4x4 if roads are OK (which they 99% are in Europe at least)
  - people think only SUV can have 4x4, or only SUV are for rough terrain - marketing win for manufacturers

Disadvantages are numerous:

  - more consumption, often higher maintenance (bigger tires)
  - mentioned Audi allroad or similar gets exactly same job done as usual SUV
  - since they are tall, they are pretty small inside, smaller trunk
  - much worse driving properties due to higher centre of mass
  - rolling risk is much higher in SUV due again to higher centre of mass
  - subjective but within same brand, SUVs are plain fugly as hell, still waiting for a single one I could even remotely call a pretty car

Yeah, I am definitely not a fan of SUV. Between some Audi Q7 and Audi A6 combi allroad, A6 wins in all possible aspects. Its also much more fun and safer car to drive.

I'm a huge fan of sports cars and cars that just plainly handle better on flat roads, but having a sports car that I truly enjoy driving versus my other car (a decent, recent SUV), the advantages with SUVs pretty quickly become apparent.

- Smoother ride over worse roads, especially under-maintained roads

- An extension of that point: more travel options. Dirt road? Sure, and the SUV probably won't get as dirty. Gravel? I can probably take it without worrying. Need to clear a curb? Doable.

- Better visibility, and that's even after factoring in everyone buying an SUV

- Marginal efficiency hit (like 10-15%), which most people ignore with electric SUVs anyway, but even with gas or diesel it's just not enough to stop people from buying anymore compared to when SUVs truly guzzled gas. As an example, I had a BMW from a number of years ago that my SUV today outpaces in average gas mileage despite unchanged driving habits and better engine output as well as increased weight for the SUV. People are essentially offsetting engine efficiency gains by buying more car.

- More car to absorb impact in the event of a crash.

I can see why people buy them even before egos start to get involved around just how big the cars can be.

- More car to kill people with in the event of an accident

Always keep in mind that accidents may involve a person on the other side.

> - More car to kill people with in the event of an accident

> Always keep in mind that accidents may involve a person on the other side.

This is self-negated with moves by the broader population towards SUVs. The end result is that SUV on SUV crashes will simply include more mass (structured to crumple more effectively as well) protecting occupants in all cars involved.

Your car buying decision should be strictly around your own safety. Your driving habits must factor in both your safety as well as the safety of others; if someone else drives inappropriately and causes a crash and their wellbeing is impaired or concluded as a result of both their driving habits as well as their use of a less safe car, the fault shouldn't be on you for having a car that's safer for you to drive. Perhaps that's what you meant to convey when you edited my quote.

The other person might not strictly be in a car, they might be a cyclist or a person simply walking around, so I don't think your counter argument applies.

I would also argue that centering your car buying decisions around your own safety is selfish and or egotistical; other people are just as valid as you and you should consider their safety just as much as your own, especially the traffic participants that are less able to defend themselves against bigger vehicles like pedestrians or cyclists.

> The other person might not strictly be in a car, they might be a cyclist or a person simply walking around, so I don't think your counter argument applies.

> I would also argue that centering your car buying decisions around your own safety is selfish and or egotistical; other people are just as valid as you and you should consider their safety just as much as your own, especially the traffic participants that are less able to defend themselves against bigger vehicles like pedestrians or cyclists.

If you're willing to buy a car based on the safety of others over your own, that's your right. But if we're being honest, everything you just mentioned is exactly why your active participation in defensive driving techniques is essential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_driving

Since crashes always have fault, defensive driving and proper maintenance of your car are paramount safety requirements both for myself and to pay respect to other people. However, beyond that, I'm buying my car based on an assumption that other people will not pay me that respect (e.g. by texting and driving), which is also precisely the point of defensive driving in the first place.

It seems like you're here mostly to force a debate. I made my point; I hope you're at peace with it.

I'm not here to force a debate, I'm merely pointing out the obvious. It is my right to buy a car in consideration with others, but honestly, it should be a duty.

> Your car buying decision should be strictly around your own safety.

That is a horrible, selfish attitude.

A car driver is absolutely responsible for their choice of vehicle, their choice to drive any particular journey, their choice to exceed the speed limit, text, phone, chat, and everything else.

I would ban the sale of any car/SUV not in the current top 75% by pedestrian safety. Set that as a baseline, and increase the minimum standard every 5 years.

> A car driver is absolutely responsible for their choice of vehicle, their choice to drive any particular journey, their choice to exceed the speed limit, text, phone, chat, and everything else.

Just their choices not to drive defensively (the portion I italicized in your statement). The car you choose may be based on specific requirements for life. And the journey you take may be all the same. Would you fault someone for not being able to afford a newer car? I picked a car that exceeds the latest pedestrian safety regulations; would you still grief me just because it's an SUV?

100% of the fault comes from how a person chooses to drive and keep their car safe (lighting, brakes, capabilities that allow them to drive defensively). I wouldn't rob someone of their choice of car because I don't know what circumstance necessitated it; it would be selfish of me to tell someone they can't drive a pickup when all of their work revolves around it.

>I would ban the sale of any car/SUV not in the current top 75% by pedestrian safety. Set that as a baseline, and increase the minimum standard every 5 years.

That's called stack ranking and everyone knows it's a crap system with perverse incentives.

That's a bit false feeling you are buying - 2.4 tonne SUV vs 2.1-tonne big wagon if we compare within the same brand and similar sizes (BMW X7 vs 5 series). That's insignificant difference in head-on crash. Crumple zones are +-same so again not a win. If your argument is tiny car vs the biggest then its not about SUV anymore.

SUV has much higher rolling danger in case of crash so better stretch your necks before driving...

> That's a bit false feeling you are buying - 2.4 tonne SUV vs 2.1-tonne big wagon if we compare within the same brand and similar sizes (BMW X7 vs 5 series). That's insignificant difference in head-on crash. Crumple zones are +-same so again not a win. If your argument is tiny car vs the biggest then its not about SUV anymore.

It's weird that I'm here defending SUVs when my favorite car to drive is a low-riding, low-mass dart of a sports car that's far more likely to kill me than the party on the other side, but here I am.

You've constrained the conditions of a crash to:

- One specific make and model of car

- One specific make and model of SUV

- One specific type of crash (head-on, which are exceptionally rare. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...)

This feels like a strawman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

At your own expense. How many people are going to make that trade?

What expense? This includes persons on bicycles or on foot.

A lot of accidents involve wildlife. Deer where I live, moose in the European North. Big roadkill is pretty common if you live in the countryside, much more common than killing another person.

You are definitely safer hitting the fearless ton of meat that is moose with a SUV.

Where I live, not a ton of moose, though generally if the area is known for roadkill of large animals, you should try driving slower and maybe checking your headlights to make sure they are adjusted. Safer driving beats driving a huge car for the purpose of not having to safely drive.

Even from the shotgun seat I saw several absolutely suicidal deer who were invisible till the very last moment.

"Area" may mean 50x50 km of mostly wooded and sparsely inhibited territory. It is unrealistic to expect the locals to drive 40 kph all the time there.

I'm a very safe driver. When I go through the woods at night, I drive 40 or even 30kph. I've been part of a wild boar crash (southern german wild boars can get hefty), so I want to avoid future incidents.

It's not unrealistic to expect locals to drive safely. Either drive safely or hand in your drivers license, what's even the point of having one then?

> You are definitely safer hitting the fearless ton of meat that is moose with a SUV.

Any data on this? Bigger==safer doesn't always hold with these things. Lots of other car design features play a role there, e.g. a smaller car with a strong roof will likely beat a SUV with a weak roof structure.

(and while lots has happened with safety technology, the classic counter point is that if you have a chance to avoid the crash you're way more likely to roll an SUV while attempting to do so)

> a smaller car with a strong roof will likely beat a SUV with a weak roof structure.

The latter circumstance feels extremely unlikely considering SUVs are generally engineered to support the higher likelihood of more weight ending up on the roof of the car in the event of a roll-over. I'd be surprised if SUVs had weaker structural reinforcement than equivalent-classed sedans.

But I could be very, very wrong here and wouldn't be surprised if I am.

AFAIK what you want is for the body of the animal not to crash through the passenger compartment.

Taller cars are better in this regard.

Good point. on the other hand I don't know how a front impact on the roof line compares to the loads in a roll (but I guess a roll at speed also has a strong horizontal force on the roof). What I remember from studies I saw in the past is that features like sunroofs make some difference. But the "we as lay people don't necessarily know", and intuition going wrong on other scenarios, was why I asked if there is a good source on that.

You sit higher up, so if you hit a large animal, like a moose, you don't risk it coming through the windshield. Having anywhere from 300-700kg coming through your windshield is going to hurt you. But that assumes you hit it.

But like you said, you also run the risk of flipping the car. It would be interesting to see some actual data on this. It's the sort of thing that has been repeated so much that it's easy to make bad assumptions.

Anecdotally, I've almost hit a moose two times. Both times I just completely froze up and slammed the breaks. They jumped out of nowhere, the only reason I didn't hit any of them was just pure luck and timing, and had nothing to do with my ability to react or steer away.

I drive a RAM 2500 with a Cummins 6.7l diesel engine. Perhaps I can help provide some perspective. It’s a uniquely useful vehicle whose utility a regular SUV will never hope to approach. It’s my daily driver and grocery getter. My neighbors and I “time share” a boat in that they pay for the care and feeding of the boat, and I take care of shifting the boat when it’s on land. I never pay to have anything delivered. If it’s small enough to fit in the truck’s bed, I throw it in. If it’s bigger, I rent a trailer, and then sky’s the limit. I moved across the country with it using a 12’ long rented trailer, and it was a breeze. I carry my kayaks in the back - just throw them in, strap them down, and go to the water. Not a week passes without this truck enabling me to haul, tow, or drag something heavy or awkward. My wife’s car broke down, so I towed it using my truck and a rented car trailer to the repair shop. If I had a penny for each time I’d helped pull someone out of a ditch, I’d have enough to purchase a new set of recovery straps.

Let’s talk about some difficulties. It’s a temperamental beast at times. I live in the South, so I don’t have the “cold start” problem, but I don’t have an engine block heater either. So whenever I travel north, I have to take care. Haven’t had any real issues yet - the truck’s remote starter seems to fend for itself - but I’m wary of it. Repairs can be expensive, since all components are commercial-grade and are priced accordingly. Maintenance is more expensive, but it’s a much more rare event than in a gasser. Parking in an urban environment can be a pain. Parallel parking requires skill, and there are some multistory parking structures in which I will not fit. A little bit of upfront planning seems to alleviate these problems. The truck is loud, but you only really hear it when driving slowly between two large buildings. My neighbors don’t complain, especially since they benefit from it so much.

Oh, and I can smoke most other vehicles when doing a little Saturday night racing off a stop light.

I completely understand this, but your RAM and your use for it is nothing like the 40% of cars sold in Europe (apart from the 'just throw it in' perhaps but that goes for other types as well).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com